ࡱ> r{s{` psbjbjFF 7,,Ik& 8 ' : "$h{l88888 Ћ 0'DVL@<v'8888$   3 congresso Nazionale CISMAI, Firenze, Dicembre 2003 COUNSELING PROGRAMS FOR MEN WHO BATTER THEIR WIVES IN THE UNITED STATES Edward W. Gondolf Mid-Atlantic Addiction Training Institute vlog (USA) INTRODUCTION One of the most notableand perhaps controversialinnovations in dealing with domestic violence in the United States has been the development of batterer programs. Batterers is the term generally used in the United States to refer to men who have physically assaulted, or battered, their female partners, wives, or girlfriends. Batterer programs refers to weekly counseling and educational sessions designed to help men stop their violence and abuse against women and children. A counselor or group leader directs a group of 8-15 men with a lesson, exercises, and some discussion. Most programs follow a curriculum that includes: learning the nature and consequences of abuse and violence, techniques and skills to avoid violence, and exposing attitudes and beliefs that reinforce violence. Nearly every city in the United States has some form of batterer programming. It may be an independent agency, affiliated with a battered womens center, within a mental health clinic, or a network of group counselors. The most pressing question facing these programs is whether they are effective in reducing and ultimately stopping domestic violence. I recently directed an extensive research effort to answer this crucial question. Our large government-funded project evaluated batterer programs in four cities in the United Statesa city in the East, one in the West, and two in the South. This 7-year study tracked nearly 900 men and their female partners every three months over a four-year follow-up period. Through much time and expense, we maintained an exceptional 70% response rate for all but the last year of the study, which ended in a 60% response rate. The follow-up amassed over 12,000 interviews. We are currently conducting research that tests the effectiveness of specialized batterer counseling for African-American men, social casework management for batterers, and the supplemental mental health or psychiatric treatment for some batterers. This report shares some of the lessons from this batterer research and evaluation, and more broadly from the experience of batterer programs in the United States. The lessons, however, are drawn from one country with a very imposing but contradictory culture of its own. It is a culture that famously reinforces interpersonal violence yet has strong punitive measures against it. It certainly has vestiges of male privilege and dominance, but also nearly 40 years of feminist action and change. It has a battered womens movement and an opposing fathers rights movement. Our experience with batterer programs, therefore, does not, and should not, directly apply to other countries and cultures. I believe, however, that the 25 years of batterer programs in the United States have exposed some useful principles that might offer a guide or reinforcement to similar work in other countries. I attempt in this report to present an overview of batterer programs in my countrythe big picture so to speak. Ill begin with the emergence of batterer programs and the assumptions they were built on. I will also discuss their development within the criminal justice system. Then, I will summarize an area that Im particularly involved inthe effectiveness of these programs. I will finish with the current issues we face in batterer programs and the new directions or innovations being considered. One of these of course is the effort to better address the batterers victimization of children. I realize that most practitioners are interested in the clinical aspects of this workthe nuts and bolts as we call it in the United States. But Ive come to believe that some sense of the big picture helps us understand why we are doing what we are doing; the relationship we need to have with other agencies, programs, and services; and the direction we ought to be heading. HISTORY Batterer programs in the United States began in the late 1970s as a response to the womens movement that was beginning to establish shelters for battered women and expose violence against women as an extension of male control and dominance. I can remember helping out with one of these early programs. It was basically a group