Intimate Partner Violence: Intervention

Rates of intimate partner homicides dropped about 30 percent during the past 25 years as public awareness of, and policy responses to, intimate partner violence grew stronger. Yet, a study of domestic violence policies in 48 large U.S. cities found that policies designed to reduce a woman's exposure to an abusive partner sometimes have contradictory results. For example, although warrantless arrest, firearm confiscation, prosecutions, and increases in Aid to Families with Dependent Children benefit levels were associated with lower rates of domestic violence, interventions were sometimes followed by retaliation from an abusive partner.

NIJ researchers have shown that understanding demographic differences among victims and abusers—such as race, level of education, and marital status—helps predict which interventions will be successful in specific groups (Dugan, Nagin, and Rosenfeld, 2003). Findings about five common interventions are summarized below.

• Arrest
• Protection Orders
• Court Interventions
• Prosecution
• Batterer Intervention Programs

Arrest

According to an analysis of research on arrest and domestic violence, arresting male batterers may reduce subsequent intimate partner violence. The researchers found this result to be modest, however, when compared with the effects of other factors. Suspects’ age, race, employment status, and use of drugs or alcohol during the buildup to a domestic violence incident were consistently related to subsequent aggression against the victim.

Chronic repeat offenders. The researchers also found that a minority of suspects identified as “chronically aggressive intimate partners” continue to abuse their partners regardless of the intervention received (whether arrested, counseled, or temporarily separated from their partners). Further research is needed to “accurately predict high-rate repeat offenders and to find methods of helping their victims before they are victimized further” (Maxwell, Garner, and Fagan, 2001).

Protection Orders

Protection orders may reduce recidivism (an offender's return to crime after sanctioning or intervention for a previous crime) if the orders are tailored to victims' needs and used in conjunction with vigorous prosecution and significant sanctioning of abusers (Keilitz, 2001). Permanent protection orders are associated with a significant decrease in the risk of police-reported violence against women by their male intimate partners (Holt et al., 2002).

Court Interventions

A study that examined the long-term effectiveness of court interventions for a cohort of men arrested for domestic violence reported that 75 percent of the men reoffended for substance abuse or violence or both, often before the courts had disposed of an earlier crime. Analyses showed that:

• The courts were consistent in sentencing.
• To properly evaluate a criminal justice response to domestic violence, abusers' general criminal behavior should be taken into account.
• Men in the study were antisocial, persistently criminal, and engaged in domestic violence as part of their general criminal activities.
• Deterrence was unlikely to work for the offenders in this study (Wilson and Klein, 2006).

Another study that examined a specialized domestic violence probation program in Rhode Island found that mandatory attendance at batterer programs and no-contact orders routinely issued at sentencing did not protect the women from further abuse. [1]

This same study found that more than one-third of probationers were arrested for a new domestic violence offense within the first 2 months, and almost 60 percent were arrested within the first 6 months. Probationers who had the highest re-abuse rates were those who had committed prior crimes (not just domestic violence) and younger abusers (teenagers and those in their 20s) (Klein 2002).

Prosecution

The threat of, or offer to drop, prosecution may provide leverage for abused women. For victim-initiated complaints, permitting victims to drop charges following an arrest significantly lowered the chance of new violence during and 6 months following the court appearance. These women also experienced less violence, less severe violence, and a longer delay before the onset of new violence (Ford and Breall, 2000).

Batterer Intervention Programs

Courts often mandate that convicted abusive partners attend batterer intervention programs in addition to serving a probation term. NIJ researchers have evaluated the most common batterer intervention programs. Most findings show that these programs do not change batterers' attitudes toward women or domestic violence, and that they have little to no impact on reoffending. One study found that men who were married and had a stake in the community (such as owning a home) and men who completed the full program were slightly less likely to reoffend (Jackson et al., 2003).

In 2002, to gain insight into the needs of the fields, NIJ sponsored a workshop where prominent researchers discussed findings and issues.

Other batterer program evaluations have been conducted, but with inconsistent results. One approach that researchers may use to integrate the results from various evaluations is known as meta-analysis. Two separate meta-analyses carried out on the more rigorous batterer intervention studies found that these programs have, at best, a modest or minimal benefit (Feder and Wilson, 2005; Babcock et al., 2004).