Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Tool Manual
Adolescent%20Domestic%20Battery%20Typology%20Tool%20Manual
User Manual:
Open the PDF directly: View PDF 
.
Page Count: 92
Adolescent Domestic Battery
Typology Tool Manual
Wendy Nussbaum, LCPC
Stuart M. Berry, MSW, LISW
Shannon Hartnett, M.A.
Gina Vincent, Ph.D
The preparation of this document was supported by John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.
Anyone may use the content of this publication as is for educational purposes as often and for as many people as wished. All we
ask is that you identify the material as being the property of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. If you want to
use this publication for commercial purposes in print, electronic, or any other medium, you need our permission. If you want to
alter the content or form for any purposes, educational or not, you will also need to request permission.
© December 2015
Models for Change
All young people should have the opportunity to grow up with a good education, get a job and participate in their communities.
Creating more fair and effective juvenile justice systems that support learning and growth and promote accountability can ensure
that every young person grows up to be a healthy, productive member of society.
Models for Change: Systems Reform in Juvenile Justice, a MacArthur Foundation initiative, began by working comprehensively
on juvenile justice reform in four states, and then by concentrating on issues of mental health, juvenile indigent defense, and racial
and ethnic disparities in 16 states. Through collaboration with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA) and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), Models for Change expanded its reach and its
work of replicating and disseminating successful models for juvenile justice reform to 40 states.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Wendy Nussbaum, LCPC, is the Executive Director of Northeast DuPage Family and Youth Services, a community-
based social service agency in Addison, IL. Her agency provides social services to police departments and to youth at risk
of involvement in the juvenile justice system. She also serves as the Executive Director of the DuPage Youth Services
Coalition and as such, developed and implemented a statewide safety screening process for Illinois’ Comprehensive
Community Based Youth Services System (CCBYS). Ms. Nussbaum has a background in family counseling, child welfare
and crisis intervention and is the developer of the original concept of the Adolescent Domestic Battery typology matrix.
Stuart M. Berry, MSW, LISW is a licensed independent social worker and independent Juvenile Justice Consultant.
Since 2008, Mr. Berry has been involved in strategic consulting work, on statewide reform efforts for Juvenile Justice,
through both the Casey Foundation and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. He is the Special Projects
Director for the Lucas County Juvenile Court, where he has played an integral role in developing a comprehensive Juvenile
Sex Offender Treatment and Management program. Mr. Berry served as the Court Administrator for the Delaware
County (Ohio) Juvenile and Probate Court(s) from 1984-2003 and was the Family Court Administrator for Logan County
(Bellefontaine, Ohio), from 2003-2006, and involved in the inception of their comprehensive family court. He was involved,
through the National Center for Juvenile Justice, for five years in the MacArthur Foundations’ Models for Change process
as a lead National Resource Bank consultant for the state of Illinois, developing efforts in three Illinois sites to create
model efforts in dealing with youthful family violence offenders.
Shannon Hartnett, M.A. is a Program Manager for the 18th Judicial Circuit Court Department of Probation and Court
Services in DuPage County, the second most populous county in Illinois. In this capacity, she coordinates the DuPage County
Juvenile Justice Council and develops, implements, and evaluates various probation initiatives. Ms. Hartnett previously
coordinated the MacArthur Foundation’s Models for Change juvenile justice reform initiative for the 18th Judicial Circuit
where she developed and implemented community-based supervision strategies and skill-building programs to divert youth
from formal court involvement. She has over 15 years of experience providing grant writing and technical assistance in the
development and implementation of policies and programs in the juvenile justice and mental health fields.
Gina Vincent, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor and Co-Director of the Law & Psychiatry Program in the Department of
Psychiatry at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA. She also is President of the National Youth
Screening and Assessment Project (NYSAP). Dr. Vincent has a strong track record in grant funding for studies relevant to
risk for reoffending, mental health problems, and substance abuse among youth involved in the juvenile justice system.
She provides technical assistance and training to juvenile justice agencies regarding the selection, development, and
implementation of risk assessment tools.
WITH ASSISTANCE FROM:
Jonathan Clayfield, M.A., LMHC is a licensed mental health clinician and Project Director at the University of
Massachusetts Medical School’s Systems & Psychosocial Advances Research Center (SPARC). He currently works for the
UMass Law & Psychiatry Program’s National Youth Screening & Assessment Project (NYSAP), a technical assistance and
research program dedicated to helping juvenile justice programs identify youths’ needs for behavioral health intervention
and risk management. Mr. Clayfield provides trainings and technical support on the MAYSI-2 juvenile mental health
screening instrument, and MAYSIWARE, the software version of the MAYSI-2. He has authored/co-authored over
30 peer-reviewed articles and book chapters mostly regarding the diversion of persons with mental illness out of the
criminal justice system and into appropriate treatment, as well as on the need for first responders to receive proper crisis
intervention and risk management training to successfully resolve crisis situations involving persons with mental illnesses.
Ryan Kelly, M.A. is a research intern for the Law & Psychiatry Program in the Department of Psychiatry at the University
of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA. He completed his Masters of Arts in Forensic Psychology at Roger
Williams University where he also earned his undergraduate degree in psychology. During his time at Roger Williams
University Mr. Kelly has served as a graduate assistant, completed a senior thesis on juror decision making, been active on
several research projects and assisted on court order assessments of juvenile offenders.
Adolescent Domestic Battery
Typology Tool Manual
Wendy Nussbaum, LCPC
Stuart M. Berry, MSW, LISW
Shannon Hartnett, M.A.
Gina Vincent, Ph.D
With assistance from: Jonathan Clayfield & Ryan Kelly
vii
Significance and Benefits
The increasing prevalence of ADB has prompted more
research and thinking around this issue in order to
understand the underlying dynamics and identify the most
effective services and supports to help both youth and
their families. Typical responses to ADB rely on the adult
intimate partner violence model, which typically favors
separation of the parties and sole blame on the perpetrator.
These responses fail to treat ADB as a family systems issue
by focusing only on the youth and often place unnecessary
strain on detention facilities and out of home placements.
Indeed, there are many aspects of an adolescent’s abuse
on a parent that differ from domestic violence directed
towards an intimate partner on which many of our policies
were based. In many families, ADB involves a pattern of
aggression between the same parties (family members)
in which there is not always a clear delineation between
the victim and perpetrator, even within the same incident.
The violence can appear reciprocal. Frequently it is the
family that defines ADB and determines if it has occurred.
Family expectations around acceptable behavior and the
current situation may impact how behavior is identified and
reported. Similarly, the dynamics of ADB differ from other
forms of youth aggression (e.g., fighting, bullying, gang
violence) because the youth has an emotional connection
between himself and his victim, creating ambivalence over
his or her feelings and his or her behavior. This connection,
as well as the family’s living arrangements, makes it
difficult for the parties to separate, both emotionally and
physically. In sum, ADB is a unique form of aggression
and requires a specialized assessment that can guide the
appropriate course of action.
With generous support from the MacArthur Models for
Change (MfC) Initiative, three Illinois counties (Cook,
DuPage, Peoria) set forth to develop and implement
improved system responses to youth involved in domestic
conflict and their families. Juvenile justice stakeholders in
each of these counties found that the traditional approach
of utilizing detention and formal court involvement was
an ineffective means of achieving safety and holding
youth accountable and did not adequately address the
unique characteristics of ADB. In Illinois, for example,
stakeholders found that despite 99% of these incidents
resulting in either no injury or only minor injury, these youth
were being placed into detention at nearly twice the rate of
other offenders and were formally processed by the court at
higher rates (Hartnett et al., 2012).
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The development of this tool was guided by a number of
important principles:
• ADB youth are different than adults engaged in intimate
partner violence;
• Not all youth who enter the system for ADB are the
same;
• ADB is predominantly a family problem rather than a
youth-specific problem;
• Many of these youth suffer from mental health issues or
are entangled in ongoing family cycles of violence and
neglect, substance abuse, and criminal involvement;
• There are too few alternatives to formal system
involvement or secure detention; and
There has been an increase in the number of youth referred to the juvenile justice system for charges
related to abusing their parents. The Adolescent Domestic Battery Typologies Tool (ADBTT) was developed
over the span of five years to provide a greater understanding of these youth. It was designed using a
combination of the available research literature, a multi-site validation study, and clinical experience to fill
a niche in the assessment of a population that has not been well understood. This assessment tool provides
a structured framework to help inform case processing, dispositional, and treatment decisions based on
an assessment of youths’ risk for future Adolescent Domestic Battery (ADB). Implementation of the ADBTT
early in the juvenile justice process should lead to diverting the “right” youths away from formal processing
with minimum intervention.
Executive Summary
Risk Assessment in Juvenile Justice: A Guidebook for Implementation
viii
• Based on actual risk of harm to others, some of these
youth and families do not belong in the “delinquency”
system at all.
BENEFITS
It is our hope that implementation of the Adolescent
Domestic Battery Typologies Tool will result in:
• Increased use of diversion for youth who are charged
with ADB with the “right” youth being diverted away
from formal processing;
• Decreased use of detention as a means for separating
youth from their parents; and
• Matching youth to appropriate interventions based on
their characteristics (or ‘typology’) as opposed to ‘one
size fits all’ treatment.
Purpose and Use of the ADBTT
The ADBTT allows for increased understanding of the
differences among youth in this population along a risk
continuum. The ADBTT is a reliable and valid tool that was
designed to aid in dispositional and treatment planning
by identifying youth at risk of committing another act of
domestic battery. This innovative tool assigns youth to
one of four distinct typologies, providing a framework to
match dispositional responses with a youth’s risk level and
characteristics in order to achieve better outcomes. The
typologies are as follows:
• Defensive – any violence (not just the current incident)
directed toward the parent has been in response to a
physical threat by the parent.
• Isolated incident – violence was an isolated event of
aggression born out of atypical family or individual stress.
Without such stress youth may have chosen a more
appropriate conflict resolution.
• Family Chaos – a pattern of events in which the youth’s
behavior predictably spirals to the point of aggression in
order to obtain his or her purposes and is characterized
by inconsistent and unclear parental authority.
• Escalating – a pattern of behavior designed to
intimidate, control and coerce the parent into giving into
the youth’s demands and ultimately to shift parental
authority to the youth, effectively establishing the youth
in a position of control over the parent.
By assigning youth to the typologies, the ADBTT provides
the basis for recognizing that all youth who commit
domestic battery do not have the same risk level to reoffend
and should be given different responses and interventions.
For example, the continuum of classification categories
identifies youth who could be effectively handled through
system diversion. The assessment of risk may also be used
to address level of supervision requirements for probation
as well as potential out of home placement needs,
including level of safety/security that is necessary.
Where Should It Be Implemented?
The ADBTT is designed as a pre-dispositional assessment
instrument for use in juvenile justice settings. As such,
it can be used at the time of arrest, upon admission
to detention, in alternative domestic violence or crisis
center settings, or as part of the court or probation
intake process. Although the ADBTT can be used
post-adjudication, it is recommended that the ADBTT
be used pre-adjudication in order to assist in making
diversion decisions prior to adjudication, as well as later
dispositional decisions where applicable.
In some situations, the tool can also be used post-
disposition, via a referral from the Court, when family
violence has been identified as an issue in the dispositional
or probation process. Although the tool was developed
and validated for use in juvenile justice settings, it has
the potential to be used in other related clinical and social
service settings that deal with family violence, such as
crisis centers, community mental health/family counseling
agencies, and child welfare settings.
ix
How Was It Developed?
The development of the Adolescent Domestic Battery
Typologies Tool was a product of the MfC Initiative, funded
by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
(Grant #13-103826-000-USP). The tool was created by the
authors (a group of individuals working with youth charged
with adolescent domestic battery), with the assistance
of the National Youth Screening & Assessment Project
(NYSAP), a technical assistance and research group
dedicated to helping juvenile justice programs implement
screening and assessment tools to identify youths’ needs
for behavioral health intervention and risk management.
The items of the ADBTT were originally written based on
years of clinical observation and experience with these
families as well as small scale pilot research study. The
final version of the ADBTT was based on findings from
the ADBTT Validation Study conducted in six jurisdictions
across the US. This study has the largest reported sample
of youth who have been arrested for an act of domestic
battery toward a parent. The final tool and typologies
were generated based on factor analysis and the items
were all tested for their inter-rater reliability to ensure
different types of assessors could rate the items of the
assessment consistently. The sample of youth was tracked
for an average of 10.6 months to determine whether
the typologies validly predicted who was most likely to
be charged with another act of domestic battery or to
reoffend generally. The researchers also explored other
characteristics of these typologies, such as whether
they had mental health issues or a history of traumatic
experiences.
