Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49:456–478, 2010 Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1050-9674 print=1540-8558 online DOI: 10.1080/10509674.2010.510770
Implementing a Batterer’s Intervention Program in a Correctional Setting: A Tertiary Prevention Model NADA J. YORKE, BRUCE D. FRIEDMAN, and PAT HURT Department of Social Work, California State University, Bakersfield, California, USA
This study discusses the pretest and posttest results of a batterer’s intervention program (BIP) implemented within a California state prison substance abuse program (SAP), with a recommendation for further programs to be implemented within correctional institutions. The efficacy of utilizing correctional facilities to reach offenders who self-report domestic violence behaviors is evaluated. The 52-week curriculum was designed to address the unique environment of a correctional setting and the characteristics of the participants, using established psycho-educational and cognitive-behavioral methods. A repeated measurement design was used to evaluate the participants’ cognitive changes, including acceptance of personal responsibility for abusive behaviors. Using a modified Abusive Behavior Inventory along with Criminal Thinking Scales, participants were tested at intake and again at 18 sessions. Their responses were statistically significant to p < .01. KEYWORDS batterer interventions, domestic violence, prison programs, spousal abusers, tertiary prevention The cost of intimate partner violence, in 2003 dollars, is more than $8.3 billion due to medical care, mental health services and lost productivity, according to the Center for Disease Control fact sheet (2006). When taking into account the expenditure to the criminal justice agencies (law enforcement, courts, attorneys, etc.), or to the schools for monies lost on account of children entering shelters or missing school due to the violence occurring at home, these numbers skyrocket. Address correspondence to Bruce D. Friedman, PhD, California State University, Department of Social Work, 9001 Stockdale Hwy., Bakersfield, CA 93311, USA. E-mail:
[email protected] 456
Batterer’s Intervention Program
457
These numbers become the tip of the iceberg when there are an estimated 3.3 million children exposed to domestic violence. Studies reveal that there is a correlation between childhood exposure to violence and children becoming violent in adulthood as a result of that exposure (J. L. Edleson, 1999; Murrel, Christoff, & Henning, 2007). Other studies corroborate that children exposed to domestic violence are at increased risk for a range of other social problems, such as substance abuse, aggression, school problems, and being future perpetrators of domestic violence and other types of violence (Widon, 1989; Kolbo & Blackley 1996; Whitfield, Anda, Dube, & Felitti 2003). One could say that domestic violence represents a major public concern, with significant financial costs, as well as the negative consequences to the physical and emotional well-being of our community members (Field & Caetano, 2005; Murray & Graybeal, 2007; Carrell & Hoekstra, 2008; MacLeod, Pi, Smith, & Rose-Goodwin, 2008). Something different needs to be done. The question is: What needs to be done and how do we do it? It was believed that if a program could be implemented that reduced family violence by working with the people who perpetrate it, then that may be a start. It was also felt that a batterer’s intervention program (BIP) could be implemented to perpetrators who were already confined in a correctional setting since they had the time, opportunity, and hopefully the motivation to learn, reflect on their own behaviors, accept the responsibility for their prior acts of domestic violence, and eventually change. As a result of their confinement, they could practice nonviolent conflict resolution and other positive replacement behaviors without the potential consequence of reoffending against their partner during the early learning stages (Jennings, 1990). Additionally, it was felt that through this change process, the connection between the violence in the home and the future violence in our neighborhoods could be interrupted. Since many of the participants would be the children who witnessed domestic violence growing up and subsequently began to victimize those around them (thereby perpetuating the cycle of violence), these same participants would now be able to witness more positive behavior patterns. As a society, there is the choice to continue our current policies, by building more shelters and separating more families through our courts and social service agencies, or to provide an intervention that could change the behavior of those who perpetrate the violence and help them transform their violent behaviors into nonviolent responses. Several studies show that recidivism for domestic violence, probation violations, and other criminal offenses are reduced when a domestic violence offender completes a BIP (Bennett, Stoops, Call, & Flett, 2007; Hendricks, Werner, Shipway, & Turinetti, 2006; Tutty, Bidgood, Rothery, & Bidgood, 2001; Feder & Forde, 2000). Studies also show that persons who complete BIPs show significant positive change in attitudes and have more motivation to change their violent behavior (Schmidt et al., 2007; Norman & Ryan, 2008; LaViolette, 2001). Thus, creating a preventive solution of reaching those
458
N. J. Yorke et al.
offenders who are incarcerated would increase the probability of reducing both domestic violence and other violent crimes.