discussion about mens abuse of women and particularly the control and power we men exercise in relationships. The main goal of the group was to treat women better, help them feel safer, and allow them more power in relationships. So-called batterers came to these groups mainly out of an effort to get their wife back or to avoid going to jail. These beginnings are significant for two reasons. The so-called client in these cases was really the batterers wife or woman friend. Unlike conventional psychotherapy, the object was not to make the men feel good. The approach was also judgmental and value-based. It asserted that the violence and abuse was wrong and had to be stoppedregardless of excuses, personal pain, and provocation. As a result, the early batterer programs developed in contrast, and even opposition, to conventional psychotherapy and mental health treatment. Many battered womens advocates, in fact, felt that those conventional approaches too often sympathized with batterers and reinforced their violencerather than confronted it. Two things happened in the late 1980s that shaped batterer programs further. One, most programs began to adopt the skill-building, avoidance techniques, and curriculum of the cognitive-behavioral work being done with other kinds of violent offenders and soldiers returning from combat. In the process, the batterer programs shifted from loosely structured discussion about gender issues to more highly structured instructional classes about how to stop violence and abuse. This revised approach was more efficient for dealing with the increased numbers of men coming to the programs. The programs cognitive behavioral approach focused 1) on the thought process preceding violent incidentsthe cognitive part and 2) on the behavior itselfthe tactics, circumstances, and reactions in violent incidents. It remains very much focused on stopping the violenceand views discussion of ones personal past or other problems (such as, unemployment) as a tangent, and even a diversion, from why the men are in the program. These developments result in the gender-based cognitive-behavioral approach as prevailing modality of today. This approach is reflected, however, in a variety of curricula with different exercises and topicsbut basically the same principles. The second major event of the 1980s was the sudden rise of men being sent to batterer programs by the courts. Police departments across the country, supported by state legislation, adopted mandatory arrest policies. If there was evidence of a conflict in the home, the police were required to make an arrest rather than try to merely calm the situation or reprimand the man and woman. The new arrest policies were a response to legal pressures and research results: A million dollar negligence suit against the police in a small East Coast city, and a highly-publicized field experiment of police practices in the Mid-West. In the law suit, a woman was nearly beaten to death by her husband after the police had been called to her house twice and did not do anything to protect her. The field experiment showed that arrest, compared to giving advice or calming the man, was the most effective in reducing the rate of future assault. The new arrest policies packed the courts with batterers, and the courts turned to batterer programs as an alternative to sending men to already over-crowded jails or putting them on poorly supervised probation. We had another innovation in the 1990s to more efficiently deal with the influx of arrested batterers and offer better justice to battered women: specialized domestic violence courts. They follow the example of specialized alcohol and drug courts that send offenders to alcohol treatment with the threat of a jail sentence if they do not comply. The domestic violence courts hear only domestic violence cases with staff trained in domestic violence and working in the interest of victims. Many of these courts also monitor batterers compliance to batterer programs. If the men fail to attend or pay, they receive additional penalties, such as jail, fines, or additional programming. In this way, coercion has been added to the batterer program education or counseling. We use the word accountability in the United States to refer to this key element of ensuring sanctions for the batterers behavior. A clear message is sent that battering will not be