Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

A randomized controlled trial of restorative justice-informed treatment for domestic violence crimes

A Publisher Correction to this article was published on 01 October 2019

This article has been updated


Recent innovation in domestic violence (DV) treatment suggests that when a batterer intervention programme (BIP) is combined with clinical elements, including motivational or readiness to change strategies, subsequent incidents of violence can be reduced. Prompted by previous research on restorative justice in reducing recidivism in crimes other than DV, a randomized controlled trial in Utah, USA, compared a typical BIP with one that included restorative justice-informed treatment, called circles of peace (CP). The findings reveal that the ‘hybrid’ BIP-plus-CP resulted in statistically significant reductions in both new arrests (53%) and crime severity scores (52%) for all offences, including DV, over a 24-month period. We conclude that a hybrid BIP-plus-CP programme should be considered as a viable treatment option for DV offenders. Implications for DV victims are discussed, as are the study’s limitations, including the fact that some elements typical of restorative justice programmes could not be attained in this DV context.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it


Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: CONSORT flowchart.
Fig. 2: Estimated marginal means and 95% Wald CI for difference in new arrests and severity.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding authors upon request.

Change history

  • 01 October 2019

    An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.


  1. Barocas, B., Emery, D. & Mills, L. G. Changing the domestic violence narrative: aligning definitions and standards. J. Fam. Violence 31, 941–947 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Pennell, J. & Burford, G. Family group decision making: protecting children and women. Child Welf. 79, 131–158 (2000).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Pennell, J. Restorative practices and child welfare: toward an inclusive civil society. J. Soc. Issues 62, 257–277 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Truman, J. L. & Morgan, R. E. Nonfatal Domestic Violence 2003–2014 (US Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2014).

  5. Petrosky, E. et al. Racial and ethnic differences in homicides of adult women and the role of intimate partner violence—United States, 2003–2014. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 66, 741–746 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. No More Secrets: Utah Domestic and Sexual Violence Report (Utah Governor’s Office on Domestic and Sexual Violence, 2014).

  7. Domestic Violence Fatalities in Utah (Utah Department of Health, Violence, and Injury Prevention Program, 2010).

  8. Aaron, S. M. & Beaulaurier, R. L. The need for new emphasis on Batterers Intervention Programs. Trauma Violence Abuse 18, 425–432 (2017).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gondolf, E. W. Theoretical and research support for the Duluth Model: a reply to Dutton and Corvo. Aggress. Violent Behav. 12, 644–657 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  10. What is the Duluth Model? (Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, 2019).

  11. Barner, J. R. & Carney, M. M. Interventions for intimate partner violence: a historical review. J. Fam. Violence 26, 235–244 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Price, B. J. & Rosenbaum, A. Batterer Intervention Programs: a report from the field. Violence Vict. 24, 757–770 (2009).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Dalton, B. What’s going on out there? A survey of Batterer Intervention Programs. J. Aggress. Maltreat. Trauma 15, 59–74 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Boal, A. L. & Mankowski, E. S. The impact of legislative standards on Batterer Intervention Program practices and characteristics. Am. J. Community Psychol. 53, 218–230 (2014).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Cannon, C., Hamel, J., Buttell, F. & Ferreira, R. J. A survey of domestic violence perpetrator programs in the US and Canada: findings and implications for policy and intervention. Partner Abuse 7, 226–276 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Rosenbaum, A. & Leisring, P. A. Group intervention programs for batterers. J. Aggress. Maltreat. Trauma 5, 57–71 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Corvo, K., Dutton, D. & Chen, W. Y. Toward evidence-based practice with domestic violence perpetrators. J. Aggress. Maltreat. Trauma 16, 111–130 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Herman, K., Rotunda, R., Williamson, G. & Vodanovich, S. Outcomes from a Duluth model Batterer Intervention Program at completion and long-term follow-up. J. Offender Rehabil. 53, 1–18 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Maiuro, R. D. & Eberle, J. A. State standards for domestic violence perpetrator treatment: current status, trends, and recommendations. Violence Vict. 23, 133–155 (2008).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tomsich, E. A., Tunstall, A. M. & Gover, A. R. in The Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment 1–8 (Wiley, 2016).