The ADB Typologies are significant predictors of new
charges for domestic violent acts. Youth falling into
the Family Chaos and Escalating Types were significantly
more likely to receive new petitions for a domestic violent
act than the Defensive and Isolated Types. A progressive
risk score (PRS) is also calculated. The PRS is an accurate
indicator of individual youth in the lower risk Types who
may progress in their risk level and commit domestic acts
again if they do not receive intervention.
Who Is Eligible for Use?
The tool is appropriate for use with youth being charged
with an act of family violence against a parent or caregiver.
There may be occasions, however, when the nature of the
situation (e.g., a mental health crisis, traumatic emotional
or physical injury, or alcohol/drug impairment) may render
an immediate assessment of this type impractical.
How Is It Completed and What Are the
Resource Requirements?
The ADBTT is comprised of 30 items falling within eight
domains. Items are rated based on a short interview with
the youth, an interview with the parent, and collateral
information (e.g., police reports, criminal and social
histories, child welfare system records). The ADBTT may
be supplemented with mental health screening, drug
and alcohol screening, and screening of trauma-related
symptoms as resources permit. The tool was designed
to be administered by a wide variety of professionals,
regardless of licensure; however, assessors should
demonstrate competencies in adolescent development and
family systems, motivation interviewing and basic trauma
principles. The tool developers recommend assessors
complete a specialized training workshop for the ADBTT but
this is not required. Training can be requested through the
NYSAP website at www.NYSAP.com.
The ADBTT manual is available for download free from
www.NYSAP.com or http://www.modelsforchange.net/
publications/index.html. It summarizes the research
on adolescents who abuse their parents, describes the
development and validation of the ADBTT, explains how to
administer and score the tool, and can be used to guide the
implementation of the ADBTT in a juvenile justice or other
child and family service setting.
Risk Assessment in Juvenile Justice: A Guidebook for Implementation
x
What Is the Value Added?
There are many screening and assessment tools available
for use in juvenile justice settings to identify various types
of behavioral health needs (e.g., mental health screening,
potentially traumatic events screening) and to assess
risk of reoffending. Before developing and releasing yet
another tool into the juvenile justice field, it was important
to determine whether the tool provided any unique
information that the juvenile justice system would not
get from other tools used in routine practice. The use of
multiple tools in a juvenile justice setting, particularly in an
early setting such as pre-adjudication intake, is essential
but the number of tools should be kept to a minimum.
Therefore, new tools are only necessary if the tool is filling
an important gap.
The most important question in this context was whether
the ADBTT added any value to general risk assessment
tools for reoffending that are already used widely by
juvenile justice agencies. The ADBTT was compared to
several other popular and valid risk assessment tools (e.g.,
YASI, OYAS, ARNA) in its ability to predict youth who
received new petitions for acts of domestic violence.
The ADBTT improved upon regular risk assessment tools
with respect to predicting new domestic battery-related
offenses because it was more discriminating. In addition,
the information gathered for the ADBTT is more specific
to ADB risk than a risk assessment tool for general
reoffending, and therefore, should be better equipped to
guide the appropriate ADB-related service modalities.
Table of Contents
Section 1- Using the ADBTT
Chapter 1: Introduction to the ADBTT ...................................................................................................... 1
Literature Review ..................................................................................................................................................... 1
History of the Adolescent Domestic Battery Typologies Tool (ADBTT) ......................................................... 3
Need for the ADBTT ................................................................................................................................................ 6
Considerations for the use of the ADBTT ............................................................................................................ 7
Where should it be implemented? ....................................................................................................................... 7
Who is eligible for use? ....................................................................................................................................... 7
What are the legal considerations? ................................................................................................................... 10
What are the resources needed and the costs? ................................................................................................ 11
How does an agency implement an assessment system? ................................................................................ 12
Chapter 2: Introducing the Typologies and Domains ....................................................................... 13
Guiding Principles.................................................................................................................................................. 13
The ADBTT Typology Graph ............................................................................................................................... 15
The ADBTypologies ................................................................................................................................................ 16
Defensive Typology ............................................................................................................................................ 16
Isolated Incident Typology .................................................................................................................................. 16
Family Chaos Typology ....................................................................................................................................... 17
Escalating Typology ............................................................................................................................................ 18
Determining the Progressive Nature of the ADB Typologies ......................................................................... 19
The ADBTT Domains ............................................................................................................................................. 20
Domain 1: Scope of ADB ................................................................................................................................... 20
Domain 2: Parent Authority ................................................................................................................................ 21
Domain 3: Predictability of Event ....................................................................................................................... 24
Domain 4: Triggers to Violence ......................................................................................................................... 25
Domain 5: Behavioral Intent ............................................................................................................................. 27
Domain 6: Youth AttitudeToward Violence ....................................................................................................... 29
Domain 7: Youth Attitude Toward Change ........................................................................................................ 31
Domain 8: Parent’s Concern ............................................................................................................................... 33
Chapter 3: Scoring the ADBTT ................................................................................................................. 35
General Instructions for Gathering Information ............................................................................................... 35
Handling Issues That Arise .................................................................................................................................. 36
Instructions for Completing the ADBTT ............................................................................................................. 36
Chapter 4: Responding to Typology Scores ......................................................................................... 41
Matching Typologies with Interventions ............................................................................................................41
Systems Responses .......................................................................................................................................... 41
Treatment Responses ........................................................................................................................................ 43
Section 2-Development of the ADBTT: A Technical Report
Chapter 5: The ADBTT Validation Study: Identification of the Typologies .......................... 45
Description of Sites ................................................................................................................................................45
Description of the Sample .....................................................................................................................................46
Chapter 6: Psychometric Properties and Reliability .........................................................................51
ADBTT Scoring Procedures ..................................................................................................................................51
Inter-Rater Reliability .............................................................................................................................................51
Identifying the ADB Typologies Using Factor Analysis ....................................................................................52
Gender and Race/Ethnicity Differences ..............................................................................................................53
Progressive Risk Score .........................................................................................................................................54
Concurrent Validity: Correlates With The ADB Typologies Tool ....................................................................55
ADB Typologies and Potentially Traumatic Experiences ................................................................................... 55
ADB Typologies and Behavioral or Mental Health Problems ............................................................................ 56
Chapter 7: The ADBTT and Risk for Reoffending ................................................................................ 59
ADB Typologies and Risk for Reoffending Assessment Tools ........................................................................59
Rates of Reoffending ..............................................................................................................................................60
ADB Typologies and Reoffending ......................................................................................................................... 61
Progressive Risk Score and Reoffending ...........................................................................................................62
General Risk Assessment Tools and Reoffending.............................................................................................62
Does the ADBTT Detect Who Is Likely to Have a Future ADB Charge? ........................................................63
Do the ADB Typologies Detect Who Is Likely to Have a Future ADB Charge Better
Than General Risk Assessment Tools?........................................................................................................64
Interventions, ADB Types and Reoffending ........................................................................................................64
Services Youth Received .......................................................................................................................................65
References .....................................................................................................................................................67
Appendices .....................................................................................................................................................69
A. Literature Review of Prevalence Studies on Adolescent Domestic Battery ..........................................71
B. The Adolescent Domestic Battery Typologies Tool .....................................................................................73
C. Introductory Script and Suggested Interview Questions ........................................................................... 79
D. Inter-Rater Reliability for Original ADBTT Items .......................................................................................... 83
xiii
Chapter 1
SECTION 1
USING THE ADBTT
1
1 This terminology was derived by practitioners in Illinois using state criminal statute as a reference (750 ILCS 60) in order to help foster a common under-
standing of the issue.
CHAPTER 1: Introduction to the ADBTT
LITERATURE REVIEW
Terminology
Youth violence toward a parent was first identified as “battered parent syndrome” by Harbin and Madden in 1979. Now
there seems to be varied, yet interchangeable terminology used to describe this long standing, but historically hidden
problem (Holt, 2013). In this manual, the term “Adolescent Domestic Battery” (ADB) is used to encompass family crisis
or violence that results in police contact and possible delinquency system involvement for a young person. Youth may be
charged with domestic battery against a parent, caregiver or sibling, or the youth may be charged with a different offense
connected to the family conflict (Hartnett S., et al., 2012)1.
Prevalence
Research estimates the number of adolescents who have hit their parents at least once as ranging anywhere from 3-20%
(Cornell & Gelles, 1982; Ulman & Straus, 2003; Snyder & McCurley, 2008). However, ADB prevalence research has typi-
cally been small in scale, qualitative, and based almost exclusively on self-report, all of which limit the conclusions that
can be drawn. Research has been conducted with both community samples and juvenile justice data but the true preva-
lence level among the general population is likely underestimated (Condry & Miles, 2013; Holt, 2013). Further, prevalence
estimates are inconsistent because youth violence toward parents has not been clearly delineated as a form of family
violence (e.g. Estevez & Gongora, 2009; Walsh & Krienert, 2008; Buel, 2002; Kethineni, 2004; Ulman & Straus, 2003;
Cornell & Gelles, 1982).
A sample of some of the major studies conducted on adolescent to parent violence and their key findings regarding preva-
lence is provided as Appendix A.
Offender Demographics
As cited in Holt (2013), studies estimate that males represent between 58% and 87% of the perpetrators of violence
against parents (Kethineni, 2004; Snyder & McCurley, 2008; Walsh & Krienert, 2008; Condry & Miles, 2013); which
suggests that some have found little to no gender differences among youth arrested for assaulting their parents (e.g.
Cornell & Gelles, 1982; Gebo, 2007; Strom, et al., 2010). In fact, Strom (2010) concludes that any gender gap that may exist
is narrowing.
In Holt’s (2013) review of several recent studies, she found that the mean age of parent abuse offenders in the juvenile
justice system is 15 (see Kethineni, 2004; Gebo, 2007; Walsh & Krienert, 2007; Strom et al. 2010). Condry and Miles’
(2013) study of 1,892 cases reported to London Police in 2009-2010 found that the mean age of male juvenile offenders
was slightly older at 16.4 years. Studies have also found a steady decline in the overall rate of violence toward parents as
youth age (Ulman & Straus (2003).
Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Tool Manual
2
Chapter 1
Evidence is inconclusive regarding the association between parent abuse and social class, ethnicity, and previous offending
(Holt, 2013). Some studies suggest that a majority of perpetrators and victims are White (Condry & Miles, 2013; Walsh &
Krienert, 2009; Snyder & McCurley, 2008). Routt and Anderson (2011), however, reported an overrepresentation of African
Americans in the sample of cases reported to King County, Washington’s juvenile court. Phillips and Bowling’s research, as
cited in Condry and Miles (2013), suggests this may be a result of the overrepresentation of young black offenders across
the juvenile justice system. Other studies have found no significant relationship between ethnicity and violence toward
parents (Cornell & Gelles, 1982; Gebo 2007).
Victim Demographics
Mothers are found to be the victims of most parental abuse in juvenile justice, clinical, and community samples (Kethineni,
2004; Walsh & Kreinert, 2009; Gebo, 2007; Cornell & Gelles, 1982; Snyder & McCurley, 2008; Strom et al., 2010; Routt &
Anderson, 2011; Condry & Miles 2013). Kethineni (2004) articulates possible reasons for mothers’ likelihood of abuse,
including their physical size and increased opportunity for victimization based on the fact that most youth live with their
mothers. Other research suggests that since mothers engage in more limit setting and supervision than fathers, they are
more likely to be targets of adolescent violence (Ulman & Straus, 2003).
As Holt (2013) notes, studies that have drawn on clinical data, juvenile justice data, and survey data tend to have identified
a mean age for parents victimized by their children at 41-50 years. Many studies have found that most of the victims of
parent abuse were White (Walsh & Krienert, 2009; Strom et al., 2010; Condry & Miles, 2013).
Level of Severity
There is very little research on incident severity in parent abuse cases. However, available research shows a low level of
injury compared with adult domestic assaults (Condry & Miles, 2013; Snyder & McCurley, 2008). Condry & Miles (2013)
further stress that a significant proportion of parents reporting violence from their children to the police are male, and they
tend to report more serious levels of violence than female victims. Some research finds that girls are more likely to be
reported for assault with minor injury and boys more likely to be reported for criminal damage to property (Condry & Miles,
2013; Walsh & Krienert, 2007).