tolerated. The history of batterer programs has taken us from independent discussion groups to an intervention system of what is termed coordinated community response. Police arrest policies, specialized domestic violence courts, legal advisors for the victims, civil protection orders, batterer programs, supervision of batterer compliance, supportive services for the battered woman, and additional treatments for the batterer (such as, alcohol and drug treatment) ideally work together and reinforce each other. There are now some integrated domestic courts that hear not only domestic violence charges, but also give civil protection orders and consider child custody problems associated with each case. The impact of this intervention system can be seen in the numbers. In Pittsburgh, my home city of a half million people, the arrest rate went from under 1,000 per year in the late 1980s to nearly 4,000 a year in the mid-1990s. At least half of the arrested men were sent to batterer programsabout 2,000 a year by the mid-1990s. Here is a further contrast that highlights the role of the courts in batterer programs: Australia has a much less punitive approach to crime than the United States and relies on voluntary participation in batterer programs. A recent study in Australia found that only 2,100 men per year enrolled in batterer programs in a country of nearly 20 millionthe same number of men sent to batterer programs in the city of Pittsburgh with only a half million population. EVALUATION The crucial question that has beset batterer programs since their beginnings is: Do they work? Are they effective in reducing violence against women, or are they a false hope misleading battered women? There have been two kinds of response. One is what we sometimes call authority based. That is, program staff draw on their philosophy, observation, and expertise to say, Yes, batterer programs work! and use this experience to promote their programs. Another response to the question is empirically based which uses more systematic data collection of scientific design to assess effectivenessin what we might call impartial program evaluations. Program effectiveness is less clear from these empirical studies. The 1993 Violence Against Women Act provided funding for several substantial empirical evaluations of batterer programs and domestic violence in general. Among these were three separate experimental evaluations of batterer programs, including one at a military base. These experiments randomly assigned men arrested for domestic violence to either a batterer program or to only probation. All three evaluations, showed very little benefit from the batterer program. In other words, the men in the batterer program were almost as likely as the men not sent to the program to be violent during a one-year follow-up period. Despite what appears as a highly scientific design, there are many serious problems with these studies that make the results difficult to accept. I have discussed these problems at length in several articles. One main problem is that the experiments show only the intention to treat and not the effect of actually getting treatment. The so-called experimental group includes a high number of dropouts as well as program completers. But there were also serious problems in implementing the experiments: in one study, lawyers filed a court case against the random assignment, at another study the judge rejected the random assignment of some cases and the program itself was modified in the middle of the study. In another evaluation, only 20% of the women were contacted during the follow-up. We had more positive results in our multi-site study mentioned previously. The extent of our data collection and large sample size enabled us to conduct some sophisticated analyses popular in the public health field: instrumental variable analysis and propensity score analysis. These approaches statistically construct the conditions of an experiment without random assignment and the implementation problems it brings. They also get closer to a true representation of dose effectthat is, the effect of actually attending a treatment rather than just being sent to it. Our results showed a 50% reduction in the likelihood of re-assault during a 15-month follow-up. We did several other analyses to confirm this apparent program effect. For instance, we did a quantitative study of the effect of deterrence from the threat of re-arrest, and a qualitative summary of womens attributions of the mens change. Moreover, approximately 85% of the women felt very safe and 70% reported that the overall quality of their life was improved. Consequently, we concluded that batterer programs can work. We find further encouragement in the de-escalation of physical and verbal abuse over time (instead of an escalation of abuse after the program). A third of all the batterer program participants (both program completers and dropouts) were violent in the first year and nearly 45% for the full four years. About half of these re-assaults were what we termed severe in that they caused bruises or injuries of some kind. You get a very different picture, however, if you look at the results retrospectively, rather than cumulatively like the previous evaluations do. Researchers doing evaluation of alcohol treatment argue that this retrospective interpretation is a fairer way to evaluate program effect. As can be seen in Figure 1 below, the majority of program participants who did re-assault their female partners did so in the first 6-9 months after starting the program. But by two years after the program, 80% of the men had not assaulted their initial or new partner in the previous year. By the end of the four-year follow-up, 90% of the men had not assaulted their partners in the previous year. In other words, it took sometime for the program to take effect or for the men to respond, but the majority of men eventually did stop their violenceand also reduced other forms of abuse.  We do have an additional finding that reinforces the relationship of the batterer programs to the criminal justice systemthe coercion aspect which I mentioned earlier. The four batterer programs in our multi-site evaluation represented a range of format and extent. The shortest program was a highly-structured three-month program with little or no additional services. The longest program used more of a discussion format, lasted 9 months, and included individual assessment and additional services. We expected that the longest and more comprehensive program would be the most effective. The outcome of the four programs was, however, about the same. Our subsequent studies exposed why that was the case. For one, the dropout rate was over 50% for the 9-month program compared to only 30% in the 3-month program. The men who may have benefited most from additional sessions and services never received them. Secondly, the men were enrolled in the short program within two weeks of arrest and subject to a review before the judge every month. If they were not complying with the program they were immediately punished with fines or jail. In criminal justice terms, there was a swift and certain response. The men at the 9-month program entered the program an average of 4 months after the arrest, and they were supervised only occasionally by probation officers. Penalties for their absence or re-assault were uncertain. There are many more details to our assessment of the intervention systems, but, in short, we concluded that the system is important. It is vital to the effectiveness of batterer programs. The programs do not stand alone. We have one other major finding. This one takes us back to the concern that many battered womens advocates have felt since the beginnings of batterer programs. Approximately, 20% of the men re-assaulted their partners early after being sent to the programs and did so again later in the follow-up. And about 12% of the women reported that their lives worsened after the batterer programs. Many of these women had horrifying stories to tell, and those stories can certainly give batterer programs a bad reputation. These chronically and severely violent men were responsible for most all of the injuries inflicted on the women. The most important challenge facing batterer programs is to identify these highly dangerous men, supervise and contain them, and better protect their victims. A great deal of effort is currently devoted to identifying risk factors associated with re-assault, distinguishing various types of batterers, and developing risk assessment tests to differentiate the most dangerous men. There are basically three types of risk assessment tests currently being used. The first type is checklists of factors generally associated with more severe violence and murders of women, such as the Lethality Checklist. While the factors increase the likelihood of severe violence, as a list they do not increase the correct identification of men who do become severely violent following the test. A second type is indexes of items that are weighted and scored in a way that improves the correct identification or prediction. These tests need, however, to be filled out by the battered women to obtain correct and accurate information about previous violence. The Danger Assessment is the best known of these. A third type of risk assessment is rating scales for a number of items completed by clinicians. These assessments, most notably the Spouse Abuse Risk Assessment (SARA), require training and documentation (for example, arrest records) that are often not available. The Danger Assessment and SARA do improve prediction beyond so-called clinical judgment, but still correctly identify at best 70% of the repeatedly violent men, according to follow-up research. That is only 20% better than chance, with 30% of the most violent men misidentified. We have been heavily involved in this research and can confirm that it is difficult to readily identify the men who repeatedly re-assault for a variety of reasons. One reason is that the most dangerous men are a diverse group with a variety of personality tendencies and characteristics. As we investigate the men who continue their assaults through our four-year follow-up, the most striking finding is that they continue to get away with violence. There is no additional or intensified intervention in response to their additional assaults. If the criminal justice system were tightened to simply contain these men who re-assault, the problem would be substantially reduced. There is now a government study in progress testing ways to do this. The ways to better contain repeatedly violent men rely mostly on increased surveillance and restriction. A few batterer programs are requiring several sessions per week for re-offenders or severely violent men. This approach intensifies the counseling treatment and supervision. Another approach combines alcohol treatment and psychological counseling with the batterer program in order to address the compounding problems that may be contributing to the severe violence. The most restrictive approach is immediate jailing for men who are at high risk for re-offense and requiring these men to attended batterer counseling conducted in jail. One of the most effective ways to improve the identification of the men in need of more intensive and extensive intervention is on-going risk assessment. In this approach, assessments are made once every month or two through contact with the battered women as well as her batterer. The nature and extent of the intervention is revised or tailored in response to each assessment. For instance, if a man has dropped out of alcohol treatment and increased his drinking, he would be jailed for violation of probation and required to attend batterer counseling and alcohol treatment in jail. CURRENT ISSUES AND NEW DIRECTIONS Batterer programs are still a relatively young effort. Alcohol treatment programs, for instance, have been in existence since the 1930sfor over twice as long as batterer programsand with greater funding. There have been growing pains and issues that remain. One is a debate over the most effective counseling approach or modality. Some clinicians are promoting more psycho-dynamic therapy that addresses the mens personal problems and personality dysfunction. Some argue for couples counseling or accompanying treatment for the women, who are sometimes violent themselves. Others argue for diversifying the programs and sending different kinds of men to different approaches. From a research point of view, there is yet no substantial evidence to require any of these alternatives, and counter research suggesting that the prevailing cognitive-behavioral approach is the most appropriate and efficient for the vast majority of batterers. This approach, for instance, is highly recommended for individuals with narcissistic or antisocial tendencies which typify the men in our study. Evaluations of treatment for sex offenders have a similar finding. (There is, however, agreement that men with alcohol problems need to be referred to alcohol treatment and men with major psychiatric disorders to mental health