Larry W. Bennett, Ph.D. is Associate Professor, and Neil Vincent, Ph.D. is Research Associate, Jane Addams College of Social Work, University of Illinois at Chicago. Address correspondence to Larry Bennett, UIC/JACSW [m/c 309], 1040 W. Harrison, Chicago, IL 60607-7134 [Email: lwbenn@uic.edu]. This project is funded by a grant from the Illinois Department of Human Services. An earlier version of this article was presented at the 6^th International Conference on Family Violence Research, Durham NH, July 1999. The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for comments on an earlier version of the paper.

Standards for batterer programs evolved out of a concern for the safety of domestic violence victims. At their best, standards provide a structure for programs working with men who batter, a means of holding programs accountable to the community, support for delivering the best interventions available, and a mechanism for extending court control to domestic violence offenders. Twenty-five states in the United States have instituted standards for batterer programs (Austin & Dankwort, 1999).

Standards vary according to the governmental units involved and the means of regulation, which might be a local judicial board (e.g., in Colorado), another criminal justice body (e.g., in Iowa), or a state code agency such as public health (e.g., in Massachusetts), child protection (e.g., in Washington), or Human Services (e.g., in Illinois). While Gondolf (1990) suggests that a great deal of variation exists in batterer programs nationally, a report by the Battered Women's Justice Project (1995) found much similarity in batterer program standards, despite variations in government supervision.

Standards for batterer programs have proponents (e.g., ; Adams, 1994; Gondolf, 1995; Hessmiller-Trego, 1991) and critics (e.g., Goldman, 1991; Geffner, 1995a; Geffner, 1995b; Rosenbaum, & Stewart, 1994). We have summarized this discussion elsewhere (Bennett & Piet, 1999). Criticism of standards may include suggestions that: (1) Battering is a mental health issue, and a mental health professional should, if not provide direct services, at least provide supervision and set service standards; (2) Since there is no empirical evidence that one intervention works better than another, standards which favor one intervention are based on ideological rather than scientific considerations; and (3) Standards inhibit free enterprise in service of a feminist agenda. For the most part, critics of standards have not opposed the development of standards, only the process of their development and the restrictive nature of some standards.

Our own opinion is that objections and support for standards would be better framed if supported by research. Research on standards has been minimal and entirely descriptive. The Battered Women's Justice Project (1995) compared standards from Colorado, Iowa, three California municipalities, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New York, Florida, Idaho, Texas, and Washington. Juliet Austin and Juergen Dankwort (1999) described standards in the U.S. and Canada. A recent study by Roland Maiuro and his colleagues is in the current issue of this journal.

Regardless of government or organizational auspices, typical elements of standards include: (1) ethical expectations for staff, (2) program-level sanctions for violation of standards, (3) some indication and reminder of staff duty to report violence and to warn victims, (4) an outline of accountability plans for the batterer, (5) logistics of the intervention delivery, (6) treatment approaches which may or may not be utilized, (7) fee policy, (8) criteria for program completion, and (10) information which must be collected on each batterer. As we suggested, the purpose of these standards elements is to enhance victim safety, accountability, punishment and program performance. It is standard area number 6 above, the specification or restriction of treatment approaches, which has elicited most of the criticism of batterer program standards. Moreover, at present, there is no empirical evidence that standards achieve the aim their designers set for them. This article describes a preliminary appraisal of the effects of one state's standards.