Pathways to ADB
Research describes intrapersonal, interpersonal, intra-familial, and structural explanations for parent abuse, which may
include witnessing intimate partner violence, parenting style, family conflict, mental health issues, substance abuse, child
abuse, poverty, stress, negative peer influence, and lack of social supports (Holt, 2013; Condry & Miles, 2013; Howard,
2011; Estevez & Gongora, 2009; Agnew & Huguley, 1989). However, while familial and sociological perspectives are
slowly starting to permeate explanations of parental abuse, psychological models citing mental illness, personality disor-
ders, and effects of substance abuse still underpin most responses to this type of violence (Bobic, 2004; Holt, 2013).
Holt (2013) asserts that an analysis of parenting practices (e.g. supervision, discipline) provides the most dominant expla-
nation of parent abuse, both scientifically and practically. This is largely based on Baumrind’s research where he identified
three consistent parenting styles: authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive (see 1966, 1967). For example, when
3
Chapter 1
parents cannot effectively enforce the rules, children exhibit aggression toward their parents to gain power and control
to replace ineffective parenting. Violence can become normalized and serve as a method of communication (Holt, 2013).
Parent abuse can also serve as a way for the youth to adapt to abusive treatment from parents (Brezina, 1999; Kethineni,
2004). Growing up with violence in the home can have a powerful, lasting effect on the way we respond emotionally and
cognitively to difficult situations (Routt & Anderson, 2015). As Estevez and Gongora (2009) explain, these youth are simul-
taneously considered victimizers and victims.
Relationship of Adolescent Domestic Battery to Other Forms of Family Violence
Routt and Anderson (2015) assert that parent abuse is different from other types of abuse in three distinct ways. First,
social and cultural norms support parental power and control over their children for important reasons. They argue that
other social norms may support abuse and violence, but they are not part of the role of the child in a family. Secondly,
parents are legally and morally responsible for their children and want to grow closer to their child, even after being victim-
ized by them. Victims of partner abuse have the possibility and sometimes the resources to separate from the abuser,
while parents often do not. And thirdly, parents often seek outside help, sometimes from police, because of growing
concern that their child will continue to use violence in other settings and relationships.
Routt and Anderson (2015) further argue that the patterns of parent abuse as well as the types of abuse are markedly
different from intimate partner violence. For example, it is uncommon for youth to engage in patterns of: possessiveness,
jealously, intrusiveness, and attempts to isolate their parent; all of which are characteristic of violent intimate partner
relationships. Further, youth do not typically seek to control the family finances by restricting the financial freedom of their
parent as is customary in intimate partner abuse.
Despite critical differences, Routt and Anderson (2015) find that parent abuse does parallel intimate partner violence in
that the various behaviors exhibited by youth have the effect of usurping a parent’s power in the family. They explain
that some teens use abuse or violence in isolated and extreme circumstances, while others develop patterns of abusive
behavior that undermine their parent’s decision making authority and challenge limits and consequences. Routt and
Anderson do acknowledge, however, that most teens find healthy and non-violent ways to obtain independence.
HISTORY OF THE ADOLESCENT DOMESTIC BATTERY TYPOLOGIES TOOL (ADBTT)
With generous support from the MacArthur Foundation’s Models for Change (MfC) Initiative, three Illinois counties (Cook,
DuPage, Peoria) set forth to develop and implement improved system responses to youth involved in domestic conflict and
their families. Since 2006, these sites have demonstrated how police, juvenile court, probation, and community-based
service providers can collaboratively provide safe and economical alternatives to secure detention and system penetration.
These reforms were driven by juvenile justice stakeholders in each of these counties who found that the traditional
approach of utilizing detention and formal court involvement was an ineffective means of achieving safety and holding
youth accountable and did not adequately address the unique characteristics of ADB. In DuPage County for example,
stakeholders found that despite 99% of these incidents resulting in either no injury or only minor injury, stakeholders found
that these youth were being placed into detention at nearly twice the rate of other offenders and were formally processed
by the court at higher rates (Hartnett, et al; 2012). Notably, data revealed that these youth were also being re-arrested
more quickly than youth charged with other offenses.
Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Tool Manual
4
Chapter 1
Key stakeholders from each of these three counties met a number of times to examine local and state-level data as well
as discuss their anecdotal experiences working with these youth and families. These discussions prompted the careful
consideration of the following findings in the creation of a more appropriate and impactful response to youth charged with
domestic battery:
• Focusing on a youth’s behavior alone did not resolve the underlying family needs or dynamics;
• ADB is different than intimate partner violence so assuming a youth was a “domestic batterer” in development was not
always accurate or useful;
• Youth entering the system for ADB were a heterogeneous group and there was too little known about what was actually
occurring with families experiencing this problem;
• Many of these youth often suffered from mental health issues or were entangled in ongoing family cycles of violence
and neglect, substance abuse, and criminal involvement;
• There were too few alternatives to formal system involvement or secure detention; and
• Based on actual risk of harm to others, some of these youth and families did not belong in the “delinquency” system at all.
These anecdotal experiences were strongly supported by the small, but growing, research on ADB (see Literature Review).
In 2009, this prompted Wendy Nussbaum, Executive Director of Northeast DuPage Family and Youth Services (NEDFYS), to
create a conceptual tool to categorize the differences among youth entering the juvenile justice system on domestic related
charges. Stuart Berry and Hunter Hurst, two consultants from the National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ) and lead MfC
consultants in Illinois, took note of the potential this conceptual framework had to provide a more effective way of working
with these kids and families.
Over the next year, this tool was refined and pilot tested with domestic battery cases in the three Illinois MfC sites. Over a
period of six months, the NCJJ consultants reviewed approximately 150 files in order to retroactively apply the tool. These
file reviews clearly demonstrated the tool’s conceptual validity in that youth seemed to fall roughly into one of the five
originally conceived categories. As a result, the tool was further refined over the next 18 months based on both an informal
study of ADB cases and on continuing clinical experience led by the ADB Consortium, which included Wendy Nussbaum,
Stuart Berry, Hunter Hurst, and Shannon Hartnett.
In 2010, with promising findings from this initial inquiry, NCJJ consultants contacted Dr. Gina Vincent of the National Youth
Screening and Assessment Project (NYSAP) to develop a pilot validation study of the tool. NYSAP researchers partnered
with local practitioners to gather a random sample of 89 youth (31 females and 58 males) charged with domestic battery
in 2012 using court files from DuPage and Cook counties. The study was designed to take an initial look at whether there
was any validity to the composition of the typologies (using factor analysis) and whether some types were more likely to
reoffend than others.
The initial factor analysis indicated that there appeared to be five typologies as originally conceived but the sample was
too small to draw conclusions. It was also clear that these typologies differed in their likelihood of committing another act
of domestic violence and in their needs for intervention. This very basic validation process showed significant promise for
the tool’s applicability to ADB cases but revision and validation with a larger sample was required.
5
Chapter 1
In 2013, The MacArthur Foundation funded NYSAP and the ADB Consortium to conduct a large-scale study in multiple juris-
dictions to refine and validate the ADB Typologies Tool in the field. The ADBTT Validation Study was designed to ensure the
tool was valid for use across jurisdictions. The researchers identified six jurisdictions willing to volunteer as testing sites:
• DuPage County, Illinois
• Toledo, Ohio
• San Antonio, Texas
• Tucson, Arizona
• Hartford, Connecticut, and
• New Britain, Connecticut.
The research design was multifaceted to determine:
• The presence and structure of typologies to classify youth (using factor analysis);
• Whether the tool could be rated reliably across different youth and assessors from different professions (e.g., social
workers, probation officers, intake workers);
• If some types of adolescent batterers were more likely to commit future domestic battery;
• If some youth could be safely diverted from the juvenile justice system without a risk to public safety; and
• A common language to solidify our understanding of ADB.
The ultimate goal of this effort was to modify the tool for use as a specialized assessment and case-planning tool upon
system entry for youth charged with domestic related offenses. Each site 1) reviewed the tool for local applicability and
relevance; 2) helped develop a standard clinical interview process; 3) used the ADBTT and some other tools in their routine
intake process for youth charged with ADB of a parent; and 4) assisted with the interpretation of final results and wording
of the final ADBTT. Each youth intake in the sample was tracked to determine if they reoffended over a minimum 10 month
period. The results of this study were incorporated into the final ADBTT described in this manual and are described in detail
in Chapters 5 through 7.
Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Tool Manual
6
Chapter 1
NEED FOR THE ADBTT
Typical responses to ADB rely on an adult intimate partner violence/ perpetrator model, which typically favors separation of
the parties and sole blame on the perpetrator. These responses fail to treat ADB as a family systems issue by focusing only
on the youth and often place unnecessary strain on detention facilities and out of home placements. Further, in most cases,
the dynamics of ADB are different from the dynamics of other types of adolescent aggression including fighting, bullying,
gang violence, etc. One major difference is the emotional connection between victim and perpetrator. In ADB, the youth
has an emotional connection between himself and his victim, creating ambivalence over his feelings and his behavior. “I
love my mother and I know I should not hit her; but, on the other hand...” This connection, as well as the family’s living
arrangements, makes it difficult for the parties to separate, both emotionally and physically.
In many families, ADB involves a pattern of aggression between the same parties (family members) in which there is not
always a clear delineation between the victim and perpetrator, even within the same incident. The violence can appear
reciprocal—“He pushed me, I pushed him back.” However on most occasions, only one person is charged. (An exception
would be two teens or two groups of teens fighting, in which case both parties likely would be arrested and held respon-
sible for their actions.) Other types of adolescent aggression appear more random or have a clear-cut perpetrator, as is the
case with bullying.
In families affected by ADB, frequently it is the family that determines whether or not ADB has occurred. Family expec-
tations around acceptable behavior and the current situation/emotional state of the family members may impact how
behavior is identified and reported. In other instances of aggression, it is the system that determines when the aggressive
behavior has met the threshold in order to be charged with battery.
It is important to understand the differences between the dynamics of ADB and other aggression because it impacts how
the youth’s aggressive behavior will be treated. In order to achieve the best possible outcomes for ADB, the family should
be involved in treatment. Treatment should address not only each family member’s responsibilities and needs but also the
interactions and triggers to violence within the family.
The increasing prevalence of ADB has prompted more research and thinking around this issue in order to understand the
underlying dynamics and identify the most effective services and supports to help both youth and their families. The
ADBTT was developed based on the unique dynamics of ADB and will allow for increased understanding of the differences
among youth in this population along a risk continuum. This innovative tool is expected to provide a much needed frame-
work to match dispositional responses with a youth’s risk level in order to achieve better outcomes. Sound implementation
of the ADBTT should prevent youth who are unlikely to repeat or to be delinquent from unnecessarily penetrating the
system and possibly maximize the effectiveness of program services. The tool may eventually be used by child welfare
systems when contemplating making a juvenile justice referral.
The ADBTT is an attempt to provide some indication of likelihood for continued risk of family violence. At a minimum, it
is a management tool that can assist procedural decision-making. The continuum of classification categories is designed
specifically to identify youth who could be effectively handled through system diversion. The assessment of risk may also
be used to address level of supervision requirements for probation as well as potential out of home placement needs,
including level of safety/security that is necessary. Additionally, the tool may be used to assist in decisions about the need
for, and alternatives to, secure detention.
7
Chapter 1
CONSIDERATIONS FOR USE OF THE ADBTT
WHERE SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED?
The ADBTT is designed as a pre-dispositional assessment instrument for use in juvenile justice settings. As such, it can
be used at the time of arrest, upon admission to detention, in alternative domestic violence or crisis center settings, or as
part of the court or probation intake process. Although the ADBTT can be used post-adjudication, it is recommended that
the ADBTT be used pre-adjudication in order to assist in making diversion decisions prior to adjudication, as well as later
dispositional decisions where applicable.
In some situations, the tool can be used post-disposition, via a referral from the Court, when family violence has been
identified as an issue in the dispositional or probation process. If a youth is served in the formal system, the tool can be
used at progress intervals (typically six months) to re-evaluate ongoing risk and need. Although the tool was developed
and validated for use in juvenile justice settings, it has the potential to be used in other related clinical and social service
settings that deal with family violence, such as crisis centers, community mental health/family counseling agencies, child
welfare settings, and police department operated diversion programs.
WHO IS ELIGIBLE FOR USE?
The tool is appropriate for use with youth being charged with an act of family violence against a parent or caregiver. There
may be occasions, however, when the nature of the situation (e.g., a mental health crisis, traumatic emotional or physical
injury, or alcohol/drug impairment) may render an immediate assessment of this type impractical.
Determining whether to use the ADBTT on a particular youth and family is based on several factors: 1) Family Composition,
2) Youth’s Developmental Ability, and 3) Youth’s Mental Health.
Family Composition
Family composition can change over time, through divorce, death, broken relationships, inability to parent, etc. The ADBTT
is designed to be used when a youth is aggressive or violent toward someone who is in a stable (for the foreseeable
future), long-standing, parental role over the youth.
Parental role can be viewed as the person in the position of responsibility for the actions and activities normally assigned
to the parent or caregiver. Someone in the “parental role” has the duty to care for, protect and reasonably discipline the
child. This can include:
• Financial responsibility for food, clothing, housing and health care,
• Responsibility for making decisions for the child such as residency, education, religion, etc., and
• Responsibility for child’s moral development, behavior, and growth.
Parental role may or may not include legal responsibility for the youth. For example, a step-parent may be in a parental
role but may not be legally responsible; whereas, an adoptive parent would be legally responsible for the youth.
Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Tool Manual
8
Chapter 1
It is important to note that just because someone is in a parenting role; it does not mean that he/she is fulfilling all the
responsibilities of that role. When considering the use of the ADBTT, the assessor is asked to determine if the “victim” is
in a parental role, not if the victim is effective at parenting.
The assessor should determine whether the person in the parenting role had been in that role for a significant length of
time (long-standing), prior to the incident. For example, aggression toward a step-parent who has been married to the
child’s parent for the past ten years is different than aggression toward a step-parent who met, married and moved in
within the past six months. Rule of thumb: if the victim has been in parental role for less than 12 months prior to
the incident, do not use the ADBTT to assess youth’s aggression.
Because the composition of a family can change, the person who may be identified as being in the parental role can also
change. If the family situation is identified as one that is stable for the foreseeable future (i.e. presumed to be permanent),
including adoption, the ADBTT may be appropriate. If the situation is “temporary”, including foster care, do not use the
ADBTT. The table below lists options for family composition and should be used to help determine whether the ADBTT is
applicable.
Locate the family composition that includes the youth being assessed and the victim of the aggression. (For example, if
the youth lives with his father and stepmother but the aggression was toward his biological mother, the assessor would
choose “non-custodial parent.”) If the youth lives in a family situation for which the family composition is not listed,
the assessor should use the same three questions. If the identified family composition has “Depends on family being
assessed” as an answer to any of the questions, the assessor should ask the corresponding question(s):
• Parental role: Does the “victim” have a parental role over the youth?
• Long-standing parental role: Was the “victim” in the parental role well before the incident occurred?
• Stability of parental role: Is the parental role presumed to be stable for the foreseeable future?
If the answer to all three questions is “yes”, the ADBTT can be used to assess the family.
If the answer to any of the questions is “no”, the ADBTT should not be used.
9
Chapter 1
FAMILY
COMPOSITION PARENTAL ROLE LONG-STANDING
Parental role
FUTURE STABILITY
of Parental Role USE ADBTT?
Intact Family YES YES YES YES
Single Parent YES YES YES YES
Non-custodial
Parent
Depends on family
being assessed
Depends on family
being assessed
Depends on family
being assessed
If answer to all three
questions is yes, use
ADBTT
Sibling,
Non-caregiver NO NO NO NO
Sibling as Caregiver YES Depends on family
being assessed
Depends on family
being assessed
If answer to all three
questions is yes, use
ADBTT
Adoptive Parent YES YES (if > 12 months) YES
If answer to all three
questions is yes, use
ADBTT
Step Parent living
with parent YES YES (if > 12 months) YES
If answer to all three
questions is yes, use
ADBTT
Parent’s live-in
Girlfriend/Boyfriend
Depends on family
being assessed
Depends on family
being assessed
Depends on family
being assessed
If answer to all three
questions is yes, use
ADBTT
Relative as
Caregiver YES YES (if > 12 months) Depends on family
being assessed
If answer to all three
questions is yes, use
ADBTT
Foster Parent,
Licensed YES YES (if > 12 months) NO NO
Unlicensed Foster
Parent*
Depends on family
being assessed
Depends on family
being assessed NO NO
Congregate Care** NO Depends on family
being assessed
Depends on family
being assessed NO
Youth’s Boyfriend/
Girlfriend*** NO NO NO NO
*An unlicensed foster parent would include informal arrangements, such as living with friend’s family or “couch-surfing.”
**Congregate Care would include group homes, shelters, etc. The ADBTT was not designed to be used in these settings.
***This tool is NOT designed to measure teen dating violence.
Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Tool Manual
10
Chapter 1
Youth’s Developmental Ability
Most youth ages 12 to 18 will be able to understand the concepts and participate in the clinical interview needed to
complete the ADBTT. Youth with mild cognitive or neurological difficulties will need to be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis for their ability to understand and participate in the interview.
Differentiating “developmental aggression” from adolescent domestic battery: Studies show that the majority of young
children are physically aggressive toward siblings, peers and adults by 17 months of age. “Temper tantrums” including
behaviors such as kicking and throwing things, are recognized as normal development. Most children learn to regulate
their aggression and use alternatives during their preschool years (Trembly, 2004). This early aggression is substantially
different from Adolescent Domestic Battery which is not considered normal developmental behavior. If a youth has a
moderate to severe cognitive delay or a pervasive developmental disorder (including autism spectrum disorder) that causes
him/her to function at a pre-school level, the ADBTT should not be used.
Youth’s Mental Health
If a youth has mental health issues that historically have led to extreme aggression and/or violence, the ADBTT should
be used with caution. Extreme episodes of aggression as a symptom of mental illness may potentially change the family
dynamics on which it is predicated.
Additionally, if the youth or a family member is in an immediate state of trauma, having a mental health crisis or actively
under the influence of substances, it would not be appropriate to proceed with the tool at that time. Once the crisis situa-
tion has been resolved, the tool may be administered.
WHAT ARE THE LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS?
The ADBTT can be used to make both procedural and treatment decisions in juvenile cases involving family violence. It is
typically a pre-disposition tool used to make decisions on several issues: 1) appropriateness of system diversion; 2) level of
system involvement necessary to achieve stated goals; and 3) treatment planning. The ADBTT may be applied prior to the
initial hearing or adjudicatory proceedings with the proper protections in place.
There are due process considerations if an arrested youth denies the potential charge. In such cases, an attorney, a parent/
caregiver or the youth themselves may refuse to cooperate the with the ADBTT assessment process to protect against
self-incrimination. The experience throughout the study of the ADBTT in a variety of jurisdictions is that this occurs very
infrequently and that most referrals voluntarily agree to cooperate.
Confidentiality and Mandated Reporting
When engaging a youth/ family in the ADBTT assessment process, it is important to clearly communicate the limits of
confidentiality. Certainly the information is not for public use and will not be shared outside the bounds of case decision-
making. However, the information gathered will be used to make both procedural and treatment decisions and, as such,
will be available to those individuals involved in those decision-making processes.
When performing this type of assessment, as well as any other assessment instruments (e.g., risk), it is not uncommon
for the assessor to become aware of child abuse situations, which are differentiated from youth-initiated violence. If the
assessor suspects or is made aware that child abuse has occurred, it is appropriate and most likely mandated that the
assessor make a report to the local child welfare agency. Users should consult local/state statues for clear guidelines
about when to report abuse and regarding legal responsibilities for mandated reporting.
11
Chapter 1
WHAT ARE THE RESOURCES NEEDED AND THE COSTS?
There is no set financial cost for the use of the ADBTT aside from building a structure that permits use of an assessment
tool with fidelity and training staff. There may be financial costs in terms of staffing assignments depending on your juris-
diction. In our national study, the perspectives on these costs varied widely. For some jurisdictions, the ADBTT was easily
integrated into existing intake processes. Other jurisdictions that had historically performed little or no formal screening of
these cases had to re-allocate staff time.
In terms of staffing, the costs of implementing the ADBTT vary widely depending on the type of staff assigned to conduct
the assessment and at what point of contact the ADBTT is to be completed. If the ADBTT will be performed in operational
detention facilities or crisis screening centers with existing staff, the additional costs may be minimal. If the ADBTT is
performed by Court/Probation staff during a scheduled visit, it may require additional staffing. It is important, however, to
weigh the benefits of utilizing the ADBTT against the anticipated financial costs. This tool is designed to help identify low
risk youth who can be diverted from detention and/or formal court processing which may help alleviate the overall financial
burden on the system.
Training Requirements and Assessor Qualifications
The use of the ADBTT requires an investment in some training and/or competencies for those administering the tool
and those entering and keeping track of data. Although, the tool was designed to be utilized by a wide variety of people
working in the field, regardless of licensure, it does require awareness of the interview dynamic as well as the subject
matter. Assessors should demonstrate competence in the following:
• Adolescent development and family systems;
• Motivational interviewing techniques with youth and with families;
• Basic trauma principles; and
• Familiarity with local programs and resources to provide necessary services to the population being served by this tool.
Agencies may opt to obtain formal training for their staff on the ADBTT by the ADB research consortium (information can
be obtained from NYSAP at www.NYSAP.us). The recommended training is multi-layered and includes an initial phone
contact with the agency to review current processes and procedures, determining which staff should be trained on the
assessment, on-site training for practitioners, and regular follow-up calls with project staff to review the experience and
brainstorm solutions to problem areas if desired.
Data Collection
Data collection is imperative to establish baselines and trends, ensure the fidelity of the tool, track outcome data, and
inform decision-making around ADB policy and practice. The size of the jurisdiction and/or the number of youth referrals for
domestic-related offenses will most likely determine the overall level of necessary data automation for ADB information.
Some systems may have existing databases into which ADB specific data can be easily integrated. Others jurisdictions
may have to create data storage systems, which could include simple Excel spreadsheets or more sophisticated methods.
Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Tool Manual
12
Chapter 1
HOW DOES AN AGENCY IMPLEMENT AN ASSESSMENT SYSTEM?
There are many screening and assessment tools available for use in juvenile justice settings to identify various types
of behavioral health needs (e.g., mental health screening, potentially traumatic events screening) and to assess risk of
reoffending. Before developing and releasing yet another tool into the juvenile justice field, it was important to determine
whether it provided any unique information that the juvenile justice system would not get from other tools used in routine
practice. The use of multiple tools in a juvenile justice setting, particularly in an early setting such as pre-adjudication
intake, is essential but the number of tools should be kept to a minimum. Therefore, new tools are only necessary if the
tool is filling an important gap.
The most important question in this context is whether an adolescent domestic battery tool could contribute any unique
information to the risk assessment tools for general reoffending that are already used by juvenile justice agencies. If these
tools designed to identify youth at the highest risk for reoffending also identify youth who are likely to engage in continued
domestic battery, than it is our premise that a risk assessment specifically for domestic battery would be unnecessary.
Therefore, as part of its development, the ADB tool was compared to several other popular and valid risk assessment tools
in its ability to predict youth who received new petitions or adjudications for acts of domestic violence, general violence,
and other offenses. We determined that the ADBTT does improve upon a regular risk tool’s prediction of new domestic
violence related offenses.
The ADB Typologies tool was designed for the purpose of identifying youth at highest risk of reoffending violently in a
domestic context and to aid in dispositional and treatment planning. Often times, it will be beneficial to pair the tool with
other screening or assessment tools because other characteristics of youth charged with domestic battery will be relevant
to their dispositional and treatment planning. For example, juvenile justice personnel may want to know whether a youth
has been exposed to significant traumatic events in the past and is experiencing trauma-related symptoms. If a youth
is experiencing these symptoms, it is likely relevant to his or her treatment planning because it may be the underlying
cause of the youth’s violence. Screening for general mental health problems can also be highly relevant to the treatment
planning for these youth. For some, the root cause of their violence may be thought disturbance, in which case it will be
imperative to obtain a psychological evaluation and psychiatric treatment.