  21. McCollum, E. E. & Stith, S. M. Couples treatment for interpersonal violence: a review of outcome research literature and current clinical practices. Violence Vict. 23, 187–201 (2008).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mills, L. G., Barocas, B. & Ariel, B. The next generation of court-mandated domestic violence treatment: a comparison study of Batterer Intervention and Restorative Justice Programs. J. Exp. Criminol. 9, 65–90 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Stith, S. M., Rosen, K. H., McCollum, E. E. & Thomsen, C. J. Treating intimate partner violence within intact couple relationships: outcomes of multi-couple versus individual couple therapy. J. Marital Fam. Ther. 30, 305–318 (2004).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Babcock, J. C., Green, C. E. & Robie, C. Does batterers’ treatment work? A meta-analytic review of domestic violence treatment. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 23, 1023–1053 (2004).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Eckhardt, C. I. et al. The effectiveness of intervention programs for perpetrators and victims of intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse 4, 196–231 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Arias, E., Arce, R. & Vilariño, M. Batterer Intervention Programmes: a meta-analytic review of effectiveness. Psychosoc. Interv. 22, 153–160 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Haggård, U., Freij, I., Danielsson, M., Wenander, D. & Långström, N. Effectiveness of the IDAP treatment program for male perpetrators of intimate partner violence: a controlled study of criminal recidivism. J. Interpers. Violence 32, 1027–1043 (2017).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Jackson, S. et al. Batterer Intervention Programs: Where Do We Go from Here? NCJ No. 195079 (National Institute of Justice, 2003).

  29. Gondolf, E. W. Evaluating batterer counseling programs: a difficult task showing some effects and implications. Aggress. Violent Behav. 9, 605–631 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Lila, M., Gracia, E. & Catalá-Miñana, A. Individualized motivational plans in Batterer Intervention Programs: a randomized clinical trial. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 86, 309–320 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Alexander, P. C., Morris, E., Tracy, A. & Frye, A. Stages of change and the group treatment of batterers: a randomized clinical trial. Violence Vict. 25, 571–587 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Babcock, J. C. et al. Domestic violence perpetrator programs: a proposal for evidence-based standards in the United States. Partner Abuse 7, 355–460 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Romero-Martínez, Á., Lila, M., Gracia, E. & Moya-Albiol, L. Improving empathy with motivational strategies in Batterer Intervention Programmes: results of a randomized controlled trial. Br. J. Clin. Psychol. 58, 125–139 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Zarling, A., Lawrence, E. & Marchman, J. A randomized controlled trial of acceptance and commitment therapy for aggressive behavior. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 83, 199–212 (2015).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Easton, C. J., Crane, C. A. & Mandel, D. A randomized controlled trial assessing the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy for substance-dependent domestic violence offenders: an integrated substance abuse-domestic violence treatment approach (SADV). J. Marital Fam. Ther. 44, 483–498 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Murphy, C. M., Eckhardt, C. I., Clifford, J. M., Lamotte, A. D. & Meis, L. A. Individual versus group cognitive-behavioral therapy for partner-violent men: a preliminary randomized trial. J. Interpers. Violence (2017).

  37. Strang, H. et al. Reducing the harm of intimate partner violence: randomized controlled trial of the Hampshire Constabulary CARA experiment. Camb. J. Evid. Based Policing 1, 160–173 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Taft, C. T. et al. Strength at Home Couples Program to prevent military partner violence: a randomized controlled trial. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 84, 935–945 (2016).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Braithwaite, J. in Public Accountability: Designs, Dilemmas and Experiences (ed. Dowdle, M.) 33–51 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2006).

  40. Ptacek, J. in Preventing Intimate Partner Violence: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (eds Renzetti, C. et al.) 159–184 (Policy Press, 2017).

