California: Addressing Effective Batterer Intervention Programs on Three Fronts
First Front-CSAC
In early 2017, Assembly Bill 372 was introduced in California to explore the use of alternative batterer intervention programming (BIPs). Under current law, the court is required to order a 52-week BIP for persons who meet the sentencing mandates for specified domestic violence crimes (FC 6211/ PC 1203.097). The California State Association of Counties (CSAC) oversees the pilot project of six participating counties. The counties are provided the flexibility to modify the 52-week requirement to a lesser time, based on a risk and needs assessment. All counties chose the Ontario Domestic Abuse Risk Assessment (ODARA), but general risk assessments varied among the counties with four different tools used to measure general recidivism.
The pilot project was introduced into law (PC 1203.099) in July 2019 with a sunset date of July 1, 2022 (although the deadline was extended for another year due to pandemic restrictions). Under the new code, the BIP’s were to have components which are evidence-based or promising practices and had to use manualized curriculum. Four curriculums were chosen to meet this requirement. The counties were required to collect offender demographic information, criminal history, risk and needs assessment levels and whether the offender completed the program as well as recidivism six months after completion. All information was to be submitted annually to the Legislature (CSAC) for further analysis.
The first-year report provided the framework for measuring recidivism and the program curriculum’s which were chosen by the participating counties. Options included a 52-week, 26-week, and 16-week curriculum framework. https://www.counties.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/ab372_year_1_legislative_report__final.pdf
The second-year report reflected enhanced data collection and some recidivism reports. At this point many of the counties had returned to full programming after pandemic restrictions, so future reports should be more uniform in data collection.
https://www.counties.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/ab372-year_2_legislative_report.pdf
Second Front-CAO
While this pilot project has been underway, the California Auditor’s Office (CAO) conducted a review of five other counties, not connected to the AB372 Pilot Project. In California, the county probation departments are tasked with the certification and compliance review of the BIP’s in their counties. The auditor’s report was released in October 2022 and found that the probation departments they evaluated were found to “not adequately hold offenders accountable to the conditions of their probation, including that they complete the required batterer intervention program”. Various recommendations were submitted by the CAO, including the transfer of the certification/review process to the Department of Justice instead of the county probation departments. https://www.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/factsheets/2021-113.pdf
Third Front-CPOC
Fortunately, during the past six years, the California Probation Chief’s Association (CPOC) training division and Advisory Committee has been developing and providing domestic violence specific trainings to address the various issues facing county probation officers who supervise domestic violence offenders. In 2020, during the pandemic, they offered a newly designed 2-day DV Core training for officers assigned to DV caseloads. The course was offered virtually twice yearly (2020, 2021, 2022 Spring) and in the Fall of 2022, it was finally offered in-person. The officers have given the course high marks for providing the training they need to competently supervise DV offenders, work effectively with victims, and understand the role of BIP’s in a coordinated community response model.
Concurrently, the newly designed “BIP Best Practices” course was offered twice in the Fall of 2022 to resoundingly positive reviews by officers! The timeliness and necessity of this training was confirmed by the October Auditor’s report and CPOC hopes to expand it’s offerings of this training in the coming year.
Final Thoughts
While still a work in progress, overall, California is working to reduce the levels of intimate partner violence thru more research-based supervision efforts and requiring BIP’s to use evidence-based materials and promising practices. With targeted data collection, and increased trainings, it is anticipated that California will see more positive impact from effective batterer intervention programs over the next few years.
Dec 29, 2022 @ 03:05:44
Great post, Nada! As we have previously discussed, some batterer intervention providers are worried that some sort of standard curriculum will be imposed upon them by the state. Obviously, a well-designed, evidence-based curriculum would be better than what some of the providers are offering, among them peer-led groups with a heavy theoretical slant. However, I am worried, as someone quite dedicated to an evidence-based curriculum for BIPs, that not enough diversity will be allowed. By diversity I mean programs that have ample empirical support but intended for different clients. For example, personality-disordered offenders, or highly controlling offenders, require not only a longer period of treatment but a different approach, such as a trauma work, a greater emphasis on power and control tactics, etc., compared to low-level, first-time offenders. I also don’t know if every program needs to have a manualized curriculum, so long as they the material they use is evidence-based and available for scrutiny by Probation.