13
CHAPTER 2: Introducing the Typologies
and Domains
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Graph is based on three primary principles:
• ADB youth are different than adults engaged in intimate partner violence (IPV): Not all youth who enter the
juvenile justice system for ADB will grow up to engage in IPV. The family dynamics of power and control of ADB are
very different from IPV. Appropriate parental authority over their children is necessary for healthy development and is
supported by social and cultural norms. Within intimate partner violence, the ultimate power and control of one partner
over another is dangerous. Treatment for ADB works to establish or re-establish parental authority while treatment for
IPV seeks to balance authority or to disengage. ADB youth should not be treated the same as adult offenders.
• Not all youth who enter the system for ADB are the same: Social learning theory suggests that youth who have
witnessed or experienced violence in the home are at increased risk to do the same as an adult. However, Holt (2013)
states that generational transmission of violence only accounts for some of the cases of parent abuse. There are many
different reasons, situations and factors that lead to youth violence toward a parent or caregiver. Effective treatment
cannot be the same for all ADB youth, but must address the individual needs and strengths of the youth and their
families.
• ADB is predominantly a family problem rather than a youth-specific problem: Youth who engage in ADB are
frequently identified as “the problem” within the family and are dealt with as such. However, family dynamics and
behaviors can cause ADB and are impacted by the consequences of ADB. Parenting styles, generational transmission
of violence and the parent’s own behavior can be factors in the youth’s choice to use violence. On the other hand, youth
violence affects the parents’ ability to fulfill their leadership role in the family, threatens the family’s resources and
capacity to meet everyday challenges, and destroys the parent-teen bond. (Routt and Anderson, 2015). Providing services
to the family rather than just the youth will allow the family to address underlying causes and have better outcomes.
THE ADB TYPOLOGY GRAPH
Using the guiding principles, ADB has been categorized into four sub-types (typologies): Defensive, Isolated Incident,
Family Chaos and Escalating. Each typology has separate, distinct characteristics (domains) that include specific family
dynamics, reactions, behaviors, attitudes and concerns.
The ADBTT was developed in order to determine the typology of a youth’s violence or aggressive behavior.
The ADBTT is comprised of eight domains with a Progression Risk Score (PRS) associated with each domain. Each domain
is separated into four unique options that are characteristic of the different typologies of domestic battery. The assessor
must determine which of the four options best describes the youth and his/her family. The assessor further evaluates the
youth and family under the escalating category by placing their behaviors, attitudes and concerns along a continuum of
“0” to “4” according to the description that best fits the youth and his/her family. Each item defines the “0”, “1”, and “4”
ratings. The “2” and “3” ratings are intentionally undefined so that the assessor can rate answers that may fall between
the two extremes.
Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Tool Manual
14
Chapter 2
The domains and the PRS are scored according to the clinical impressions and judgment of the assessor based on informa-
tion garnered through interviews with the youth and parent as well as any collateral information the assessor may have.
Once the items are scored, the youth’s typology is assigned. (Complete instructions for scoring the ADBTT are described in
Chapter 3.)
The Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Graph is included on the next page for an at-a-glance review of the specific
categorization and organization of the typologies and their corresponding domains. Please note that for the purposes of
this manual, masculine pronouns are used to describe youth perpetrators of domestic battery toward a parent.
The authors acknowledge that while boys represent the majority of perpetrators in many studies on adoles-
cent domestic battery, a significant proportion are girls.
15
Chapter 2
ADOLESCENT DOMESTIC BATTERY TYPOLOGIES GRAPH
*Items must be present for youth to fit in this type
Defensive Isolated Family Chaos Escalating
(Items 1-4 represent range of behavior)
SCOPE OF ADB
*Any violence directed
toward a parent has
ONLY been in response
to a physical threat
*Isolated/infrequent
incidents (<3 in past 24
months); Incidents are
not “ONLY in response to
a physical threat”
n/a Frequent (3 or more in past 24 months) and serious
incidents; Incidents are not “ONLY in response to a
physical threat”
1. Threats or aggressive incidents by youth are begin-
ning to increase in frequency and severity
4. Youth demonstrates an established pattern of
frequent and severe aggression; at least one
incident required medical attention
PARENTAL
AUTHORITY
Parent demonstrates
developmentally
unreasonable level of
authority (authoritarian)
Parent demonstrates
developmentally reason-
able level of authority
(authoritative)
Parental authority is
inconsistent or unclear
Parental authority is shifting or has shifted to youth
1. Parental authority is becoming ineffective and
control has shifted to youth
4. Youth demonstrates unreasonable level of control/
decision-making over parent; parent has no influ-
ence over youth
PREDICTABILITY
OF EVENT
n/a Both parent and youth
may be surprised that
situation deteriorated to
point of violence
Neither parent nor
youth is surprised by
the predictable pattern/
intensity of youth’s
increasingly aggressive
behavior; parent not
living in fear
Neither parent nor youth is surprised by aggression;
may or may not be surprised at the intensity of the
aggression; Parent is increasingly fearful
1. Both express surprise at intensity; parent is begin-
ning to be fearful
4. Neither is surprised by intensity; parent lives in
constant fear
TRIGGERS TO
VIOLENCE
Violence is protec-
tive and in response
to physical threat by
parent
Response to atypical
stress without which
incident would not have
occurred
Response to inconsis-
tent parental discipline,
request or limit
Overall pattern shows lessening tolerance for anger
and frustration
1. Response to parental discipline, request or limit
with which youth would have previously complied
4. No trigger necessary, unpredictable pattern
BEHAVIORAL
INTENT
Attempt to protect
self or other family
members
Impulsive, immediate
remorse; no intent to
harm
Increasingly aggressive
pattern of behavior will
stop once youth gets
own way, no intent to
harm
Pattern of behavior designed to intimidate or control
in order to seize parental authority. Will harm if
necessary
1. Youth is struggling to get what he wants and
attempts to use intimidation to take over parental
authority
4. Behavior establishes coercive control over parent;
deliberate with intent to harm
YOUTH
ATTITUDE
TOWARD
VIOLENCE
Believes violence is
inappropriate but is
justified in this incident
Believes violence is
inappropriate and can
identify more appropriate
ways he could have
resolved situation
Acknowledges violence
as inappropriate but is
willing to use it again if
less aggressive behav-
iors are not effective in
achieving his purpose
Youth is beginning to consider or has decided that
violence is appropriate
1. Is ambivalent about the appropriateness of
violence but is experimenting with violence to see
if it is effective
4. Accepts violence as preferred response
YOUTH
ATTITUDE
TOWARD
CHANGE
Youth hopes he won’t
have to repeat but may
do so in response to a
perceived threat
Believes own behavior
was wrong & is willing
to change
May believe own
behavior is wrong but
states he is only willing
to change if parents
change their behavior
Youth is resistant toward changing behavior
1. Unsure if own behavior needs to change; may
believe it is wrong but knows he/she may repeat
because it is effective (contemplation)
4. Unwilling to change behavior; believes own
behavior is acceptable and preferred
PARENT’S
CONCERN
Wants to deflect
responsibility for
incident to youth; may
want to see youth
punished
Wants situation
resolved/no ongoing
concerns regarding
safety; may take some
responsibility
Desires to have
someone else (JJ
system) impact/influ-
ence youth; Parent does
not want to be required
to change
Parent is concerned for Personal or Family Safety/
Future
1. Expresses some concern for safety but mostly
is anxious for youth, family and own future if
behavior continues
4. Constant and overwhelming fear for personal and
family’s safety
Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Tool Manual
16
Chapter 2
THE ADB TYPOLOGIES
Defensive Typology
Defensive domestic battery is defined as an incident of aggression in which the youth is defending himself or a family
member from abuse. In order to fall into this typology, the assessor must determine that any violence (not just the current
incident) directed toward the parent has been in response to a physical threat by the parent.
A youth categorized within the Defensive Typology has typically been raised in a home with an abusive or domineering
parent with rigid rules and harsh punishments. The incident of aggression occurred because the youth felt physically
threatened was responding to a perceived threat based on a history of parental aggression. The parent often would like
to see the youth punished for his aggressive behavior and the parent does not take any responsibility for the incident. The
youth understands that violence is inappropriate but feels in this situation he did not have a choice but to respond with
aggression. Furthermore, the youth believes he would repeat the violence if it is necessary to continue to protect oneself
or a family member.
Example: Katie was a fifteen year-old girl who grew up in a home where the punishment for breaking the rules was a
whipping with a belt. Katie knew that her dad was upset over something that she had done at school. When she saw him
walking down the hall toward her room with his belt in hand, she knew she was going to get a beating. Katie ran out of her
room and into the kitchen where her mom was cooking dinner. Her dad followed her and Katie picked up a knife that had
been lying on the counter. She told her dad, “You will never touch me again” and ran out the door into the back yard. Her
father called the police and told them that she had threatened him with a knife. Because a weapon was involved, Katie
was arrested.
The percent of juvenile-justice involved youth categorized within the Defensive Typology is relatively low. In many cases,
these families are commonly and more appropriately served by the Child Welfare System.
Isolated Incident Typology
Isolated incident domestic battery is defined as an isolated event of aggression born out of atypical family or individual
stress. Without such stress youth may have chosen a more appropriate conflict resolution. Family stressors may include
events such as the death of a family member, sudden economic struggles, job loss, divorce, etc. Individual stressors may
include social struggles, school or job difficulties, time-management, etc. In order to classify a youth into the isolated inci-
dent typology, the assessor must determine that there have been no more than two incidents of youth aggression toward a
parent in the past twenty-four months.
A youth who commits an isolated incident of domestic battery typically has a parent who demonstrates a reasonable
level of authority and encourages age appropriate maturity and behavior from the youth. Both the parent and youth may
be surprised that the situation escalated to the point of aggression. The youth did not intend to harm his or her parent,
understands his behavior was inappropriate, and is willing to change. Parent is primarily concerned that this type of
behavior does not re-occur and may take some responsibility for the incident. The parent maintains authority by enforcing
appropriate consequences.
17
Chapter 2
Example: Jason is a straight A student who plays football and recently started high school. His first week of school
consisted of getting up early to get to school on time, learning a new class schedule and finding his way around his new
school, attending football practice after school and then doing homework late into the evening. One evening, Jason was
playing video games when his mom came in his room to tell him to do his homework. Jason wanted to continue playing
the game “to unwind”; Jason’s mom grabbed for the controller and they began struggling over it. Jason’s mom tripped
over the ottoman and fell to the ground. Jason’s brother called the police and Jason was arrested because his mom
had a bruise on her arm. Jason’s mom states that she could have handled the situation differently. Jason was initially
very embarrassed but admits he should have listened to his mom or negotiated with her for a few additional minutes of
game time.
Family Chaos Typology
Family Chaos domestic battery is defined as a pattern of events in which the youth’s behavior predictably spirals to the
point of battery in order to obtain his purposes and is characterized by inconsistent and unclear parental authority. *
The lack of a consistent parental role can lead to mutual attempts to by the parent and youth to gain control of the situa-
tion at hand. The youth has learned a pattern of intensifying behavior to get what he wants and to temporarily usurp his
parent’s authority (asking a whining a pleading a arguing a name calling a shoving a hitting, etc.) Incidents of
aggression rarely occur if the parent gives into the youth and once his goal is achieved, parental authority returns to status
quo. Attempts by the parent to establish his or her authority frequently result in escalating arguments that may include
aggressive behavior by both the parent and youth.
For families within the Family Chaos Typology, arguing and fighting are a common means of conflict resolution. Generally
the families are not fearful of one another and at times can be resistant to change. Parents may want or need “system
involvement” to help them parent. Youth may state that he wants to see the parents change first.
*It should be noted that many parents do not necessarily choose to be inconsistent or absent, but there may be other
factors in play, such as job schedules, mental health or substance abuse issues, trauma, illnesses, lack of resources, etc.
Example: Ryan is a sixteen year-old boy who asked his mom if he could have the car on Friday night. Mom said “no”
because she had received a note from school saying he was missing assignments and he couldn’t have the car until the
assignments were turned it. Ryan tried to negotiate with his mom saying he would complete the assignments over the
weekend if she let him have the car. Mom continued to say “no.” Ryan began yelling at his mom—“That’s not fair; you
let Andy (Ryan’s brother) take the car last weekend and he was suspended.” Ryan responded by calling his mom an idiot
to which she replied, “You’re a bigger idiot; now you’ll never get the car.” Ryan grabbed the keys out of his mom’s hand,
shoved her and walked out the door. Ryan’s little sister got scared and called the police. Mom told the police, “This
happens all the time and I don’t know what to do. You take him.” When Ryan came home that evening, he asked his mom
for money so he could take his girlfriend out on Friday so she gave him $20. Later, as a result of the police being called,
Ryan was ordered to complete family counseling; his mother was upset and said it wasn’t fair that she had to participate
because he was the one who shoved her.
Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Tool Manual
18
Chapter 2
Escalating Typology
Escalating domestic battery is a pattern of behavior designed to intimidate, control and coerce the parent into giving
into the youth’s demands and ultimately to shift parental authority to the youth, effectively establishing the youth in a posi-
tion of control over the parent.
The “Escalating Typology” is characterized by a range of behaviors and attitudes designed to result in a non-developmental
and ultimately permanent shift from parental authority to youth control. The parent is able to identify a shift in youth’s
behavior as he begins to disregard family rules; ignores parent input and ignores or defies parent attempts at discipline.
The youth demonstrates less and less tolerance for discipline and anger, responding more quickly with violence. Often,
the youth will make unrealistic demands on the parent and his punitive behavior toward the parent is increasingly harsh
when demands are not met Parental attempts to influence the youth will decrease and eventually stop because of fear of
repercussions.
Early in the shift from parental authority to youth control, the youth may be ambivalent toward the use of violence, knowing
that it is wrong and not wanting to hurt his parent. But as violence proves to be effective, his attitude begins to change
until violence becomes the preferred response. The parent is fearful for the family’s physical safety as the violence may be
worsening in both frequency and severity.
Example: Bobby was a 17 year-old boy who lived with his mother. His parents divorced when he was young and he visited
his dad on occasion. Bobby’s mom described his childhood as pretty normal with family vacations, attending church,
neighborhood friends, etc. Bobby’s mom said this all began to change when Bobby went to seventh grade. He began to
refuse to go to school and it became more and more difficult to get him to go. The harder mom would try, the angrier he
got. He stopped spending time with his mom and rarely came home until late at night. When his mom asked him where
he had been, he told her “Shut up, it’s none of your business,” and shoved her out of his way. Later, he told a family friend,
“I know I shouldn’t treat her like that but she gets all up in my business and I just want her to leave me alone.” Bobby’s
behavior continued to worsen, with more and more aggressive episodes. One evening, when he was a sophomore in high
school, Bobby’s mom came into his room to tell him his dad was on the phone. Bobby jumped up off his bed and began
screaming at his mom, “Get out, I’ve told you never to come into my room.” He grabbed her by the neck and threw her
down the stairs. Fearing for her physical safety, she called the police and Bobby was arrested.
19
Chapter 2
DETERMINING THE PROGRESSIVE NATURE OF THE ADB TYPOLOGIES
Once a youth has been classified into a typology, the question becomes, “Based on subsequent behavior, can a youth’s
typology change?” The development of the ADB typologies combined both progressive and non-progressive characteristics
of the different typologies. Some youth may progress from one typology to a more serious typology while others will not.
The typology graph was not created as a continuum, but as separate, distinct categories of ADB. However, in light of the
malleable nature of adolescent development, a youth’s typology may change over time. Factors to consider when deter-
mining the potential progressive nature of the typologies:
1. Not all ADB is progressive. For example, a youth identified as “family chaos” may continue into adulthood as “family
chaos” and may, in fact, raise another generation of youth with similar, but not worsening, behaviors. It is also possible
for a youth identified in the “family chaos” category to begin to choose more appropriate conflict resolution strategies
as he or she matures. In these examples, the distinction between “non-progressive” family chaos and escalating ADB
categories is the critical concept behind the typologies: Not all youth who commit ADB will grow up to commit acts of
intimate partner violence as an adult.
2. The typologies differ in level of severity. The problematic nature of the typologies escalates from left to right on the
ADB Typology Graph. This is with the understanding that defensive ADB is purely protective and therefore would not
fall neatly on a continuum. Isolated ADB would be less problematic than Family Chaos, which would be, in turn, less
problematic than Escalating ADB.
3. When ADB does progress, it is not along a set path. For example, a youth would not have to pass through “family
chaos” to reach Escalating.
4. There is a distinction between an “isolated incident” and an “early incident”. The assessor should not deter-
mine that the youth falls into the isolated category solely because the aggression had never or rarely occurred before.
Early incidents of what is to become “escalating” ADB will have similar frequencies (scope) as the isolated typology but
the remaining domains will more closely match those of the escalating typologies.
The likelihood that a youth might progress to a more serious typology is assessed, in part, with the Progression Risk
Score (PRS). The Progression Risk Score looks at the range of behaviors only within the Escalating Typology domains.
The behaviors within each domain are rated by a Likert scale from “0” to “4” with a total range between “0 to 32”. The
validation study indicated the higher the PRS score, the higher the likelihood youth will receive a petition for a new ADB
offense, regardless of the typology to which the youth was assigned (see Chapter 8). A high PRS will help determine an
early incident from an isolated incident.
5. In order for youth to change typologies, there must be a non-developmental shift in parental authority. (See
“Domain 2 Parental Authority” on page 21)
Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Tool Manual
20
Chapter 2
THE ADBTT DOMAINS
The ADBTT is comprised of eight domains. Not every typology will contain a response from every domain. In order to accu-
rately assign a youth to one of the typologies, the assessor must have a careful understanding of these domains.
Domain 1: Scope of ADB
Domain 2: Parental Authority
Domain 3: Predictability of Event
Domain 4: Triggers to Violence
Domain 5: Behavioral Intent
Domain 6: Youth’s Attitude toward Violence
Domain 7: Youth’s Attitude toward Change
Domain 8: Parent’s Concern
Domain 1: Scope of ADB
The intensity and frequency of incidents of ADB are crucial in determining not only the youth’s typology, but also in
determining what type of treatment should be put into place. If the assessor determines that the frequency and intensity
is increasing or has reached a harmful threshold, safety planning should occur in accordance with the agency’s policy and
procedures.
ADBTT “SCOPE of ADB” ITEMS AND DEFINITIONS:
Domain 1 SCOPE OF ADB
Check the box next to the option(s) that best fits.
n Defensive Isolated Incident n Family Chaos Escalating
This option was scored in
Question #1. Do not count
this box as checked
**Isolated/infrequent (<3 in
past 24 monthsincidents);
Incidents are not “ONLY” in
response to a physical threat
There is no option available for
this typology. Do not count this
box as checked.
Frequent (3 or more in past
24 months) and serious
incidents; Incidents are
not ONLY in response to a
physical threat
Domain 1 PRS Scale Rate “Scope of ADB” on a scale of zero to four. Enter score in the box.
0
Defensive/Isolated inci-
dent OR behavior is not
worsening
1
Threats or aggressive
incidents by youth are
beginning to increase in
frequency and severity
2 3 4
Youth demonstrates
an established pattern
of frequent and severe
aggression; at least
one incident required
medical attention
PRS SCORE
Purpose: To determine the pattern of aggressive behavior and to see if it is worsening in terms of frequency and inten-
sity. Assessor should ask for family to report, but can also use collateral information such as police reports and clinical
impressions.
21
Chapter 2
According to factor analytic results (see Chapter 7) the Defensive and Family Chaos typologies do not have a measurable
pattern of severity or scope and therefore, are not scored in this domain.
Isolated Incident: Isolated or infrequent incidents (less than 3 incidents in the past 24 months); Incidents are not
“ONLY in response to a physical threat.”
Definition: Incident occurs infrequently (less than 3 incidents in the past 24 months). Incident(s) must not be solely a defen-
sive act against a parental threat; otherwise, incident(s) would be scored in the defensive typology.
Escalating: Frequent (three or more incidents in the past 24 months) and serious incidents; Incidents are not
“ONLY in response to a physical threat.”
Definition: Three or more incidents of youth aggression toward parent in the past 24 months; incidents are not “only in
response to physical threat by parent”. Parent is at risk of harm.
Suggested Interview Questions to assess Scope of ADB
• Has this ever happened before? Describe previous events.
• If yes, how often does this happen?
• Were there ever visible marks?
• Did victim ever need to go to the emergency room?
• Was the youth ever the victim or witness of aggression?
• Does the aggression always have the same victim/perpetrator?
Domain 2: Parental Authority
BIRTH YOUNG ADULT
YOUTH AUTHORITY
PARENT AUTHORITY
WHAT TO EAT
HOW TO BEHAVE
WHEN TO SLEEP
WHAT ACTIVITES TO DO
WHAT TO WEAR
WHO ARE MY FRIENDS
HOW TO SPEND MONEY
Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Tool Manual
22
Chapter 2
When an infant is born, a parent or caregiver has almost 100% control or authority over the baby’s life. The parent decides
what the child will wear and eat, who will be introduced to the child, where he goes and to some extent even when the
child will be awake or asleep. Through these and future decisions, the parent begins to communicate a set of expectations
he has for the child’s behavior.
As the baby begins to grow, he learns that he has some influence into his parent’s behavior. He can cry to indicate that
he is hungry, turn his head away to indicate he is full or that he does not like his food, etc. As a toddler, the child begins
to choose his own clothes; a kindergartener may decide who his friends will be; a ten year old may decide what activities
he wants to do, etc. In addition, a parent can allow the child to influence family decisions, such as what movie to watch,
what restaurant to go to, where they might go on vacation, etc. As the child learns to make choices in line with his parent’s
expectations, he is given more decision-making opportunities. A typical pattern of development shows a gradual reduction
of parental authority, as the child is able to make an increasing number of appropriate decisions for himself. It is important
to note that timing and choices will differ from family to family but the overall pattern remains.
When social and cultural norms regarding parental authority are disrupted, various patterns of authority with unique
characteristics begin to emerge. Correctly assessing “Parent Authority” within the context of the youth’s age and
maturity, is a critical step to accurately identifying the adolescent’s typology. The characteristics of parental
authority significantly define the typologies themselves.
ADBTT PARENTAL AUTHORITY ITEMS AND DEFINITIONS:
Domain 2 PARENTAL AUTHORITY
Check the box next to the option(s) that best fits.
Defensive Isolated Incident Family Chaos Escalating
Parent demonstrates
developmentally
unreasonable level of
authority (authoritarian)
Parent demonstrates
developmentally reasonable
level of authority (authoritative)
Parental authority is inconsistent
or unclear
Parental authority is
shifting or has shifted to
youth
Domain 2 PRS Scale Rate “Parental Authority” on a scale of zero to four. Enter score in the box.
0
Parental authority is not
shifting or has not shifted
to youth
1
Parental authority is
becoming ineffective
and control is shifting to
youth
2 3 4
Youth demonstrates
unreasonable level of
control/decision-making
over parent; parent has
no influence over youth
PRS SCORE
Purpose: To determine the characteristics of the existing level of parental authority between Parent and Youth. Assessor
should look at patterns of interactions between the parent and youth, not just at the precipitating incident of aggression.
For Domain 2 “Parental Authority” the assessor needs to determine not only how the youth acted at the time of the
incident, but more importantly, how the youth generally acts. The assessor must determine is this his usual pattern of
behavior or is this unusual. For this domain, the assessor can ask about other behaviors, not just aggression.
23
Chapter 2
Defensive: Parent demonstrates developmentally UNREASONABLE level of authority (authoritarian)
Definition: Parental authority is rigid and unchanging over time. The parent attempts to maintain an unreasonable level of
control over the youth and family by making the majority of household decisions while ignoring the input of others within
the home, including the youth. Parenting style is considered authoritarian. The parent(s) may have unrealistically high
expectations for youth with harsh, often corporal consequences when expectations are not met
Isolated Incident: Parent demonstrates developmentally REASONABLE level of authority (authoritative)
Definition: Parental authority most closely follows the societal norm—a gradual reduction of parental authority as the
youth demonstrates the ability to make appropriate decisions for himself. Parenting style is considered authoritative. The
parent requires age-appropriate maturity and behavior from the youth and communicates these expectations clearly. The
parent has final say about decisions affecting the family but allows the youth to have input and encourages autonomy.
An “isolated incident” of aggression would be a rare breech of parental expectations, usually caused by undue stress on
the youth or family. The parent maintains his or her authority by providing an appropriate consequence for the aggressive
behavior.
Family Chaos: Parental authority is inconsistent or unclear
Definition: Parental authority is inconsistent or non-existent. At times the parent seems to be in control, at other times,
the youth seems to be in control, and sometimes no one appears to be in control. The parent has low or unclear standards
for the youth’s behavior and maturity and makes sporadic or inconsistent attempts to discipline, enforce rules or set limits.
Consequences are inconsistent with minimal follow-through. The youth may be given opportunities to influence family
decisions but these decisions result in frequent arguments. In most cases, Family Chaos aggressive behavior is the youth’s
attempt to temporarily usurp the parent’s authority in order to get what he wants. After the youth achieves his purpose,
parental authority returns to “status quo” until the next time. In the case of families in which the parent is physically or
emotionally unavailable, Family Chaos aggression may be the youth’s attempt to engage the parent long enough to get
what he wants.
Escalating: Parental authority is shifting or has shifted to youth
Definition: Parental authority is usurped as youth exhibits a range of behaviors and attitudes designed to create a non-
developmental and ultimately permanent shift in control from parent to youth. In the early stages of the shift, the youth
begins to challenge his parents’ rules and influences, for example, waiting longer to comply with requests, coming home
later and later after curfew, refusing to do chores he had previously done, etc. Once the shift of control is complete, the
youth does not recognize any authority in the home except for himself. The youth makes all of his decisions for himself
with no regard for his parent’s feelings or input. As a result, the parent is no longer able to effectively influence the youth’s
behavior or decisions. Parental attempts to influence the youth will decrease and eventually stop because of fear of
repercussions. Often, the youth will make unrealistic demands on the parent and his punitive behavior toward the parent
is increasingly harsh when demands are not met. Escalating aggression is a pattern of behavior designed to intimidate,
control and coerce the parent into doing what the youth wants.
Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Tool Manual
24
Chapter 2
Suggested Interview Questions to assess Parental Authority
a. What are the “rules” in your house? (Actual rules and unspoken rules)
b. What happens when “rules” are broken or expectations are not met?
c. Does the youth comply with discipline?
d. Does the parent follow through with discipline?
e. Who makes decisions about family events, like where to go out to dinner or what to do on vacation or what TV show is on?
f. How has parenting changed from when the youth was younger?
g. What happened after this particular incident?
Domain 3: Predictability of event
The family’s ability or inability to predict the event allows the assessor to assess not only the pattern of physically aggres-
sive behaviors but also to assess whether other issues may be occurring. A parent may say, “I saw this coming—he has
been more and more agitated lately.” Or, the parent may be shocked because it has never happened before. The youth
may be surprised by how quickly he reacted—“I must have blanked out because all I remember is talking to my mom about
my grades and the next thing I knew, I had punched her.” These types of details help the assessor determine how to score
this domain and also open the door to ask about what else might be going on.
The assessor can also use the family’s responses to this item to determine if the responses are congruent with other items
on the test. A family may say they are not surprised by the incident but insist it has never happened before.
It should be noted that this domain is the most time-sensitive item on the ADBTT. Frequently the parent or youth will
disagree about how the other party reacted especially if a significant time has passed between the incident and the
screening.
ADBTT “PREDICTABILITY OF EVENT “ITEMS AND DEFINITIONS:
Domain 3 PREDICTABILITY OF EVENT
Check the box next to the option(s) that best fits.
n Defensive Isolated Incident Family Chaos Escalating
There is no option
available for this typology.
Do not count this box as
checked.
Both parent and youth may
be surprised that situation
deteriorated to point of violence
Neither parent nor youth is
surprised by the predictable
pattern/intensity of youth’s
increasingly aggressive behavior;
parent not living in fear
Neither parent nor youth
is surprised by aggression;
may or may not be
surprised at the intensity
of the aggression; parent
is increasingly fearful
Domain 3 PRS Scale Rate “Predictability of Event” on a scale of zero to four. Enter score in the box.
0
Parent is not fearful
1
Both express surprise
at intensity; parent is
beginning to be fearful
2 3 4
Neither is surprised by
intensity; parent lives in
constant fear
PRS SCORE
25
Chapter 2
Purpose: To determine if family perceives youth’s aggressive behavior as congruent with youth’s overall patterns of other
behaviors and to determine if family’s reaction is congruent with their expressed concern over the incident.
Domain 3, “Predictability of event” looks specifically at the incident that brought the youth to the attention of the juvenile
justice system, but the way the family answers, gives the assessor insight into the pattern of events.
Defensive: The defensive typology does not have a measurable pattern of predictability of events and therefore
is not scored.
Isolated Incident: Both parent and youth may be surprised that situation deteriorated to the point of violence
Definition: Both parent and youth are surprised by the incident because it has not happened before or has rarely happened
before.
Family Chaos: Neither parent nor youth is surprised by the predictable pattern/intensity of youth’s increasingly
aggressive behavior; parent not living in fear
Definition: Parent can describe youth’s pattern of increasingly aggressive behavior that youth uses to get what he/she
wants. (For example, asking a whining a pleading a arguing a yelling a shoving a hitting, etc.) Neither party is
surprised by the youth’s behavior. Parent may be fearful at the time of the incident but does not live in constant fear for his/
her own safety.
Escalating: Neither parent nor youth is surprised by aggression; may or may not be surprised at the intensity of
the aggression; Parent is increasingly fearful
Definition: Parent or youth are not surprised by the youth’s aggression but may be surprised that the situation escalated as
quickly as it did or that the intensity was more than was expected.
Suggested Interview Questions to assess Predictability of Event:
a. How did you feel when the incident was happening?
b. Did you see this coming? If so, what were signs?
c. What was your reaction when it was over?
d. How do you feel about the incident now?
e. On a scale of one to ten, how safe do you feel? How has that feeling changed?
Domain 4: Triggers to Violence
To assess “Triggers to violence” the assessor must determine what occurred to cause the youth to be aggressive. This is
generally done by examining the sequence of events that led up to the aggression. While it may be easy to identify the
trigger in one specific event, it is important that the assessor look for patterns by examining triggers to several events.
Some triggers can be easily identified—“I asked him to take out the trash and he got mad.” Others may be more difficult
or less easily connected. “He seemed to be in a bad mood.” The most obvious trigger for ADB will be a parental request
(“take out the trash”), a response to parental discipline (“you are grounded and can’t go out tonight”) or a parental limit
(“no, I will not buy you a $200 pair of shoes to play basketball with your friends.”) The assessor should look beyond the
single incident to decide if other triggers are factoring into the youth’s response. For example, a youth may normally
comply with his mother’s requests, but he broke up with his girlfriend and was really upset that day.
Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Tool Manual
26
Chapter 2
Common triggers:
• Parental request, limit or discipline
• Stress at school or with friends
• Desire to be left alone
• Bad moods
• Physical trigger such as being tired or being hungry
• Being embarrassed in front of peers
• Being upset over own performance in sports, grades, etc.
• Feeling bad about oneself (appearance, weight, feeling lonely, etc.)
• Loss or illness of a loved one
• Other traumatic events (parents’ divorce, death of a loved one, health problems, financial stress, etc.)
• Physical or verbal aggression toward the youth
ADBTT “TRIGGERS TO VIOLENCE” ITEMS AND DEFINITIONS:
Domain 4 TRIGGERS TO VIOLENCE
Check the box next to the option(s) that best fits.
Defensive Isolated Incident Family Chaos Escalating
Violence is protective and
in response to physical
threat by parent
Response to atypical stress
without which incident would
not have occurred
Response to inconsistent
parental discipline, request or
limit
Overall pattern shows
lessening tolerance for
anger and frustration
Domain 4 PRS Scale Rate “Triggers to Violence” on a scale of zero to four. Enter score in the box.
0
Youth’s trigger does not
fall on the continuum
1
Response to parental
discipline, request or
limit with which youth
would have previously
complied
2 3 4
No trigger necessary,
unpredictable pattern
PRS SCORE
Purpose: To determine what caused the youth to engage in domestic battery. In order to accurately rate this item, the
assessor may have to look at a number of incidents of aggressive behavior (if more than one), to determine patterns and
choose the answer that most closely fits.
Defensive: Violence is protective and in response to physical threat by parent
Definition: Incident occurred when youth felt physically threatened by parent. Youth is acting to protect self or other family
members, or in response to an ongoing pattern of parental aggression.
Isolated Incident: Response to atypical stress without which incident would not have occurred
Definition: Incident occurred when youth and/or family was under atypical stress. Atypical stress can include the occur-
rence of an unusual event (e.g., death in the family, divorce of parents, job loss, etc.) or an unusual number of normal
27
Chapter 2
stressors at one time (e.g., financial issues, school issues, full schedules, etc.). Without this additional stress, the family
agrees the situation would have been resolved differently. It is important to remember that the parent’s/youth’s definition of
stress can be different but both should be considered valid.
Family Chaos: Response to inconsistent parental discipline, request or limit
Definition: Incidents almost always occur as a response to a parental request, boundary or discipline. Usually the incident
occurs when the parent requests the youth to do something the parent wants to be done or denies the youth permission to
do something the youth wants to do. Often, the parent has been inconsistent when setting limits or enforcing discipline in
the past. The family agrees incidents rarely occur if the parent gives in to youth demands.
Escalating: Overall pattern shows lessening tolerance for anger and frustration
Definition: Incident may occur as a response to parental request, boundary, or discipline or may have an unrelated trigger,
i.e. breakup with a girlfriend, trouble at school, etc. or even an unidentifiable trigger. Youth is reacting to frustration and
anger more quickly and more aggressively than he has in the past.
Suggested Interview Questions to assess Triggers to Violence
a. What does parent/youth think caused the event?
b. Describe the sequence of events that led up to this particular incident.
c. If applicable, describe the sequence of events that led up to prior incidents.
d. Describe typical sequence of events that instigate arguments in the family or that occur when there is a disagreement
between parent and youth.
e. Do parent and youth agree about sequence of events?
f. Describe situations when conflict does not lead to aggression.
g. On a scale of one to ten how stressed do you think you are normally, the day of the incident, now…?
Domain 5: Behavioral Intent
The question behind behavioral intent is simply to understand what the youth hoped to accomplish by using aggressive
behavior. Was the youth acting impulsively or had he considered the consequences of his actions? Was the youth attempting
to “get something” or to control his parent’s behavior? Was the youth attempting to engage his parents or make them go
away?” One way to assess for intent is to carefully examine what happened immediately following the event. Did youth go
into his room and shut the door or did he continue to follow his parent around? What did the parent do?
Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Tool Manual
28
Chapter 2
ADBTT “BEHAVIORAL INTENT” ITEMS AND DEFINITIONS:
Domain 5 BEHAVIORAL INTENT
Check the box next to the option(s) that best fits.
Defensive Isolated Incident Family Chaos Escalating
Attempt to protect self or
other family members
Impulsive, immediate remorse;
no intent to harm
Pattern of increasingly
aggressive behavior will stop
once youth gets own way, no
intent to harm
Pattern of behavior
designed to intimidate or
control in order to seize
parental authority; will
harm if necessary
Domain 5 PRS Scale Rate “Behavioral Intent” on a scale of zero to four. Enter score in the box.
0
Youth’s behavioral intent
does not fall on the
continuum
1
Youth is struggling to
get what he wants
and attempts to use
intimidation to take over
parental authority
2 3 4
Behavior establishes
coercive control over
parent; deliberate with
intent to harm
PRS SCORE
Purpose: To determine what motivated the youth to engage in domestic battery and what outcome he/she was trying to
achieve.
Domain 5 “Behavioral Intent” depends on examining multiple incidents and looking for patterns: Is there a common theme
as to what the youth is trying to accomplish?
Defensive: Attempt to protect self or other family members
Definition: Youth’s behavior is to protect self or other family members from a real or perceived threat of harm.
Isolated Incident: Impulsive, immediate remorse, no intent to harm
Definition: Youth’s behavior appears impulsive or reactionary with no intent to harm. Youth is immediately remorseful.
Family Chaos: Pattern of increasingly aggressive behavior will stop once youth gets own way, no intent to harm
Definition: Behavior begins when youth perceives that he is not getting own way in regards to parental request, boundary,
or discipline. Usually, the youth has no intent to harm, but to simply get what he wants. Escalation of aggressive behavior
stops immediately if parent “gives in.” (Temporarily shifts parental authority)
Escalating: Pattern of behavior designed to intimidate or control parent in order to seize parental authority; will
harm if necessary
Definition: Youth uses intimidation and control tactics in an attempt to achieve his purposes and to permanently shift
parental authority from parent to youth.
29
Chapter 2
Suggested Interview Questions to assess Behavioral Intent:
a. What was youth hoping to achieve by using aggression?
b. Would aggression have occurred if youth had gotten own way earlier?
c. What else, if anything could have prevented the aggression?
d. What was the immediate behavior of youth and parent following the event?
e. What usually happens after an event like this?
f. Does/did youth demonstrate remorse? How?
