WSIPP Report Critical of Existing Domestic Violence Treatment
The Washington State Insitute for Public Policy (WSIPP) recently released its January 2013 report entitled “What Works to Reduce Recidivism of Domestic Violence Offenders.” http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/13-01-1201.pdf
The report examines the effectiveness of the “Duluth Model” of domestic violence treatment, after which Washington State domestic violence treatment programs are patterned. The “Duluth Model” intervention is based on a model developed in Duluth, Minnesota, in the early 1980’s. The treatment approach assumes that domestic violence “…is a gender-specific behavior which is socially and historically constructed. Men are socialized to take control and to use physical force when necessary to maintain dominance.” The model also assumes that domestic violence is not caused by mental illness, substance abuse, anger, stress or dysfunctional relationships.
The WSIPP report examined the international literature on the effectiveness of the Duluth Model rather than examine Washington State programs, which it acknowledged have “not been rigorously evaluated.” It concluded that, on average, programs using Duluth-like models had “no effect on recidivism” and therefore the Duluth model approach could not be considered “evidence-based.” In fact, the report concluded that the other, non-Duluth based group DV models yielded more promising results.
The report’s findings are not surprising to those who practice in the criminal courts daily. Like many laws and practices developed in response to the problem of domestic violence, the rise of ubiquitous and costly domestic violence treatment without any evidence of its effectiveness has been a triumph of politics over reason. The appeal of the Duluth model seemed to lay in its simplisitic and politically correct assumptions about domestic violence and its causes. While there are certainly perpetrators who fit the profile described by the Duluth model, crimes of domestic violence are defined so broadly and a cross-section of domestic violence defendants are so diverse that there is no one stereotype upon which treatment can be based. According to the report, a surprising number of judges–70%–admit that they imposed domestic violence treatment as a form of accountability, independently of whether it actually worked. The average cost of the program, which WSIPP estimated at $1,365.00, and the burden of attending the treatment weekly for at least a year in most cases, serves as additional punishment to the offender.
To the credit of at least one prosecuting agency, the King County Prosecutor’s office has begun to shift its policy away from reflexive imposition of domestic violence treatment. Foreshadowing WSIPP’s findings, the KCPAO released a policy in May 2012 describing a new approach to imposing “affirmative conditions” to sentences. Among the considerations in its May 2012 Policy Statement:
“Is the proposed program evidence-based and proven effective in addressing the issue that we seek to treat? Increasingly, it is clear that some programs are much more effective than others in reducing recidivism and achieving positive outcomes for the offenders and the community. We should not direct scarce resources at programs that do not meet basic benchmarks of effectiveness. Examples of effective programs (per WSIPP) include: DOSA, Drug Court, Mental Health Court; cognitive behavioral therapy; intensive drug treatment and supervision.”
Notably absent among the examples listed is domestic violence treatment. In the White Paper that accompanied the policy statement, the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office elaborates:
The WSIPP study also identifies ineffective programs. For example, Domestic Violence Perpetrator Programs, a.k.a. State Certified Domestic Violence Treatment, were shown to have very limited effect on recidivism and provide a negative return on investment. This finding is important because domestic violence treatment is the most common, and sometimes the only, legal response in criminal DV cases. If treatment for domestic violence is ineffective, prosecutors and courts should not tell victims that a batterer ordered into treatment is at a lower risk to batter again. Given the pervasiveness of domestic violence, ineffective interventions should not replace incapacitation of offenders. And, if better interventions exist, they need to be identified.