Illinois Standards

Under the auspices of the Illinois Department of Human Services (DHS) and the DHS Domestic Violence Advisory Council, a multi-disciplinary committee crafted the Illinois Protocol for Domestic Abuse Batterers Programs and implemented these standards in January, 1995. The committee utilized a several existing state standards as models. According to its authors, the Illinois standards are

. . . intended to be used by programs working with men who, because of their abuse, were convicted of a crime, or would be if their actions were known. . . The purpose of this protocol is to guide new and existing programs toward the development and delivery of services which are safe, effective and accountable. (Illinois Protocol, p.5)

The Illinois Protocol provides direction to prospective batterer programs in the following areas:

Declaration of principles (e.g.: the primary goal of batterers programs is cessation of woman abuse)
Service coordination -- a directive that "Services for batterers shall not exist in isolation" (a key component in these standards is that battered women's organizations must not disapprove of batterers intervention programs)
Program approaches (including suggestions about goals, format and structure, content, and components; couples counseling is prohibited except under certain strict conditions)
Standards (including ethics, confidentiality, reporting, accountability, and fees)
Staff selection and training recommendations
Maintenance of a 22-item database

The current report is based on data from the first two years of a three-year study of the Illinois standards. This evaluation research is guided by three questions: (1) How have the standards effected the way batterer intervention programs (BIPs) deliver services to men who batter? (2) How have the standards impacted community efforts to prevent violence? and, (3) How have the standards effected judicial sentencing for domestic violence? The Illinois standards apply only to batterer programs serving men; consequently, the current report is applicable only to BIPs serving men.

The theoretical perspective used in this research is ecological. It is assumed there exists a local "domestic violence community" centered on services to victims and justice for perpetrators of domestic violence. This domestic violence community is influenced by state and local systems, which influences individual programs, which in turn influences program participants. Mechanisms for victim safety and program accountability built into a state standards ought to be observable at program and community levels. As defined in this study, the domestic violence community is anchored on the local victim services program, the local court, and the local batterers program(s).

The methods in this study are both qualitative and quantitative. Because we know so little about standards, batterer programs, and domestic violence ecologies, the primary task of this report is description and narrative. This evaluation is viewed as a step toward a state-wide evaluation of violence prevention effectiveness.

Data collection for the 3-year project includes interviews, surveys, and analysis of archival records. Data reported in this article are based on (1) interviews with 90 victim service staff, batterer program staff, judges, and other criminal justice staff, (2) survey data from 50 Illinois victim services programs, (3) first-stage surveys from 60 batterers intervention programs and second-stage survey of 23 batterer intervention programs, and (4) surveys from 311 participants in nine batterer programs. Sampling frames for the surveys varied by the population of interest.

Measures. All measures used in this evaluation research were developed by the authors. Most quantitative measures simply requested numbers (e.g. number of groups, staff, program completion rate). Two variables asked the key informant to make estimates on an ordinal scale:

RELATIONSHIP TO AGENCIES asked program informant to rate the quality of the working relationship between the batterers program and each of the following systems as a whole using a 6-point scale ranging from 0 (No Relationship) to 5 (Excellent Relationship), with 3 being an adequate relationship. The systems rated were: Substance Abuse Agencies, Medical Institutions, Prosecutors, Police, Corrections Officers, Judges, Mental Health Agencies and Domestic Violence Victim Program. TIME SPENT IN BATTERER GROUP was evaluated from the participant's perspective using a 5-point ordinal scale for each of six themes. The scale was (1) none, (2) very little, (3) some, (4) quite a bit, and (5) all the time. The six themes rated were: Learning to control anger, Issues of power and control, Marital problems of group members, Personal problems men bring to group, Legal problems of group members, and Issues in men's and women's relationship.

Procedure. The first stage of the project was identification and survey of batterer programs. A sampling frame of batterers programs was constructed from (1) current programs included in the DHS "approved" list, (2) programs who had applied for approval under the standards but were not approved, (3) programs pending approval under the standards, (4) programs identified by victim service agencies and other key informants as providing services to men who batter. Fifty-two victim service programs were surveyed, and 50 returned the survey. Using the above method, 92 batterer programs were identified for the first-stage sampling frame. A questionnaire was mailed to each program, and 60 (65%) responded. The second-stage sampling frame for a more detailed questionnaire was the 60 agencies responding to the first-stage survey. Twenty-three agencies (38%) responded to the detailed questionnaire.