Presenting Problem Although there is evidence demonstrating measurable reductions in domestic violence and technical violations of probation and parole when a person completes a BIP, many studies report high rates of failure and dropping out early (Gruszkni & Carrillo, 1988; Jennings, 1990; Geffner & Rosenbaum, 1990; Gondolf, 2000). In many cases, this leads to no further counseling opportunities. For this reason, it is important to maximize the opportunity to provide the counseling to those offenders who might otherwise dropout and=or reoffend, by implementing a BIP in correctional and rehabilitation settings. By providing a certified BIP to these offenders while they are confined and serving their sentences, either in jails or prisons, this opportunity for success is increased. The benefit of participating in the BIP while in the institution may very likely lead to higher rates of completion and enhanced motivation to change (Polasheck, Wilson, Townsend, & Daly, 2005; Bennett et al., 2007). According to Bennett et al. (2007), ‘‘enhancing men’s attachment to BIP’s may not only keep them in the program longer but may have positive effects on recidivism as well’’ (p. 50). The high dropout rates could be due to the many obstacles an inmate faces when paroled into the community. It is not uncommon for them to fail to enroll or complete their BIP as a result of financial constraints and=or new employment schedules that may interfere with completing the program. Moreover, if a stay-away order was imposed to protect the significant other (whether or not she or he is the reported crime victim) the parolee often faces having to find alternative housing, such as the local homeless shelter, until the counseling program is completed. If the parolee does not complete the required program from a certified provider, or is found living with his or her significant other, prior to completion of the program, then that is a parole violation and a possible return to custody. A certified BIP in the correctional setting would offer inmates the opportunity to participate in their own rehabilitation with no financial burden or interference from employment hours. Additionally, the inmate can gain a greater understanding of the effects the violence had on all family members and learn more positive conflict resolution skills, enhanced communication techniques, and develop emotionally empathetic behaviors. If the inmate is unable to complete the entire program while in custody, studies show that the inmate would be more motivated to complete the BIP upon release as a result of the positive reinforcement and exposure to cognitive restructuring while in the prison setting (Grusznski & Carrillo, 1988; Bennett et al., 2007; Norman & Ryan, 2008).
Batterer’s Intervention Program
459
A certified BIP would help support positive outcomes for local and statewide correctional agencies, as they struggle with how to address the current economic and overcrowding crisis, yet maintain the necessary level of institutional and public safety. If inmates are given an opportunity to complete an important court mandate and=or parole condition while in custody, with an anticipated reduction in future violent behavior, the program would actually save the public money with reduced incarceration rates. Moreover, the detrimental effects of domestic violence on the family, especially their children, would be reduced (Whitfield et al., 2003; Rothman, Mandel, & Silverman, 2007). While the benefits seem to be numerous, there has been little attention given to providing a BIP to incarcerated inmates, who serve their custodial time, often with minimal rehabilitation efforts until they are released into the community (Sternbach, 2000; Brownell & Roberts, 2002; Cullen & Gendreau, 2000). Although persons confined to correctional facilities have engaged in behaviors that violate society’s rules, they nevertheless are often released back into their communities with few resources or enhanced skills to make different choices. Williams (2006) points out many prisoners report a history of domestic violence against their partners, yet little research has been conducted on the relationship between domestic violence and criminal recidivism. This leads to the development of a BIP in the correctional setting. The focus was not only to provide a program which met state standards, but to measure levels of acceptance of personal responsibility for criminal behaviors and positive cognitive changes that would develop as a result of participating in the program. Due to the sentence length being served by many of the participants, recidivism was not a realistic measurement for this study.
Elements of Batterers Intervention Programs and Theoretical Perspectives BIPs are for perpetrators of domestic violence. Domestic violence behaviors are defined as one person seeking to exert power and control over another person while in an intimate relationship. These behaviors can be physical, financial, spiritual, sexual, and verbal or emotional abuse, as well as using intimidation, threatening, harmful, or harassing behaviors. Various theories have been used to explain the phenomenon of domestic violence, including social learning, cycle of violence, patriarchy, and feminist theory. Van Weedle (2005) explored the interrelationship between these theories as a relationship between intergenerational power exchange and domestic violence. She felt that a BIP needed to include elements of each of these theories in designing a model. Gondolf (1987) expressed concern for the lack of theoretical rationale behind the newly developing BIPs in the
460
N. J. Yorke et al.
1980s and their ‘‘focus on short-term interruption of the violent behavior, rather than on long-tern reform and change of the batterer’’ (p. 336). He suggested utilizing developmental theory, specifically Kohlberg’s theory of moral development, in formulating a BIP model. The six stages of Kohlberg’s theory were discussed within the framework of an effective intervention program, with three levels to address the batterer’s initial denial (Level I), their subsequent behavioral change (Level II) and finally their personal transformation (Level III). He concluded this theory would be more effective in addressing the batterer’s use of verbal and psychological abuse as well as physical abuse. Within this rationale, the thought process and behavior of the abuser is better understood and therefore more effective interventions are utilized. The aforementioned theories undergird the design of this BIP curriculum, which uses a psycho-educational, cognitive behavioral restructuring model and meets California certification standards. This combination is viewed as the most effective to achieve a reduction in violent behavior and reduce recidivism (Pearson, Lipton, Cleland, & Yee, 2002). The curriculum includes activities and group discussions that focus on educating the participant on the influence of intergenerational violence and strengthening empathetic behaviors. The Duluth model of power and control was utilized throughout the discussions and activities.
The BIP Curriculum Schedule Based on California regulations, the program needs to be 52 sessions. Following the theoretical guidelines in order to move to Kohlberg’s moral development theory process, the curriculum was designed to begin with social learning aspects of identifying anger, problem-solving, and knowing oneself, while incorporating information about the cycle of violence and power and control issues. Once those aspects were completed there was another set of sessions focusing on understanding oneself better, including a personality assessment. There were also some sessions on communication skills, stress management techniques, and aspects of how one processes stress, with recognition of cognitive distortions. The basic social learning aspects then provide a foundation for moving toward aspects of moral development. These included sessions on dealing with jealousy and love, accepting responsibility and asking for forgiveness. By following the entire 52-session program, it was hypothesized that participants, who initially began the classes by denying or minimizing the aspects of domestic violence in their lives, would be able to move to acceptance of it and assuming responsibility to change. It was also felt that by conducting the program in a correctional facility, the participants would not have the level of distractions and stressors, as those individuals who participate in the program following release.
Batterer’s Intervention Program
461
With the curriculum in place, then it was possible to test out the curriculum within a correctional facility. The hypotheses that were to be tested were that men who enrolled in this program would not accurately recognize abusive behaviors and would initially deny or minimize their own domestic violence behaviors. They would also lack empathy for others and truly believe that they needed to be in control of others. However, by participating in the program, they will: 1. Have an increased knowledge of what constitutes domestic violence behaviors; 2. Admit greater personal responsibility for their own domestic violence, and other criminal behaviors; 3. Will acknowledge the feelings of others and learn to apply non-violent= non-controlling methods of communicating their needs to others, especially their intimate partners.
METHODOLOGY The program was designed for 52 sessions, to be conducted in weekly two-hour sessions, in a correctional facility. To measure any change in acceptance of personal responsibility and behaviors, a repeated measures design was used. Two measurement instruments were used with three points of testing, first as a pretest to establish baseline, second at the eighteen week point, and then finally as a posttest at the 22nd week. The first test was the Criminal Thinking Scales (CTS), developed by Knight, Garner, Simpson, Morey, and Flynn (2005), and Roberts et al. (2007). The test was designed to assess cognitive functioning expected to be related to criminal conduct. The alpha coefficients on the six scales ranged from .68 to .8, with retest reliability ranging from .66 to .84. These findings indicated the CTS was a credible assessment for this population and had good test-retest reliability. Measuring for personal responsibility in committing domestic violence behaviors was more difficult since there was no particular test that measures this dynamic (Dwyer, 1999; Straus, 1979). The closest was the Abusive Behavior Inventory (ABI), developed by Shepard and Campbell (1992) to measure the psychological and physical abuse characteristics of domestic violence. However to measure responsibility, the test was modified to reframe the test to measure the batterer’s acceptance of responsibility for committing various acts of domestic violence. To differentiate the test from the original ABI, it was renamed the Abusive Behavior Checklist to avoid confusion with the original document. The ABI is a 30-item instrument, 5-point Likert-type scale to measure the frequency of abusive behaviors during a six-month period. The ABI covers physical, psychological, and sexual forms of abuse.
462
N. J. Yorke et al.
The findings indicated that the ABI had good reliability (with alpha coefficients ranging from .7 to .92). The modifications were based on experience with over 1,000 victims and perpetrators of domestic violence. The modifications included additional questions that had been reported as types of abuse. The questions from the ABI were also modified to the first person so the participant levels of personal responsibility could be measured without limiting the timeframes for any abusive behaviors (ABI limits responses to the prior six months). The revised test taken by the participants consisted of 34 questions that used a 5-point Likert-type scale to measure how often they engaged in specified abusive behaviors. Qualitative measures were also used to assess aspects of change. These were in the form of reviewing participant assigned homework throughout the program, which were then discussed in the group setting. The homework provided opportunities to educate and evaluate individual awareness and acceptance of domestic violence behaviors. The homework questionnaires required either a ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ answer by reviewing abusive behaviors such as verbal abuse, emotional abuse, and physical abuse (including sexual). The homework was brought to the group where further education and discussion took place. All participants were assigned to the Substance Abuse Program (SAP), a therapeutic community program within a maximum security (Level IV) prison in California; however, their participation in the BIP was voluntary. The reason for going the SAP route was because it had already been approved to be offered within the prison system and this became an addition to an existing program, rather than having to try to gain system approval prior to implementing the program. Furthermore, the SAP was an environment where maladaptive behaviors were being dealt with therapeutically, thus preparing the participant for behavioral change. Moreover, according to treatment protocol recommendations provided by Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA), more research needs to be done on the availability and effectiveness of court-ordered treatment. In addition, the gap between research resources and policy needs, especially through the development of rigorous evaluations of public-sector programs to reduce domestic violence, need to be addressed (SAMHSA, 2005). Size constraints meant that there were two separate groups, each limited to 12 participants. None of the participants voluntarily dropped out of the program. Since participation was voluntary, a review of criminal records indicated that only three of the participants would likely have been ordered into a BIP upon release from custody. An intake interview and psychosocial assessment was conducted individually, and each participant was provided with an intake packet, which they took back to their cell to fill out and return the following week. All participants agreed to participate in the research portion of the project as
Batterer’s Intervention Program
463
well. At the first group session, with all participants present, the pretests were distributed with instructions to return them the following week.
RESULTS A number of factors occurred that led to only being able to complete 22 of the 52 sessions originally planned. Some of this was caused by the restricted status of many of the participants due to institutional security lock-downs, thus preventing the program from beginning until November instead of the original projected start date of July. Other institutional factors meant that some of the participants were not able to attend all 22 sessions. Of those who completed the questionnaires, the minimum attendance was 13 sessions, with a maximum attendance of 22 sessions. Although only three participants had a documented criminal history of domestic violence related arrests, the majority later admitted to committing a variety of domestic violence behaviors during the group discussion process. This was consistent with other studies, which showed a high incidence of self-reporting of domestic violence behaviors, absent criminal documentation (Bennett & Williams, 2003; Dutton & Hart, 1992). The results were divided by quantitative and qualitative design. The data from the CTS and modified ABI, as well the participants’ verbal responses during group discussions relate to the first hypothesis of there being an increased knowledge of what constitutes domestic violence behaviors and second hypothesis of admitting greater personal responsibility for their own domestic violence, and other criminal behaviors. For qualitative analysis, the results related to the third hypothesis of acknowledging the feelings of others and learning to apply nonviolent and noncontrolling methods of communicating their needs to others, especially their intimate partners.
Quantitative There were six possible scores from the CTS. Appendix A reflects the results. The only scale reflecting a level of significance (p < .01) was Power Orientation. This result reflects a reduction in their belief that they needed to be in control and aggressive in response to others. Four other scales showed positive changes, although not to significance. Since empathy is an important trait in reducing violence, especially family abuse, the positive direction on the Cold Heartedness Scale is an important improvement in attitude. The results for the Abusive Behavior Checklist show an overall increase in acceptance of responsibility to significant levels (p < .01). Every individual answer reflected an increase in responsibility, even if only slightly. Table 1 shows the composite means for the entire test. For further evaluation,
464
N. J. Yorke et al. TABLE 1 Results for Abusive Behavior Checklist t-Test: Paired two sample for means Mean Variance Observations Pearson correlation df t Stat P (T