  41. Cheon, A. & Regehr, C. Restorative justice models in cases of intimate partner violence: reviewing the evidence. Vict. Offenders 1, 369–394 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Sherman, L. W., Strang, H., Mayo-Wilson, E., Woods, D. J. & Ariel, B. Are restorative justice conferences effective in reducing repeat offending? Findings from a Campbell systematic review. J. Quant. Criminol. 31, 1–24 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Strang, H., Sherman, L. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., Woods, D. & Ariel, B. Restorative Justice Conferencing (RJC) using face-to-face meetings of offenders and victims: effects on offender recidivism and victim satisfaction. A systematic review. Campbell Syst. Rev. 12, 1–59 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Wilson, D. B., Olaghere, A. & Kimbrell, C. S. Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Principles in Juvenile Justice: A Meta-Analysis. Final Technical Report to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Office of Justice Programs, 2017).

  45. Stubbs, J. in Restorative Justice and Violence Against Women (ed. Ptacek, J.) 103–122 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2009).

  46. Smith, A. in Restorative Justice and Violence Against Women (ed. Ptacek, J.) 255–278 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2009).

  47. Van Ness, D. W. in Restorative Justice: Theoretical Foundations (eds Weitekamp, E. G. M. & Kerner, H.-J.) 23–42 (Willan Publishing, 2002).

  48. Dissel, A. & Ngubeni, K. Giving women their voice: domestic violence and restorative justice in South Africa. In XIth International Symposium on Victimology (2003).

  49. Coker, D. K. & Macquoid, A. Why opposing hyper-incarceration should be central to the work of the anti-domestic violence movement. Univ. Miami Race Soc. Justice Law Rev. 5, 585–618 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Utah Code Section 77-36-1 (2019).

  51. Button, I. M. D., Angel, C. & Sherman, L. W. Predicting domestic homicide and serious violence in Leicestershire with intelligence records of suicidal ideation or self-harm warnings: a retrospective analysis. Camb. J. Evid. Based Policing. 1, 105–115 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  52. de Boer, M. R., Waterlander, W. E., Kuijper, L. D., Steenhuis, I. H. & Twisk, J. W. Testing for baseline differences in randomized controlled trials: an unhealthy research behavior that is hard to eradicate. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 12, 4–12 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Harvey, L. A. Statistical testing for baseline differences between randomized groups is not meaningful. Spinal Cord 56, 919 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Moher, D. et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Int. J. Surg. 10, 28–55 (2012).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Senn, S. J. Base logic: tests of baseline balance in randomized clinical trials. Clin. Res. Regul. Aff. 12, 171–182 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Tyler, T. R. Restorative justice and procedural justice: dealing with rule breaking. J. Soc. Issues 62, 307–326 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Mills, L. G. Violent Partners: A Breakthrough Plan for Ending the Cycle of Abuse (Basic Books, 2009).

  58. Latimer, J., Dowden, C. & Muise, D. The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: a meta-analysis. Prison J. 85, 127–144 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Figueredo, A. J. & McCloskey, L. A. Sex, money, and paternity: the evolutionary psychology of domestic violence. Ethol. Sociobiol. 14, 353–379 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  60. McKenry, P. C., Julian, T. W. & Gavazzi, S. M. Toward a biopsychosocial model of domestic violence. J. Marriage Fam. 57, 307–320 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Perilla, J. L., Bakeman, R. & Norris, F. H. Culture and domestic violence: the ecology of abused Latinas. Violence Vict. 9, 325–339 (1994).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Riggs, D. S., Caulfield, M. B. & Street, A. E. Risk for domestic violence: factors associated with perpetration and victimization. J. Clin. Psychol. 56, 1289–1316 (2000).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Sutherland, A., Ariel, B., Farrar, W. & De Anda, R. Post-experimental follow-ups—fade-out versus persistence effects: the Rialto police body-worn camera experiment four years on. J. Crim. Justice 53, 110–116 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Gondolf, E. W. A 30-month follow-up of court-referred batterers in four cities. Int. J. Offender Ther. Comp. Criminol. 44, 111–128 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Jewell, L. M. & Wormith, J. S. Variables associated with attrition from domestic violence treatment programs targeting male batterers: a meta-analysis. Crim. Justice Behav. 37, 1086–1113 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Quickfacts: Salt Lake City Utah. US Census Bureau (2017).

