Edward W. Gondolf’s research while affiliated with Indiana University of Pennsylvania and other places

The “Evaluation of the Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) curriculum for domestic violence offenders” illustrates the methodological issues associated with interpreting program evaluations and applying them to policy. Despite the “preliminary” evidence, the authors promote ACTV as more effective in terms of recidivism compared with DU/CBT (cognitive-behavioral therapy) programming. A more critical consideration of the research, however, exposes further limitations that counter the initial speculations and interpretations of the study outcome. Consequently, the effectiveness of ACTV over the DU/CBT option remains in question and raises the need for a broader discourse on program effectiveness.

The evidence-based practice movement, particularly in the criminal justice field, has meant an increasingly influential role for social science research. Experimental program evaluations, considered to be the “gold standard,” are helping to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of interventions amid the need to cut costs. However, there continues to be questions about the implementation and conception of experimental designs in the “real-world,” and to be resistance to such program evaluations from many practitioners. Several remedies have emerged including statistical modeling, multiple methods, and consensus panels to promote broader dialogue regarding program effectiveness. The ideal maybe to return evidence-based practice to more of a collaborative process rather than a bottom-line verdict.

This article refutes Straus's reinterpretation of our study, "Physical Tactics of Female Partners Against Male Batterer Program Participants," drawing on our extended follow-up of batterer program participants and their partners in four cities (Gondolf, 2002). Straus claims that the rate of women's violence in the sample is "high" and asserts the need to address women's violence to reduce the men's violence, which is the opposite of our findings and interpretation. We contend that our focus on the men and women who both used tactics in the total sample addresses the research question. We elaborate why our regression analyses to "explain" the women's violence are sound, despite Straus's unsubstantiated speculations. We argue further that the evidence points to women's "violent resistance" against severe, repeated violence, and that those cases do not fit the "both victim" dyad type that Straus promotes. Moreover, they are inappropriate for couples counseling. Finally, we revisit the limitations of the Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS) as a sufficient measure of the women's experience of male violence and raise concern about the implications of Straus's claims. © The Author(s) 2014.

Descriptive and predictive analyses were conducted using a multisite database of batterer program participants to assess the nature and extent of their female partner's violence, and implications for batterer program outcome (N = 563). Approximately 40% of the women reported ever using "severe" conflict tactics on the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS; 17% used severe tactics in the arrest incident). Approximately 20% of the women reported using any type of physical tactic during a 15-month follow-up, and nearly all of these women were with men who physically attacked them during that period. These women were also highly likely to report acting out of fear or self-defense, and having sought a variety of services to deal with the men's violence. Their male partners, furthermore, showed evidence of antisocial tendencies and alcohol problems. Overall, the findings suggest women's "violent resistance" rather than "mutuality and symmetry." Batterer programs appear more appropriate in this regard than couples counseling.

A critical assessment of the research related to batterer programs with recommendations for heightened engagement of men, ongoing risk management, and better coordination of courts and services Batterer programs are at a critical juncture, with a handful of experimental program evaluations showing little or no effect from the prevailing program approach. This finding has prompted calls to overhaul or replace such programs. Edward W. Gondolf examines batterer research in light of the push for "evidence-based practice" and advocates a progressive evolution of batterer intervention as it currently stands. Cautioning against the call for programs based on a "new psychology," he argues that current cognitive-behavioral approaches are appropriate for most cases, with the addition of ongoing risk management for severely violent men. Overall, he promotes a broader picture of batterer intervention and advocates better implementation of the basic principles established in the criminal justice field.

In the midst of the debate over batterer program effectiveness, several alternative approaches have been promoted: psychodynamic treatment for attachment disorders, diversified programming for batterer types, motivational techniques addressing readiness to change, specialized counseling for African-American men, and couples counseling for mutual violence. A critical overview of the research on these alternative approaches exposes weak or insufficient supporting evidence. There is also strong generic evidence for the predominant cognitive-behavioral approach in batterer programs, and a focus on system implementation might account for improved outcomes. While the innovations are encouraging, an “evidence-based practice” for batterers has yet to be clearly established.Research highlights► Research on attachment disorders is based primarily on batterer characteristics. ► Batterer types may be more an artifact of dimensions or tendencies. ► Stage of change is not a strong predictor of program outcomes. ► Culturally-oriented approaches have, as yet, little substantiating outcome research. ► The few studies of couples counseling have been with highly selective samples.

With increasing pressure to conduct experimental evaluations of domestic violence interventions, it is important to weigh further the most challenging aspect of experimental designs: the implementation of random assignment. This paper reviews two attempted experimental evaluations of counseling programs for domestic violence offenders, and formulates implications for conducting and interpreting program evaluations. The two case studies offer an instructive comparison of a maximally implemented experiment and a failed one at the same setting. In the first study, the random assignment was introduced within the counseling program and with implicit leverage of court sanctions for non-compliance to the assignment. In the second, random assignment was disrupted by unforeseeable events and inter-agency breakdowns in the complex referral system. Interestingly, implementation issues in both studies raised divergent interpretations from researchers and practitioners. They appear to imply a need for more disclosure of implementation problems in experimental evaluations and for more caution about over interpreting the existing experimental evaluations in the field. KeywordsDomestic violence-Counseling program-Random assignment-Experimental evaluation-Implementation problems

Ellen Pence helped build the foundation of batterer programming with the Duluth program. The program forged new ground and bridged the concerns of advocates and criminal justice officials by developing its "Power and Control Wheel" from women's experiences with abuse. Its dialogical format, responding to vignettes and control logs, helps to engage men in a reflective process, to monitor their behavior, and to identify alternative outlooks and responses. At the same time, Ellen's work remains rooted in a gender analysis and a coordinated community response. Critics of Duluth programming miss the mark with a distorted caricature of Duluth, neglect of substantiating research, and the bias from their own personal agendas. Ellen's personal touch of insightful humor and personal interest has helped to move forward the lessons of Duluth and the field itself. Her groundbreaking program helps to sort through the disarray of approaches among batterer programs today.

A quasi-experimental study was conducted to investigate the impact of referral to supplemental mental health treatment for batterer program participants who screened positive for mental health problems. The principal outcome measure was re-assault reported during a periodic 12-month follow-up with female partners (n = 308). Batterer program completion and other abuse indicators were also considered. Mandatory court referral to mental health treatment produced no significant improvement in batterer program completion, re-assault and other abuse indicators. These results may be influenced by the low compliance to the referral, since the select number of men who did comply with a mental health evaluation (n = 48 of 148) and those who received treatment (n = 28 of 148) did better than those who did not. Simplified referral procedures or integrated treatment services might prove to be a more effective approach.

The implementation of a screening and referral system for supplemental mental health treatment among batterer program participants was investigated in a 2-year formative evaluation. The research team conducted direct observation of the agency procedures, participation in training and supervision meetings, debriefing interviews with administrators, and informal conversations with staff and clients. Inconsistencies and breakdowns associated with nearly every step of the screening and referral process were identified, for example, notification of referral instructions and verification of clinical compliance. Court sanctions for referral noncompliance remained inconsistent even during court-mandated referral. Several underlying issues were also exposed: administrative absenteeism and turnover, administrative-staff gaps, client overload, and differing agency priorities. These issues reinforce the challenges facing coordinated community response.