The second stage of the project was key informant interviews and batterer program participant surveys in twenty communities statewide. The twenty targeted "domestic violence communities" were selected according to three criteria (1) at least one batterer intervention program is operational in the area with a DHS-funded victim services agency, (2) director and contact persons at the victim services agency and batterers program agree to participate in the study, and (3) geographic diversity, with proportionate representation of rural, suburban and urban programs. We identified key informants for interviewing as follows: The researcher sent a letter to the director of victim service agency and each batterer program in the target community, soliciting their assistance in the project. All victim service and batterer program directors in the targeted communities agreed to cooperate. Because the batterer program participation involved a full day of activity, including case review and providing curricula, they were given between $250 and $500 for their participation, depending on how many programs participated. The directors were asked to identify key informants in each community to be interviewed. In addition to the two directors, the Chief Judge in each relevant judicial district was asked to nominate the judges who were most involved in domestic violence cases. These judges were contacted and their participation solicited. A convenience sample of batterers was identified by the BIP director as all men in batterers group during a specified week. Non-identifying surveys were distributed and returned anonymously. The surveys consisted on six questions about how time was spent in the group, and no identifying or demographic information was collected. Due to the anonymity procedures, we have no way of knowing what proportion of surveys were returned.

Illinois Batterer Programs

Using a variety of identification methods, including DHS lists and information provided by battered women's programs throughout the state, we identified 92 batterers programs operating in Illinois. Of these 92 programs 67 (73%) returned a preliminary questionnaire. Of the 67 programs returning the questionnaire, 7 indicated they no longer had a batterers program. The 60 active programs enrolled a total of 7,115 different batterers in their programs in the previous fiscal year, and had a total of 3,714 different batterers enrolled in their programs at the time of the survey (1998). Two programs accounted for 2,338 (33%) of the total batterers seen last year by these 60 agencies. Of the 60 agencies who actually had an operating batterer program, 30 (50%) were listed on the DHS compliance list at that time, 25 (42%) were not listed as compliant, and 5 (8%) had applied for inclusion under the standards but were rejected. The median number of batterers seen by the BIPs in their last fiscal year and at the time of the survey are listed in Table 1. From Table 1, we may conclude that two-thirds of Illinois batterers are

served by standards-compliant programs. Using all available data, we estimate that, in 1998, approximately 12,000 different batterers were enrolled annually in Illinois programs. For comparison purposes, this figure is about one third the number of battered women served in Illinois by DHS-funded agencies each year.

The second-stage questionnaire provided a more detailed questionnaire, permitting us to develop baseline information for some of the questions we would ask later in interviews. Of the 60 active agencies, 23 (38%) completed the second questionnaire. Of the 23 agencies, 15 (65%) were on the Illinois list of agencies in compliance with the standards. Eleven (48%) were proprietary agencies, 10 (44%) were non-profits, and two (9%) were public agencies. Table 2 describes the staffing and service patterns of these 23 batterers programs. The data indicate that these programs are, on the average, functioning at about half their projected service capacity, suggesting under-utilization.

Relationship to agencies. The mean values of relationships across agencies are displayed in Table 3. As we see from Table 3, the strongest relationships perceived by these batterers programs are with domestic violence agencies and judges, and the weakest relationship is with

medical institutions. This is not a surprising result, since batterer programs usually have little need of relating to medical institutions unless those institutions provide collateral mental health services. However, the fact that 1 in 7 batterer programs report a less-than-adequate relationship with victim programs should be a matter of some concern.

Accountability. Illinois standards specify that approved programs must document means by which they hold their agency accountable to the larger domestic violence community and to the criminal justice system. It is assumed that such accountability improves the safety of victims. Specifically, the Illinois standards list 11 mechanisms programs could utilize to maintain accountable. relationships with the community. In order to describe methods of accountability used by batterers programs, we asked key informants to indicate which of the 11 methods of accountability described in the standards they utilized in their program. Methods of demonstrating accountability for 23 batterer programs are listed in Table 4. As we see from

Table 4, a large majority of sampled programs stated they held meetings with battered women's advocates, used male-female co-facilitation teams, had telephone contact with victims, and had written policies for communicating non-compliance with the court. A distinct minority of programs used advocates for supervision or case staffing, and all the programs which did so were in-house programs of victim services agencies. About half of batterer programs involved advocates at the level of program development, but the link between batterer programs and advocates does not extend to involvement in Illinois batterer programs at the level of program staffing or monitoring.

Participant views of program themes. Participating agencies surveyed their current participants about how much time was spent in their groups on each of six themes: (1) anger issues and anger management, (2) issues of power and control, (3) marital issues, (4) personal issues, (5) legal issues, and (6) relationship issues between men and women. In our final report, these data will be compared with a content analysis of program curricula, but this comparison is unavailable at present. For this analysis, we reduced the ordinal scale (none, very little, some, quite a bit, all the time) to the proportion of respondents who indicate that quite a bit, or all the time was spent on a particular topic. Figure 1 depicts the relative

distribution of the six program elements for 311 batterers surveyed by the first 9 programs studied. As we see from this figure, there is some intra-agency and inter-agency variation in the men's estimates of how time in group is spent, but a fairly consistent pattern emerges. Time in groups is spent primarily on anger management, power/control, and gender relationship issues, a distribution entirely consistent with expectations of the Illinois standards. Little (but some) time is devoted to participants' personal problems, their legal dilemma, or marital conflict issues. We think of the bars in Figure 1 as a "programmatic footprint," a graphic representation of how time is distributed in batterer programs. Program "B" for example is a relatively pure Duluth-model program (Pence & Paymar, 1993), with staff having been trained in Duluth and dedicated to that model. By way of comparison, program "C" is a private, substance abuse agency which administers a psychological test battery, including the MMPI, to all participants, and utilizes an eclectic approach. While we would expect an eclectic program to differ from a Duluth model program, these data suggest that, at least from the batterer's perspective and within the limits of our measures, they do not differ much.

Interviews-Batterer Programs

To date, extensive interviews have been conducted with 96 key informants from 13 communities, including 43 staff from 19 batterer programs. All interviews were taped, and form the basis of this section, and the following two sections of the article. In open ended questions, staff described models or orientations employed in their programs. Of the 19 programs who could articulate a model, 12 (63%) identified the Duluth model as their primary orientation to practice, 3 (16%) used primarily a cognitive-behavioral or anger management perspective, 3 (16%) articulated an eclectic or integrative model, and one used a model from Hazeldon in Minnesota. One of the concerns often voiced by critics of standards is that standards of prescribe or prohibit certain models. While nearly two-thirds of the programs say they utilize some variation of the Duluth approach, from the staff perspective, there appears to be a modest amount of variation between programs. Some program directors voiced a concern that the standards were too narrow in their prescription, favor a particular approach to batterer intervention. Among many agencies, the Illinois standards are synonymous with "Duluth model" despite the fact that the standards do not make such a recommendation.

For the most part, informants from batterer programs believe Illinois standards are a useful tool. Most informants believe standards bring credibility and competence to batterer programs. The most oft-cited response to probes about how standards had influenced their program were comments that standards influenced programs to alter policies and practice for linkage to other community- based violence prevention efforts, particularly battered women agencies. As we shall see later, this change may not be as appreciated by battered women's programs, but for these batterers programs it was viewed as helpful.

A number of concerns with standards were raised during the interviews. The peer-review approval and compliance process was viewed as a mystery by a number of programs, especially those mental health and substance abuse agencies accustomed to more formal certification and approval processes. The DHS does not disclose the identity of the peer reviewers and many of the informants were very curious about these reviewers, their qualifications, their investment in the review process, and how their decisions were made. A second issue, raised by both batterer program directors from non-approved agencies, is an apparent "catch-22" in the Illinois standards which demands that a program be operational before it applies for approval under the standards. This is most often a problem for developing programs who are unable to get judicial referrals before they are approved.