  67. Associated Press. New Figures Show LDS Members a Minority in Salt Lake County (2018).

  68. Utah Administrative Code, Rule R501-21-7 (2019).

  69. Block, C. R. & Block, R. L. Crime definition, crime measurement, and victim surveys. J. Soc. Issues 40, 137–160 (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  70. Brady, T. V. Measuring What Matters, Part One: Measures of Crime, Fear and Disorder (National Institute of Justice, 1996).

  71. Brennan, S. & Dauvergne, M. Police-reported Crime Statistics in Canada, 2010 (Statistics Canada, 2011).

  72. Hindelang, M. J., Hirschi, T. & Weis, J. G. Measuring Delinquency (Sage Publications, 1981).

  73. Gove, W. R., Hughes, M. & Geerken, M. Are uniform crime reports a valid indicator of the index crimes? An affirmative answer with minor qualifications. Criminology 23, 451–501 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  74. Sherman, L., Neyroud, P. W. & Neyroud, E. (2016). The Cambridge Crime Harm Index: measuring total harm from crime based on sentencing guidelines. Policing 10, 171–183 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  75. Burton, S. E. et al. Applying a crime seriousness scale to measure changes in the severity of offenses by individuals arrested in Florida. Justice Res. Policy 6, 1–18 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  76. Francis, B., Soothill, K. & Dittrich, R. A new approach for ranking ‘serious’ offences. The use of paired-comparisons methodology. Br. J. Criminol. 41, 726–737 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  77. Ramchand, R., MacDonald, J. M., Haviland, A. & Morral, A. R. A developmental approach for measuring the severity of crimes. J. Quant. Criminol. 25, 129–153 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  78. McCullagh, P. & Nelder, J. A. Generalized Linear Models (Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, 1989).

  79. Long, J. S. Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables: Advanced Quantitative Techniques in the Social Sciences (Sage Publications, 1997).

  80. Henstock, D. & Ariel, B. Testing the effects of police body-worn cameras on use of force during arrests: a randomised controlled trial in a large British police force. Eur. J. Criminol. 14, 720–750 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  81. McCulloch, C. E., Searle, S. R. & Neuhaus, J. M. Generalized, Linear, and Mixed Models 2nd edn (Wiley Press, 2008).

  82. Utah Sentencing Commission. 2016 Adult Sentencing and Release Guidelines (2016).

  83. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences 2nd edn (Erlbaum Associates, 1988).

  84. Raudenbush, S. W. et al. Optimal Design Plus Empirical Evidence v.3.0 (2011).

Download references


This research was funded by the National Science Foundation (award no. 0964821). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. We would like to express our gratitude to the study participants for allowing us to gain greater insight into DV treatment programmes. This study involved several invaluable partnerships with key constituent groups, including the judiciary, a community-based agency and universities. More specifically, we would like to thank the Salt Lake City Justice Court, including J. Baxter, L. G. Cutler, J. Robison, S. Magid, C. Roberts, V. Ward and C. Preece. Additionally, we would like to thank the local treatment provider (and all the clinicians) that partnered with us for this study. We are grateful to all the members of the research team who worked on this project from New York University, including L. Al Neyadi, J. Borgeson, J. Cipollina, D. Emery, M. Takele Kassa, Y. Lee, M. Mangafas, R. Mehta, F. Mohmad, M. Radler, R. Shimizu, Y. Shy, Y. Shyrokonis and T. Taylor, and from the University of Utah, including A. Earp, E. Grundvig, A. O’Neill, K. Prince, K. Riley, L. Taholo and E. Becker Worwood.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



L.G.M. and B.B. conceived the study. L.G.M., B.B., R.P.B. and B.A. designed the study. B.B. and R.P.B. managed the data collection. B.B. developed the codebook and coding procedures and oversaw the coding of the data. B.A. analysed the data with input from L.G.M., B.B. and R.P.B. B.B. led the drafting of the manuscript. L.G.M. and B.B. led the revising of the manuscript with contributions from the other authors. All authors contributed to the interpretation of the findings and writing the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Linda G. Mills or Briana Barocas.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Primary handling editor: Aisha Bradshaw

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mills, L.G., Barocas, B., Butters, R.P. et al. A randomized controlled trial of restorative justice-informed treatment for domestic violence crimes. Nat Hum Behav 3, 1284–1294 (2019).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing