The (Dubious?) Benefits of Second Chances in Batterer Intervention Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In batterer intervention programs, there are conflicting recommendations about best practices for responding to client dropout. Risk management philosophies emphasize the importance of swift and sure sanctions for failure to comply with program attendance requirements. In contrast, change theory emphasizes the importance of providing clients with multiple opportunities to engage in treatment. To clarify the implications of each of these philosophies, the current study examined rates of program dropout, reinstatement, and completion in a consecutive sample of 294 probation-mandated clients referred to a large batterer intervention program. Just over half (53.7%) of men completed intervention on their first attempt. Over the 2-year follow-up study period, 73 clients were reinstated once by the intervention program, 23 clients were reinstated twice, and 5 clients reinstated three (or more) times. Reinstated clients were, in general, more similar to men who failed to complete than those who completed on their first attempt. Although rates of dropout at each reentry point were quite high (56% to 80%), 32 of the 73 (43.7%) reinstated clients eventually completed. There were significant costs associated with providing clients with additional chances to complete the program, with successful reinstatement requiring an average of 7.55 phone calls to clients, 3.82 phone calls to referral agents, one letter, and 0.73 in-person meetings. Results are discussed in terms of practice and policy implications of risk management and change theory approaches to dropout.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".