A third issue is program length and the marketplace. Illinois standards call for a minimum program of 16 weeks, but a number of batterer programs are 26 to 52 weeks in duration, and several are longer. These longer term programs are usually more established, associated with victim programs, or using the Duluth model. These longer term programs are finding that batterers and attorneys are selecting the shortest program possible. In communities with several batterer programs, short-time programs advertise publically as such. Criticism that standards impair a free market of batterer programs would seem to miss the mark in Illinois.

Interviews: Victim and Community Programs

We interviewed 26 staff from 15 community agencies, including domestic violence victim, substance abuse, and mental health agencies. An important part of our study is the effects of Illinois standards on community violence prevention agencies, primarily the effects on victim service agencies and advocates. In the Illinois standards, the batterers program is conceptualized as a local node in a (hopefully coordinated) community-based violence prevention effort. To this end, one of the key features of the standards is its requirement that batterers programs have a working relationship with victim programs. Almost all staff of battered women's agencies we interviewed knew there were published standards for batterer programs. They believed that the mechanism of agency accountability to standards helped hold batterers accountable for their behavior. In general, staff of these agencies were enthusiastic about standards, but also voiced several concerns.

One theme of particular concern was the increased pressure on victim programs to interact with batterer programs, which interviewees felt was a direct result of the standards. We found this theme expressed more often in moderate-sized cities which had enough population for a battered women's agency and more than one batterers program. Agency directors in particular were concerned that resources were being diverted in order to attend to the requests of incipient batterer programs. Moreover, battered women's agencies who communicated to the state their linkage agreement with a batterer program often felt that such a communication implied their approval of that batterer program, which they had neither the resources nor the inclination to offer. At least two battered women agencies have turned this concern into a means of generating income by consulting with batterers programs about gaining program compliance. A related issue is the conflict of interests now facing some victim programs when an incipient batterers program tries to negotiate linkage with a battered women's program which has an in-house batterer's program. Approval of the new batterers program could threaten the victim agency's income, while groundless disapproval could threaten the victim agency's credibility.

A second effect of Illinois standards on community agencies is the rapid increase in batterer programming by substance abuse agencies. Through concerted efforts by the Department of Human Services, which houses both the Office of Alcohol and Substance Abuse and the Bureau of Domestic Violence Prevention and Intervention, the two primary funding sources for substance abuse and domestic violence agencies respectively, a structural incentive has brought Illinois domestic violence and substance abuse agencies into closer working proximity than before. In addition to the standards and the structural motive, substance abuse agencies have become aware of increasing focus on the co-occurrence of these two problems (Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 1997). Cash-strapped addictions programs have been attracted by the court-ordered clients who look and act very much like the substance abusers with whom they are familiar.

Interviews: Judges and Prosecutors

To date, we have interviewed 18 judges and 9 prosecutors in nine judicial circuits. It must be recalled that the judges selected were those most likely to hear domestic violence cases in criminal court, and therefore, most qualified to comment on matters related to batterer program standards. Interviews with key judges suggest that they are familiar with existence of the Illinois standards. All the judges we interviewed were aware that the list of standards-approved programs was published periodically. Furthermore, all judges were familiar with at least one standards-approved program by name. Prosecutors also aware of state standards for batterer programs, and all could identify by name at last one local batterer program.

We identified several key beliefs of judges held about batterer program standards. First, most judges believe approval under the standards amounts to state certification of the batterer program, a clearly erroneous belief. With neither a legal mandate for the standards, nor a means of enforcement, Illinois does not "certify" batters programs. Second, almost all judges believed standards-approved programs were more effective than non-approved programs. This belief suggests an empirical question, but one which will not be tested for some time, if ever. Third, about half the judges we interviewed believed a substantial number of the batterers before their bench could not be helped by the available criminal justice, educational, or therapeutic interventions. These judges wanted a way to better identify those unreachable men and seemed confident that such an assessment tool either existed or could be developed.

The current study is a preliminary attempt to describe the effect of batterer program standards on batterer programs, on victim services and other community programs, and on the criminal justice system. The study is limited in a number of ways, not the least being its role as a funded evaluation in a single, Midwestern state. It is saddled with the usual flaws of formative evaluation research, including: a dependence on impression, interviews, and surveys; lack of comparison, either historical or concurrent; use of untested and single-item measures; and small samples. Moreover, this evaluation was restricted to batterers who were men, and programs serving those men. The standards we evaluated are not seen as applicable to programs serving women arrested for domestic violence, nor for men and women arrested for battering in a gay or lesbian relationship. While there are approaches to batterer intervention which argue that a single approach is applicable to all forms of partner aggression (e.g. Stosny, 1996), the single approach argument is outside the main stream of thinking in batterer intervention, which suggests that people come to violence in a variety of ways and require multiple approaches to intervention (Healy, Smith, & O'Sullivan, 1998). Despite the limitations of our study, we believe we have provided both a state-wide evaluation and some new information about batterers programs. While some of our information is parochial, more useful to programs and policy-makers in Illinois, other information provides a comparison for researchers to examine batterer programs and standards elsewhere.

We have documented that one state's standards do, in fact, affect the way batterers programs deliver services to men who batter. The primary mechanism by which Illinois standards affect batterer programs is through facilitating formal linkage to victim service agencies and the court system. This is a beneficial effect, consistent with the emergent trend away from singular batterer program efforts and toward a broader community response to prevention of violence (Hart, 1995; Witwer & Crawford, 1995). Coordinated community responses to family violence seek to provide unified, coordinated, and accountable approaches to domestic violence.

An interesting finding in these data is that the men in different batterer intervention programs do not report much difference in how time is allocated . While there may be, as Gondolf (1990) suggests there is a great deal of variation in batterer programs nationally, this difference may not be discernable to the consumers of these programs. It may be that the state standards in Illinois are homogenizing batterer programs, and there is not substantial difference in this state. Alternately, our measures may not validly capture the true differences which do exist. One of the key concerns about standards is that they stifle creativity in programming, retarding the application of unpopular approaches and inhibiting the development of new approaches. In fact, this concern was voiced by several of the program directors we interviewed. The balance between program innovation and victim safety is an issue which needs to be addressed in evaluation of state standards but we are unable to address this important matter in the current evaluation.

We have documented the means by which batterer programs in one state attempt to hold themselves accountable to their communities. We have also documented that the mechanisms of accountability do not include, for the most part, a case-level working relationships with victim service agencies. We have also documented that victim service agencies support standards for batterer programs, believing that standards improve victim safety. Whether standards actually make programs more safe to the victims of batterers is a matter of concern, and should be the focus of future evaluation. Gondolf (1988) found that the best predictor of a battered woman leaving shelter and returning to her abuser was his participation in a batterers program. This finding links the issue of victim safety to batterers program, and by extension, to the standards which govern them.

Several unintended consequences of standards impact the working relationships of batterer programs and victim service agencies. While forcing batterer programs to work closer with victim agencies, standards may impinge on those same victim agencies, both in terms of the time demanded for collaborative work, and on the problem of supporting a batterer program that they have no actual ability to supervise or control. We have also identified that for victim services agencies which also have batterers programs, standards which require victim agency approval put these agencies in a untenable position when they are asked to endorse a batterers program which competes for resources with their own in-house batterers program. Standards which support coordinated community efforts look good on paper, but the reality of these efforts vary widely and impact communities in different ways. Developers of standards should look closely at the effects of standards on victim services programs. If these effects are desirable (we believe they are very desirable), mechanisms should be developed to support the additional, unintended role of victim service agencies in batterer program standards.

A second consequence of standards, at least in Illinois, is their lending support to substance abuse and mental health providers who wish to develop batterer intervention programs. The deployment of mental health and substance abuse providers to the domestic violence field has both positive and negative effects. The problem of co-occurring domestic violence with substance abuse and mental health disorders may be aided by new partners from the mental health and addictions professions. On the other hand, the predominant paradigms upon which domestic violence has been built conflicts with those of the substance abuse and mental health fields (Bennett & Lawson, 1994). While this may herald a new era of collaboration and synthesis, it may also signal an erosion of domestic violence programs and a threat to victim safety. In Illinois, victim service agencies are again being pressed into unfunded service as gate-keepers for these substance abuse and mental health agencies who have little experience in domestic violence.

Further formative evaluations of state standards would be useful, including evaluation of need, implementation, context, characteristics, and cost. We do not expect there to be consistent findings across states because the auspices of standards vary widely. Comparative studies across states would be very useful, but represent a methodological challenge. Once a substantial number of formative evaluations have been reported, evaluators need to examine the outcome of standards. Standards are, in fact, a macro-level intervention designed to prevent domestic violence, one of a number of such interventions. Standards should, ultimately, increase public safety. We have assumed that standards hold agencies accountable to their community, but do standards of accountability increase the safety of battered women?

Adams, D. (1994). Point/Counterpoint: Treatment standards for abuser programs. Violence Update, 5(1), pp. 5, 9.

Austin, J. & Dankwort, J. (1999). Standards for batterer programs: A review and analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 152-168.

Battered Women's Justice Project. (1995). State batterers programs. Unpublished manuscript, 4032 Chicago Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55407.

Bennett, L. & Lawson, M. (1994). Barriers to cooperation between domestic violence and substance abuse programs. Families In Society, 75, 277-286.

Bennett, L. & Piet, M. (1999). Standards for batterer intervention programs: In whose interest? Journal of Violence Against Women, 5, 6-24.

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (1997). Substance Abuse Treatment and Domestic Violence, Treatment Improvement Protocol Series No. 25, Rockville, MD: United States Department of Health and Human Services.

Geffner, R (1995a). Standards in the family violence field. Family Violence and Sexual Assault Bulletin, 11, (1-2), 3.

Geffner, R (1995b). Standards for batterer intervention: Editor's response. Family Violence and Sexual Assault Bulletin, 11, (3-4), 29-32.

Goldman, J. (1991). Protect us from the protectors. Family Violence and Sexual Assault Bulletin, 7 (3), 15-17.

Gondolf, E.W. (1988). The effect of batterer counseling on shelter outcome. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 3, 275-289.

Gondolf, E.W. (1990). An exploratory study of court-mandated batterer programs. Response to the Victimization of Women & Children, 13, 7-11.

Gondolf, E. (1995). Gains and process in state batterer programs and standards. Family Violence and Sexual Assault Bulletin, 11 (3-4), 27-28.

Hart, B. (1995, March). Coordinated community approaches to domestic violence. Paper presented to the Strategic Planning Workshop on Violence Against Women, National Institute of Justice, Washington DC.

Healy, K., Smith, C., & O'Sullivan, C.O. (1998). Batterer intervention program approaches and criminal justice strategies. U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, NJC168638.

Hessmiller-Trego, J. (1991). Letter to the editor. Family Violence and Sexual Assault Bulletin, 7 (4), 24-25.

Illinois Protocol for Domestic Abuse Batterers Programs, (1994). Illinois Department of Human Services, 300 Iles Park Place, Springfield, IL 62762.

Pence. E. & Paymar, M. (1993). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth model. New York: Springer.

Rosenbaum, A., & Stewart, T.P. (1994). Point/counterpoint: Treatment standards for abuser programs. Violence Update, 5(1), pp. 9, 11.

Stosny, S. (1996). Treating attachment abuse: The Compassion Workshop. In D. Dutton (Ed.) Treating abusiveness . New York: Guilford.

Witwer, M.B. & Crawford, C.A. (1995). A coordinated approach to reducing family violence: Conference Highlights. U.S. Department of Justice, NCJ155184.