treatmentin addition to a batterer program, but not in place of it.) Another question--one directly relevant to this conference--is how to extend these batterer programs to specifically reduce child abuse and child exposure to violence. There is a well-funded initiative to increase the link between domestic violence services, including batterer programs, and child abuse services. Batterer programs are doing some of the following things as a result: referring batterers to child abuse services for additional treatment for them and their family, or instructing batterers on parenting techniques as a part of their curriculum. We recently did a study on another option: dual-programming. Men with access to children under 13 were sent to double-decker sessions: that is, they went to a 1-hour class on battering their female partners followed by an hour class on child abuse and parenting skillsboth sessions were at the same location. The latter class was led by staff from the child abuse services. Having the classes following one another improved attendance and reduced the lack of compliance associated with outside referrals. It also ensured coordination between the batterer counseling and parenting instruction in terms of message, approach, and issues. The major accomplishment in this area has been in establishing collaborations between child abuse services and battered womens programs. In the past, these efforts were often in conflict over philosophy, emphasis, and approach. Their collaborations have led to specialized family courts that assess and address child abuse and woman abuse in one court hearing rather than in separate courts, supervised visitation that requires a known batterer to see his children only under the supervision of a social worker, and home visitations from social workers to observe the well-being and protection of children in what has been a violent home. One of the biggest concerns has been over the many children exposed to violence between their parents, but not necessarily assaulted themselves. Most of the battered womens programs currently offer various forms of counseling, play therapy, and art therapy for children from violent homes. This not only offers a way to help children deal with the impact of such violence, but also a way to monitor the childrens safety and invoke further intervention when needed (such as, further court action against the batterer or restrictions on his visitation). One more issue. The thrust of the last two decades has been to criminalize mens violence against women. There is no doubt the number of men arrested or subject to protection orders has increased, and the majority of their partners are safer. Batterer programs have evolved to a gender-based cognitive behavioral approach that is distinct from conventional psychotherapy or social work. Coercion and oversight from the courts appears to complement this specialized batterer counseling or education. But we know that these programs reach only a small portion of the men who are abusive to their female partners and children. Therefore, many experts in the United States now believe that an over-emphasis on criminal intervention has overlooked many batterers and abusive men, and has narrowed our definition of domestic violence to apply to only criminals. We ultimately need to recommit ourselves to the prevention of domestic violence. We need to educate men and women throughout society about healthy relationships, mutual respect, and anti-violencejust as a variety of groups have worked to create awareness and precautions about problems like drunk driving. Even with our limited approach and persistent issues, we can take heart. A recent report from the U.S. Department of Justice identified a 40% decrease in the incidence of woman battering in the last ten years. This is a remarkable decline attributed to increased intervention with batterers, expanded services for battered women, and heightened public awareness. There continues to be an unacceptable murder rate of battered women and troubling portion of unrelenting batterers. There is also a higher level of woman battering in poor and crime-ridden neighborhoods that needs to be addressed with broader social programs. Nonetheless, a prevailing message has been established that men can and must stop their violenceand that message is obviously being heard. NOTE: A summary of batterer program evaluations and of our multi-site program evaluation is presented in the book, Batterer Intervention Systems: Issues, Outcomes, and Recommendations (Sage Publications, 2002). Reports and a listing of research articles are available at our website  HYPERLINK "http://www.iup.edu/maati/publications" http://www.iup.edu/maati/publications Edward W. Gondolf, EdD, MPH Mid-Atlantic Addiction Training Institute (MAATI) 1098 Oakland Ave. vlog Indiana, PA 15705 USA Phone: 724-357-4749; Fax: 724-357-3944 E-mail:  HYPERLINK "mailto:EGondolf@Grove.IUP.edu" egondolf@ iup.edu Website:  HYPERLINK "http://www.iup.edu/maati/publications" http://www.iup.edu/maati/publications Revised: December 31, 2003     PAGE  PAGE 16 56~U \ h D X ] ^ b i u ~    0 = иЯЯЯhqhh^J hf^J hDJ^J hq^Jhqh|m^Jhqh1^J hqm^Jhqh^J h1^Jhqhv%^Jhqh85^JhyzW hyzW5 h5hyzWhyzW5667j +  "'*-000 d1$`gdi d1$gdi d1$gdqm $1$a$gdqmIsos#\]Ohnw}!&56vhqhk2^J h+~^JhqhV^Jhqha^J h\=^Jhqh|m^Jhqhm8^JhqhqC^Jhqh1^J hf^JhqhW@^Jhqh^Jhqhh^J h^Jhqh43^J hqm^JhqhL^J.*+6Eeg~L]P 49  -:EKVXoʸӸӸ詍{{hqh^JhqhV^JhqhV5^Jhqha^JhqhNT,^JhqhH0 ^J hqm^Jhqh^JhqhDF^Jhqh) ^J h+~^J hq^JhqhW@^Jhqhk2^J hf^JhqhV^J/o%%()*9-.Dip* 4 K L ;;;;辬hqhqm^JhqhnV^Jhqh9"^Jhqha^JhqhQp^J hqm^JhqhDu^Jhqhv^JhqhV^Jhqh^J h\=^JhqhO0^J^Jhqh/-^JhqhA}^Jhqh!S^Jhqh9"^Jhqhv^J hqm^Jhqh@ ^J h@ ^JhqhQp^J h\=^Jhqh^JhqhnV^J3%%%%%%&2&6&:&J&P&j&k&&&' ''r'y'''`(a(b(c(f(g(x(((()))))))******++",Ǿ徵ео壙У壐~hqh^JhqhC^Jhqh^JhqhT>*^JhqhT^JhqhHR^Jhqh?R^Jhqh^Jhqh%o^J h@ ^JhqhQ^J hqm^Jhqh!S^Jhqhx^Jhqh^J0",,,,,,,+-,-v------------ .+.H.I.b.m.n.v.3//////090;00000000|shqh^Jhqh?R5^Jhqh5^Jhqh1^Jhqhz"^J h=9^J hqm^Jhqh!P^Jhqh^e>*^Jhqh^e^Jhqh%o^Jhqh,l^Jhqh^JhqhT^Jhqh!S^JhqhI^J,000111131N1O1c111112-20212224262L2O2222222333H3y33334&4*4'55666v6{777778ĻĻĻĵĵĻĻĬģģđhqhg[^Jhqh'O^Jhqh^JhqhON^Jhqh^J h ^Jhqh}^Jhqh^Jhqh ^JhqhVB^Jhqhb%^J hqm^JhqhO^Jhqh@-\^J40369r=3@BBHwKPTbWYYYC_c|fh>m?p@pqq=r*s1$gdqm d1$`gdi d1$gdi8M8S8l888888888899S9^9h99999^;;;;;W<]<<<<3=4=C=M=N=j=k=o=q=r==>> >>5>6>[>\>>>ĻIJĻĩөĠėė藎Ͳͻhqh0^Jhqha^JhqhXf^Jhqh1^Jhqh^Jhqh^JhqhiBo^JhqhG4^J h^J hqm^J ht|^Jhqh}^Jhqh ^J h ^JhqhJ^J4>>>>>>>>>>>/?7?H?O?k?l?m???????2@3@4@N@T@W@AAA@AUAAA2B9BGBBBBBBBBBCC߾诸ߦߦߓhqh[Y^JjhhwUhqhZ^Jhwh '6^Jhqh '^JhqhXf^J hw^J hiBo^Jhqh%^Jhqh^Jhqh-z^JhqhiBo^J h^Jhqh0^Jhqha^J1CC.CSC^CCCCDD1D3D7D9DBDCDNDPDsDDDDEE EEE(E3FFFGGGnHoHxHyHHIIZI[III3J^Jhqh/^JhqhU@^5^Jhqh;5^JhqhU@^^Jhqhm^J h_^J hDJ^J hm^J h^Jhqh%^Jhqh;^J h k^J+C_K_S__}```a!a"a&a.a;aIaTaYaaaaabbbbb4bCbbbLc[cccccccccccddd{f|fffohhhhhhhhhh;ĵܑhqhu%^Jhqh^J h^J hc8^J hM S^Jhqhm\mrmmmmmmmnnnnnrowooooopp$p=p>p?pǾ͵͵͵ͬǣhqhgj^Jhqhv^JhqhY9^Jhqhl^Jhqhqp^Jhqhdh^J hqm^J h)^Jhqha^Jhqhp1=^Jhqhl^Jhqhn!f^Jhqh_^J7?p@pppppp q-q5q\q]qqqqqqqqrrrrrrrrrsss(s)s*speUejhqhPU^JhqhP0J^Jj hqhPU^JjhqhPU^JhqhP^J hP^Jhqh)0J^JjO hqh)U^Jhqh)^Jjhqh)U^J hKn^J h| ^J hp6^J hqm6^Jh)h)6^J h)^Jhqh:/^J!*s+sFsGsIsKsLsNsOsQsRsTsUs^s_s`slsmsnsospsh]hgdP &`#$gdP1$gdqm*s=s>ҲѲʲղղԲDz͸,0Ա>m x] p>@Bj(BӀ@| !*! DhF~, I LʏŶ3S`pDK(:hRKc)C+XJv"G[JI=7þ64i.zy{=wϞsٽ{Z0N~O <◊PBcs 9X?{"9=a]Hs݁Ѓ~*]T#!WnkZ m\rzq: NH.R7Ѻ~el:1cNjp:[j. z+d[B#zF51~rv+~q]ByuVXՕ6AAF P8DFO^Xg!x&~3Y)&6 &qتx)M}Bx%V цiSۿT>W6_h,߶ܖr[n?*9q7z+^݌={&{ j7coz޵*~Z]+coj\Oܖ_7]Ct7u\RM\}\_x586;6ڧm> hd:RV8XR"ph:"6؏˕\ݗẹcOӱ˴}e+ 3§Ry ş :B/l  #/ GV*M$_+}W\ߘW *!;ӂZN,:&_( fo\ Y!#6M_Kq>.e6a/G] F'fߘ+旡7WG^{8L_rb2Lh"B䷈^!E/_AcFk +pڥP룪Me!6f>k7Ğs!-Cq9DHv޶e 2՟ٲ )f3my5-/-45$ގwUCmQc`2[zbH}jRuF u}Lef@[- eE@[-l˖ld[0ؖco h mm}} Mc7-!Tmh-"-L9֛ۉb.U]K9θup܅oiw4܌I-~W6t wqo.t{> y׀ƍYHc,h('*^(AÃ;n`hX\Ɗ!onTgOmNh mvț*u·g}kPk27u*^q؎Ýo&;?xuxStt %f! *g~9c)s1yȹ<*oN)CHEy fr<iYv؟S}6ǟE֟]sh1rO̶u;/28%KTdii3_3ER4,xYji]F:h'.~F ? S?NVi2{-H̟֟~zim; 0~ISR(Wvt_sO#E1e W^K2}Nz_JGsSr]n#7i_~ eqdgr'#V X+B%/#fG~s % ?X d} $,y,yI(*˿GK|kɫ?`zGle1^BikdkkK۾۩< 6D~89}H0P[~"ϧ;ώ}#m1sܫal|̟{l_| 6bٶڗS&!(DB HV8CZe^^Å(T.@Qڳw.=W*$~?gcb)1xM=X03wsw|pWwewFC;qȸ{wʸW}q4பqW7cs=8޻pG y}j7->G>{, =?ig6d37{o=Ctcbx]be`ggyϵdzPoL9$GXg~_/Ab׽_={HWw($^_=k5Z/Ok}=ñc9=M) udi_<9Ƥ#xr cA,;:zv7Ցh=r)4Ԣ3졳ݷ/Pزq0ǵL./< 5p:6O2FkICw%oPd lv og(5񑙮D2mB0z}5L} 7:$77hgk{ɷV ;\}O2z|چA/_>mDyK yK Lhttp://www.iup.edu/maati/publicationsDyK yK <mailto:EGondolf@Grove.IUP.eduDyK yK Lhttp://www.iup.edu/maati/publicationsH@H Normal CJOJQJ_HaJmH sH tH DA@D Default Paragraph FontViV  Table Normal :V 44 la (k(No List 4@4 PHeader  !.)@. P Page Number0U@0 P Hyperlink>*B*H"H Xy Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJpk67j+  "%(((+.1r538::@wCHLbOQQQCW[|^`>e?h@hii=j*k+kFkGkIkLkOkRkUk^k_k`klkmkqky0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y0y000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000y00y00y00y00y00`Ny00y00@0@0y00 %%%%%(oL %",08>JTh?*:=>?0*;Dz<\iiijjjjk(kpkXXX !(!!)k:Xl:\Um:Un:lo:p:lq:3r:,s:t:u:Tv:Tw:x:y:(z:QvZ8)\HMqkx@ pkP@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial5& zaTahoma"1hÈFÈF|fF[6F[6!4dkk2qHX ?O2 INTRODUCTIONEdward GondolfcdeemerRoot Entry FOT|@Data P1TableXWordDocument7  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOQRSTUVWYZ[\]^_`abcdefgoklunp}qvm~j՜.+,D՜.+,l(  6kG INTRODUCTION Titlex x 0  t ( 0 < H$ p  _PID_HLINKS EktContentIDEktContentLanguage EktFolderId EktQuickLinkEktContentTypeEktFolderName EktCmsPath EktExpiryType EktDateCreated EktDateModified EktTaxCategory EktCmsSizeEktSearchableEktEDescriptionEktShowEventsEktContentID64EktFolderId64 EktInPermekttaxonomyenabledAtZ&http://www.iup.edu/maati/publicationsG[5mailto:EGondolf@Grove.IUP.eduGZ&http://www.iup.edu/maati/publicationsG[ k.e@k@k$$$$$$\$ \$ \$ \$ \$ \$ EN WHO BATTER THEIR WIVESIN THE UNITED STATESEdward W. GondolfMid-Atlantic Addiction Training InstituteIndiana University of Pennsylvania (USA)INTRODUCTIONOne of the m ost notable and perhaps controversial innovations in dealing with domestic &lt;/p&gt;T&lt;p&gt;3 congresso Nazionale CISMAI, Firenze, Dicembre 2003COUNSELING PROGRAMS FOR MEN WHO BATTER THEIR WIVESIN THE UNITED STATESEdward W. GondolfMid-Atlantic Addiction Training InstituteIndiana University of Pennsylvania (USA)INTRODUCTIONOne of the m SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8 CompObjqBagaaqy23kudbhchAaq5u2chNd8`h`he m ost notable and perhaps controversial innovations in dealing with domestic &lt;/p&gt;EktTaxCategory VESIN THE UNITED STATESEdward W. GondolfMid-Atlantic Addiction Training InstituteIndiana University of Pennsylvania (USA)INTRODUCTIONOne of the m ost notable and perhaps controversial innovations in dealing with domestic &lt;/p&gt;i DownloadAsset.aspx?id=69211EktSearchableEktEDescriptionEktShowEventsAtZ&http://www.iup.edu/maati/publicationsGRoot Entry F$:|@Data P1TableXWordDocument7  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOQRSTUVWYZ[\]^_`abcdefgn}owxyzm~t՜.+,D՜.+,l(  6kG INTRODUCTION Titlex x 0  t ( 0 < H[k.\Summary &lt;p&gt;3 congresso Nazionale CISMAI, Firenze, Dicembre 2003COUNSELING PROGRAMS FOR MEN WHO BATTER THEIR WIVESIN THE UNITED STATESEdward W. GondolfMid-Atlantic Addiction Training InstituteIndiana University of Pennsylvania (USA)INTRODUCTIONOne of the m ost notable and perhaps controversial innovations in dealing with domestic &lt;/p&gt;T&lt;p&gt;3 congresso Nazionale CISMAI, Firenze, Dicembre 2003COUNSELING PROGRAMS FOR MEN WHO BATTER THEIR WIcembre 2003COUNSELING PROGRAMS F$ p  _PID_HLINKS EktContentIDEktContentLanguage EktFolderId EktQuickLinkEktContentTypeEktFolderName EktCmsPath EktExpiryType EktDateCreated EktDateModified EktTaxCategory EktCmsSizeEktSearchableEktEDescriptionEktShowEventsEktContentID64EktFolderId64 EktInPermekttaxonomyenabledAtZ&http://www.iup.edu/maati/publicationsG[5mailto:EGondolf@Grove.IUP.eduGZ&http://www.iup.edu/maati/publicationsG[ k.e@k@k$$$$$$\$ \$ \$ \$ \$ \$  [k.\Summary &lt;p&gt;3 congresso Nazionale CISMAI, Firenze, Dicembre 2003COUNSELING PROGRAMS FOR MEN WHO BATTER THEIR WIVESIN THE UNITED STATESEdward W. GondolfMid-Atlantic Addiction Training InstituteIndiana University of Pennsylvania (USA)INTRODUCTIONOne of the m ost notable and perhaps controversial innovations in dealing with domestic &lt;/p&gt;T&lt;p&gt;3 congresso Nazionale CISMAI, Firenze, Dicembre 2003COUNSELING PROGRAMS FOR MEN WHO BATTER THEIR WIre 2003COUNSELING PROGRAMS FOR M 7 !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456L89:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKMNOPQRST  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q ]8O8m008@H DAV:getcontentlanguageen-usOh+'0\< THCONTENTS \x@G@:[@l@lF[*BattererInterventionEuropeanPractitionersMr. Bruce V. Dries bvdriesMr. Bruce V. Dries bvdriesT&lt;p&gt;3 congresso Nazionale CISMAI, Firenze, Dicembost notable and perhaps controversial innovations in dealing with domestic &lt;/p&gt;EktTaxCategory VESIN THE UNITED STATESEdward W. GondolfMid-Atlantic Addiction Training InstituteIndiana University of Pennsylvania (USA)INTRODUCTIONOne of the m ost notable and perhaps controversial innovations in dealing with domestic &lt;/p&gt;i DownloadAsset.aspx?id=69211EktSearchableEktEDescriptionEktShowEventsAtZ&http://www.iup.edu/maati/publicationsG