AQUILA

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

The AQUILA Working Group is dedicated to providing accurate, evidence-based information about batterer intervention programs and their impact on men who batter.  We are committed to enhancing dialogue and public awareness about these programs and about the potential for change for many men who have a history of dometic violence.

We support and promote program practices that:

• Center on the safety and well-being of adult victims/survivors of intimate partner violence and children.
• Promote responsibility and safe, nurturing relationships for men who have a history of domestic violence.
• Encourage multi-institutional, community and family capacity to hold men who batter accountable for their conduct and encourage them to change.
• Acknowledge that many men who attend batterer intervention programs face multiple obstacles to long-term change (such as poverty, exposure to trauma, racism, addiction and disproportional impact of our systems), and promote holistic services to help men deal with issues that destabilize the change process.

Evidence of a Postive Effect of batterer programs:

• Evaluating Batterer Programs--CDC summary-fin.pdf
• The Cost of Batterer Programs: How Much and Who Pays?
• Limitations of Experimental Evaluation of Batterer Programs
• Moyer_paper.doc
• Countering Confusion About The Duluth Model.pdf
• effectiveness_pospaper_cover.doc
• Article  written by what was then known as the Family Violence Councils Abuser Intervention Research Collaborative.  That organization is now known as MAIC (Maryland Abuser Intervention Collaborative). Dr. Chris Murphy, from the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, is the research co-chair & Lisa Nitsch Practitioner.
• Link  for Judicial Monitorning Audioconference: Featuring Dr. Michael Rembel, Judge Carl Ashley Milwaukee, WI, Judge Libby Hines Ann Arbor, MI. Hosted by Barbara Hart.
• PowerPoint to go with the above audioconference
• Contributions of Batterer Programs
• Quotes on Batterer Program Evaluations
• Batterer Program Evaluations Using a Systems Perspective and showing an impact of batterer programs in context.

• National Journal - Domestic Politics 4-5-08.pdf
• Gondolf letter to Michael Rempel, Research Director, Center for Court Innovation
• Gondolf: Response letter to couples counseling study.doc
• Gondolf Reply to Dutton on Duluth Model-1.pdf
• Dutton book review-VAW--Dekeseredy.pdf
• Dutton CJS Book Review CJS--Dekeseredy.pdf
• Review_of_the_Abusive_Personality_by_Chris_Murphey.pdf
• Mills Bk reviewed-Coker.pdf
• Mills Bk reviewed--Rapheal.pdf
• Mills Bk reviewed-Stark.pdf
• review of Mills--Dekeseredy.pdf
• On-Line Resources for Judges to Improve Batterer Intervention
• Battering and couples therapy: Universal screening and selection of treatment modality

• Respect Position Statement on Gender and Domestic Violence
• CONTEXTUALLY UNDERSTANDING AND ADDRESSING WOMEN'S USE OF FORCE:  A BIBLIOGRAPHY
• Larance article on Women Who Use Force
• Are Heterosexual Men Also Victims of Intimate Partner Abuse?
• Are Physical Assaults by Wives and Girlfriends a Major Social Problem?
• Problems with applying "mutual combat" to batterer program participants
• Some Of The Many Articles Countering The Claims That Women Are As Violent As Men
• Battered Women and Men News Article In The Boston Globe
Op-Ed Reply To The Boston Globe
Reply Letter To The Boston Globe
Reply to Baltimore Sun Op-Ed
Reply to Pittsburgh Post Gazette

A chapter in the book on The future of batterer programs has a whole chapter devoted to the effectiveness debate and the oversimplifications and misinterpretations that have come out of it.

Heres a paragraph that offers directly the counter point: A 2007 meta-analysis from the Cochrane Collaboration11 questions any doesnt work interpretation of the previous meta-analyses more explicitly (Smedslund, Dalsbø, Steiro, Winsvold, & Clench-Aas, 2007): The methodological quality of the included (experimental) studies was generally low . . . The research evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral interventions for spouse abusers . . . We simply do not know whether the interventions help, whether they have no effect, or whether they are harmful (p. 18). An earlier analysis funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention used a broader inclusion criteria of fifty intervention and prevention programs and reached a conclusion similar to the more selective Cochrane Collaboration: The diversity of data, coupled with the relatively small number of (experimental) studies that met the inclusion criteria for the evidence-based review, precluded a rigorous, quantitative synthesis of the findings (Morrison, Lindquist, Hawkins, ONeil, Nesius, & Mathew, 2003, p. 4).12 Berk, R. (2005).  Randomized experiments as the "bronze standard.' Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 416-433.
 
• Angrist, J. (2005). Instrumental variables methods in experimental criminological research: What, why, and how? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 23-44.
• Goldkamp, J. (2008). Missing the target and missing the point: "Successful" random assignment but misleading results. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 4, 83-115.
• Durlak, J., & DuPre, E. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 327-350.
• Matt, G., & Navarro, A., (1997). What meta-analysis have and have not taught us about psychotherapy effects: A review and future directions. Clinical Psychology Review, 17, 1-32.
• Dobash, R. E., &  Dobash, R. P. (2000). Evaluating criminal justice interventions for domestic violence. Crime and Delinquency, 46, 252-271.
• Gondolf, E. (2001).  Limitation of experimental evaluations of batterer programs. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 2, 79-88.