Dec 29, 2022 @ 23:17:30
Thank you John–yes, I hear the fears expressed about having a standard curriculum imposed by the State, but I don’t see that at this point. When I train probation officers on what to look for I stress the importance of looking for the use of evidence-based and research-informed strategies such as CBT, DBT, MI, strengths-based, etc. Each curriculum has it’s own “personality” and I tell them “some people like Fords, some people like Chevy’s–just make sure what they’re using has an engine, wheels, and a steering mechanism to get the participant from anti-social beliefs/behaviors to pro-social beliefs/behaviors regarding relationships!”
One of the benefits of using a manualized curriculum (whether thru a publisher or simply in a binder with looseleaf handouts) is that the officers know what material is being used, there is more consistency within the program to cover required subjects among various facilitators, the participants can anticipate what material will be covered and have a mechanism for keeping the materials in one place to review at a later date if they choose. It can also encourage the facilitators to follow the evidence-based strategies rather than delve into “talk therapy” which is not shown to have good outcomes.
A drawback can be if there is open enrollment and new participant’s don’t know the basic concepts (like time-outs) or prior material discussions.
Just last week we had questions on time-outs from the new attendees and I spent the first hour returning to the earlier lessons (anger scale/time-out contract, etc.) to reinforce for the current participants and educate the newer ones. It was nice to have the more experienced participants not only gain more insight into the prior lesson, but also to share with the new ones how to use the time-out effectively and address partner concerns. Because everyone has the same handbook it was much easier to review/teach the lesson material and reaches the various learners (VARK- https://vark-learn.com/ )
Unlike the Colorado or Washington model, it doesn’t appear that California is capturing the nuances of the different clients you mention (personality-disordered or highly-controlling, et al). In my opinion, the DVRNA has a stronger likelihood of capturing those risks and needs, while also recognizing the dynamic factors which can guide the appropriate program length. The ODARA is not designed like that–so we’ll see if they change risk/needs assessments. Also, Colorado and Washington don’t mandate a specific curriculum–I’d like to think that States are realizing there is not a “one size fits all” curriculum out there!
Dec 29, 2022 @ 23:18:50
Thank you John–yes, I hear the fears expressed about having a standard curriculum imposed by the State, but I don’t see that at this point. When I train probation officers on what to look for I stress the importance of looking for the use of evidence-based and research-informed strategies such as CBT, DBT, MI, strengths-based, etc. Each curriculum has it’s own “personality” and I tell them “some people like Fords, some people like Chevy’s–just make sure what they’re using has an engine, wheels, and a steering mechanism to get the participant from anti-social beliefs/behaviors to pro-social beliefs/behaviors regarding relationships!”
One of the benefits of using a manualized curriculum (whether thru a publisher or simply in a binder with looseleaf handouts) is that the officers know what material is being used, there is more consistency within the program to cover required subjects among various facilitators, the participants can anticipate what material will be covered and have a mechanism for keeping the materials in one place to review at a later date if they choose. It can also encourage the facilitators to follow the evidence-based strategies rather than delve into “talk therapy” which is not shown to have good outcomes.
A drawback can be if there is open enrollment and new participant’s don’t know the basic concepts (like time-outs) or prior material discussions.
Just last week we had questions on time-outs from the new attendees and I spent the first hour returning to the earlier lessons (anger scale/time-out contract, etc.) to reinforce for the current participants and educate the newer ones. It was nice to have the more experienced participants not only gain more insight into the prior lesson, but also to share with the new ones how to use the time-out effectively and address partner concerns. Because everyone has the same handbook it was much easier to review/teach the lesson material and reaches the various learners (VARK https://vark-learn.com/ )
Unlike the Colorado or Washington model, it doesn’t appear that California is capturing the nuances of the different clients you mention (personality-disordered or highly-controlling, et al). In my opinion, the DVRNA has a stronger likelihood of capturing those risks and needs, while also recognizing the dynamic factors which can guide the appropriate program length. The ODARA is not designed like that–so we’ll see if they change risk/needs assessments. Also, Colorado and Washington don’t mandate a specific curriculum–I’d like to think that States are realizing there is not a “one size fits all” curriculum out there!
Dec 30, 2022 @ 17:26:00
It’s bound to be better than what we have had so far. Some of my fellow BIPs here in California are not all properly trained, nor interested in learning anything beyond what they were originally taught, mostly the Power and Control wheel and Lenore Walker’s three-phase cycle. The other problem, which I hope these changes will ameliorate, which is too many defendants arrested on very shaky grounds (e.g., neighbors call the police), where he/she would benefit from a program, but maybe not need 52 weeks, and judges are sentencing them to only 16 weeks or charges are dropped completely. So, in these situations, the safety of victims is compromised. Anyway, thanks for all your hard work. I have done training with Probation, and I know how much they need this training you are providing!
Jan 05, 2023 @ 16:44:35
The AB372 report highlights the chronic challenges in evaluating this work. The issues of implementation fidelity are not addressed. Presumably the assumption is that every program participating is producing a perfect implementation of the curriculum that they use with trained and effective facilitators? Recidivism is a poor (but reasonably available and, importantly, inexpensive) metric that is often done over too short a time frame (because, hey, money.) Systematic processes for engaging with survivors for feedback are complex and expensive and therefore usually not done well, if at all.
As someone who has trained a lot with DAIP in the Duluth/CPC curriculum and their coordinated community response, I am aware of its strengths and shortcomings. This report points obliquely at the larger issue that is central to Duluth’s model: the need for coordinated response. Credit for acknowledging the need for CSO/PO training. But my impression from perusing this is that it continues to focus to heavily on a medicalized-style of intervention without the feedback and backstop sanctions of a coordinated community response. This has certainly been my experience of working with (underpaid, overworked) CSOs: they are not prepared, nor is the infrastructure in place to operate a well integrated coordinated response that enforces accountability and the opportunity for change. The focus always seems to come back to “find a better intervention curriculum” that will somehow mentally “jiu jitsu” him to a “cure.”
I have been looking at the sample of Nada’s curriculum. This is assumed to be a cohort model (a full cohort enters and exits after 26-52 weeks)? Also, I understand the common impression that “he needs to do homework”, how does the curriculum address the risk of the abuser making the survivor do the homework for them?
I am somewhat heartened that fancy expensive California experiences the same challenges in the work that Texas does. At least we’re all in the same boat. 😉
Jan 05, 2023 @ 22:22:52
Gilbert-I agree that most of us are in the same boat when it comes to the challenges of domestic violence intervention!
Just to clarify about my curriculum-the pilot project was a cohort model, but it is almost exclusively used in programs who have ongoing enrollment. Ideally, there is higher retention so the group is more cohesive. There isn’t “homework” per se, it is a Daily Monitor which is to reinforce things like practicing gratitude, love behaviors, logging their anger scale, etc. It’s not mandated and would be odd for a survivor to do it for them. To date (since 2010) I’ve never heard of a situation where that happened.
You make a good point about implementation fidelity–it is a challenge for most programs. I was asked to audit a county using another curriculum and I was familiar with this author’s work. I noticed the issues you bring up and in fact recommended the programs receive additional training on a key component of the curriculum because it was apparent they did not understand how to use this tool and it’s value to the program design. I don’t know how interactive the author was in providing that training, but it was certainly needed to help the programs use it correctly. I work closely with the providers using my curriculum (if they wish), so we can address any challenges which arise and they can be successful.
In concept, the CCRM is wonderful, but I have found that it is also “personality driven”, in that when committed persons on the team move on, it isn’t uncommon for the model to fall by the wayside 🙁 Plus, I have found the attention to BIP’s has usually been very minimal.
Hopefully more robust research can be done to help identify what is working in the BIP’s and recognize that different modalities can be used to reach more diverse clientele.
Jan 06, 2023 @ 05:16:48
Gilbert and Nada: You both make some excellent points. Gilbert, I agree that a community response is desirable, especially with respect to how closely the BIP and the referring probation officer, or other referring party, are working together, to make sure that the offender is help accountable. In the San Francisco Bay Area, where I work, some probation departments are pretty good at this, and others are not, due to the heavy caseloads, or when cases are not even handled by a probation officer at all. I also think that good coordination between providers and probation should entail probation having a good grasp of the BIP literature and best practices, and that they have a clear understanding of the various programs and what clients they are best suited for. Instead, probation officers, and the courts, generally give new defendants a sheet of local BIPs, and defendants just go to whoever is closest, and cheapest. And probation officers and judges have NO idea about best practices. And speaking of best practices, while I applaud the people at Duluth for their emphasis on the coordinated community response, the Duluth model is not for everyone. I think we can all agree that the quality of the facilitator, regardless of the theoretical model, is the most important factor in treatment success. I have been working with colleagues at Tulane University on developing assessment tools with which group facilitators can be held accountable. If you are interested in these, let me know!