Domain 6: Youth Attitude toward Violence
A youth who believes that the use of violence is appropriate is at a higher risk to commit a violent offense. The Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) convened a study group to analyze research on risk and protective
factors for serious and violent juvenile offending. One of the risk factors studied was “Belief and attitudes favorable to
deviant or antisocial behavior.” The group found that especially for boys, “dishonesty, antisocial beliefs and attitudes,
attitudes favorable to violence, and hostility toward police have been found to predict later violence.” Assessing a youth’s
attitude toward the use of violence not only helps to determine into which typology he will fit, but may also assist in deter-
mining the most appropriate intervention. (Hawkins et al., 2000)
ADBTT YOUTH ATTITUDE TOWARD VIOLENCE ITEMS AND DEFINITIONS:
Domain 6 YOUTH ATTITUDE TOWARD VIOLENCE
Check the box next to the option(s) that best fits.
Defensive Isolated Incident Family Chaos Escalating
Believes violence is
inappropriate but is
justified in this incident
Believes violence is
inappropriate and can identify
more appropriate ways he could
have resolved situation
Verbally acknowledges violence
as inappropriate but is willing
to use it again if less aggressive
behaviors are not effective in
achieving his purpose
Youth is beginning
to consider or has
decided that violence is
appropriate
Domain 6 PRS Scale Rate “Youth Attitude toward Violence” on a scale of zero to four. Enter score in the box.
0
Youth believes violence is
inappropriate
1
Is ambivalent about
the appropriateness
of violence but is
experimenting with
violence to see if it is
effective
2 3 4
Accepts violence as
preferred response
PRS SCORE
Purpose: To determine whether or not the youth believes the use of violence is appropriate.
It is difficult to determine a youth’s attitude toward violence from one incident, but the assessor should still look for
patterns: In general, how does the youth feel about the use of violence? Does he use it across settings; is he remorseful?
Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Tool Manual
30
Chapter 2
Defensive: Believes violence is inappropriate but is justified in this incident
Definition: Youth believes use of violence is inappropriate. Youth can identify other ways to handle anger/frustration
that he has personally used in the past and could use in the future. However, youth believes that this particular incident of
violence was justified because youth felt threatened or felt a need to protect self or others.
Isolated Incident: Believes violence is inappropriate and can identify more appropriate ways he could have
resolved situation
Definition: Youth believes use of violence is inappropriate. Youth can identify other ways to handle anger/frustration that
he has personally used in the past and could use in the future. Youth believes he should have handled this incident differ-
ently and demonstrates remorse.
Family Chaos: Verbally acknowledges violence as inappropriate but is willing to use it again if less aggressive
behaviors are not effective in achieving his purpose
Definition: Youth verbally acknowledges that violence is inappropriate, however will use it if he cannot achieve his
purposes by other means. Youth may try other non-aggressive options but if he does not obtain desired results, behavior
will continue to escalate until youth gets what he wants or needs.
Escalating: Youth is beginning to consider or has decided that violence is appropriate
Definition: Youth is determining whether to use patterned violence as a means to achieve his purposes. The youth generally
condones violence as a method for resolving problems.
Suggested Interview Questions to assess Youth Attitude toward Violence
a. Does being aggressive/violent get you what you want? Why or why not?
b. Are you ever violent or aggressive at school, work, with your friends, etc.?
c. Do you think being aggressive is ever justified? Under what circumstances?
d. How do you (youth) feel about hitting your parent (or friend) or (someone else)?
e. If you had it to do over, what (if anything) would you do differently?
f. Can you think of other ways you could have handled this?
g. If you saw one of your friends being aggressive/violent, what would you do/say/feel?
h. If one of your friends saw you being violent, what would they have said?
31
Chapter 2
Domain 7: Youth Attitude toward Change
DiClemente and Prochaska (1982) developed a five-stage model of change based on observations of how people attempted
to change addictive behaviors such as drinking, smoking and over-eating. The “Stages of Change” became the foundation
for Transtheoretical therapy that has been applied to a variety of problematic behaviors.
(adapted from the Transtheoretical Model of Change by Prochaska and DiClemente, 1982)
Assessing the youth’s readiness or resistance to changing his behavior is not only beneficial for determining the typology,
but also to determine what interventions will be the most effective. According to Norcross, et al., (2013), the most efficient
method to assess readiness to change is to ask a simple series of questions. For example, ‘Do you think behaviour X is a
problem for you now?’ (if yes, then contemplation, preparation, or action stage; if no, then maintenance or pre-contempla-
tion stage) and ‘When do you intend to change behaviour X?’ (if some day or not soon, then contemplation stage; if in the
next month, then preparation; if now, then the action stage.)”
ADBTT YOUTH “ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE” ITEMS AND DEFINITIONS:
Domain 7 YOUTH ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE
Check the box next to the option(s) that best fits.
Defensive Isolated Incident Family Chaos Escalating
Youth hopes he won’t have
to repeat but may do so in
response to a perceived
threat
Believes own behavior was
wrong and is willing to change
(preparation/action stage)
May believe own behavior is
wrong but states he is only
willing to change if parents
change their behavior
Resistant toward changing
behavior
Domain 7 PRS Scale Rate “Youth Attitude toward Change” on a scale of zero to four. Enter score in the box.
0
Aggression was solely
protective OR youth is
willing to change
1
Unsure if own behavior
needs to change; may
believe it is wrong but
knows he may repeat
because it is effective
(contemplation)
2 3 4
Unwilling to change
behavior; believes own
behavior is accept-
able and preferred
(pre-contemplation)
PRS SCORE
Maintenance
Taking steps
to ensure the
change is
permanent
Action
Is working
on changing
the problem
behavior
Preparation
Focused on
the problem;
has a plan to
change
Contemplation
Knows there
is a problem;
thinking about
changing
Pre-contemplation
Does not see
the problem;
no intention
of changing
Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Tool Manual
32
Chapter 2
Purpose: To determine whether the youth believes he needs to change his behavior. The assessor should attempt to deter-
mine whether the youth demonstrates a willingness to change (contemplation, preparation, action) and is not simply saying
that he is willing to change for the purpose of the interview (pre-contemplation).
Defensive: Youth hopes he won’t have to repeat but may do so in response to a perceived threat
Definition: Youth believes his behavior was the right response given the circumstances because he did not believe he had
other options by which he could protect himself or other family members. Youth hopes that he will not have to repeat his
behavior, but if in the future, youth were to feel threatened by parent, youth believes repeating his aggressive behavior
would be justified.
Isolated Incident: Believes own behavior was wrong and is willing to change (preparation or action stage)
Definition: Youth believes his aggressive behavior was inappropriate and needs to change in the near future. Youth is
willing to consider and use other more appropriate ways to resolve conflict. Youth accepts responsibility for behavior.
Family Chaos: May believe own behavior is wrong but states he is only willing to change if parents change
their behavior (contemplation)
Definition: Youth believes that he needs to change behavior but will not commit to change unless the parent(s) also commit
to change. Youth may use parent’s behavior as an excuse to continue his own behavior and avoid change.
Escalating: Resistant toward changing behavior; believes own behavior is acceptable and preferred
(pre-contemplation)
Definition: Youth is not ready to commit to changing behavior because he is not convinced the negative consequences of
his behavior outweigh the benefits.
Suggested Interview Questions to assess Youth Attitude toward Change
a. Do you think your aggression/violence is a problem for you?
b. Is being aggressive something you could change? Why or why not?
c. Do you think it is something you should change? Why or why not?
d. Is this something you want to change?
e. What do you think it would take to motivate you to change?
f. What do you think would help you change it?
g. When do you intend to change it?
h. What would be the benefits to changing?
33
Chapter 2
Domain 8: Parent’s Concern
In any case of domestic battery, safety needs to take precedence over all other concerns. If necessary, the assessor
should assist the family in safety planning, at minimum, by instructing the family to call 911 and separate themselves from
potential danger. If at all possible, the assessor should provide a referral to someone who can help the family create a
safety plan that will include a prioritized written list of strategies and sources of support that families can use during times
of conflict and emotional stress.
In addition to safety concerns, parents can have a variety of other concerns. These concerns may differ by typology and
may be challenging for the assessor to identify. The assessor should listen to other statements the parent(s) make, actions
immediately following the incident, what details the parent(s) stress, etc. These concerns may include:
• How do I keep this from happening again?
• What will people think of me as a parent?
• How do I re-establish myself in the parenting role?
• Will my child be punished for what he did to me?
• What will happen if this keeps getting worse?
• What will happen to my child if he continues to be aggressive?
• How do I get help dealing with my aggressive child?
• How much effort and resources can I afford to put into solving this problem?
ADBTT “PARENT’S CONCERN” ITEMS AND DEFINITIONS:
Domain 8 PARENT’S CONCERN
Check the box next to the option(s) that best fits.
Defensive Isolated Incident Family Chaos Escalating
Wants to deflect
responsibility for incident
to youth; may want to see
youth punished
Wants situation resolved/no
ongoing concerns regarding
safety; may take some
responsibility
Desires to have someone else
(JJ system) impact/influence
youth; Parent does not want to
be required to change
Parent is concerned for
Personal or Family Safety/
Future
Domain 8 PRS Scale Rate “Parent’s Concern” on a scale of zero to four. Enter score in the box.
0
Parent does not have any
concerns about safety
1
Expresses some
concerns about safety
but mostly anxious
for youth, family, and
own future if behavior
continues
2 3 4
Constant and over-
whelming fear for
personal and family’s
safety.
PRS SCORE
Purpose: To determine what the parents’ concern is regarding the incident and/or pattern of their child’s domestic battery.
In addition to parents’ expressed concern about safety, the assessor must try to determine the parent’s other concerns.
Parents’ concern can be examined over a series of incidents and over a period of time. For example, parent may say, “I was
scared at the time, but now I am more worried about what might happen to my kid.”
Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Tool Manual
34
Chapter 2
Defensive: Wants to deflect responsibility for incident to youth; may want to see youth punished
Definition: Parent deflects own responsibility for incident to youth to protect self from blame. Wants the “system” to take
parent’s point of view and punish the youth.
Isolated Incident: Wants situation resolved/no on-going concerns regarding safety; may take some responsi-
bility for incident
Definition: Parent would like to resolve the issue, while ensuring that it does not repeat. Parents do not have on-going
concern for own safety. Parent may take some responsibility by saying “I should have/could have handled it differently.”
Family Chaos: Desire to have someone else (JJ system) impact youth/influence youth; Parent does not want to
be required to change.
Definition: Parent would like someone else (possibly the Juvenile Justice system) to establish authority over and affect
change in the youth. Parent may want immediate support in own parental role but is resistant to being held accountable for
changing his own behavior.
Escalating: Personal or Family Safety/Future
Definition: Parent‘s primary concern is for personal safety or for the safety of the family. Parent is concerned about what
will happen to the family if youth’s behavior does not change. As youth’s behavior becomes more extreme, parent may have
developed a strategy about what to do if the behavior occurs or what to do to prevent the behavior (safety planning).
Suggested Interview Questions to assess Parent’s Concern
a. What bothers you most about the situation that occurred?
b. What, (if any) safety plans have you made?
c. If it were to happen again, what would you do?
d. What do you think should happen to your child now?
e. Would you be willing to participate in a program to help your child?
f. Have you talked to anyone else about your child’s behavior?
35
CHAPTER 3: Scoring the ADBTT
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR GATHERING INFORMATION
The ADBTT (see Appendix B) is comprised of eight domains with a Progression Risk Score (PRS) associated with each
domain. Each domain is separated into four unique options that are characteristic of the different typologies of domestic
battery. The assessor must determine which option best describes the youth and his/her family. The assessor further
evaluates the youth and family by placing their behaviors, attitudes and concerns along a continuum, creating a PRS. The
domains and the PRS are scored according to the clinical impressions and judgment of the assessor based on information
garnered through interviews with the youth and parent as well as any collateral information.
Collateral information can be gathered from a variety of sources including police reports, criminal and social histories, and
history of involvement with the child welfare system. In addition, the ADBTT may be supplemented with mental health
screening, drug and alcohol screening, and screening of trauma-related symptoms as resources permit.
The primary source of information, however, will come from the interviews with the youth and parents or caregivers.
Ideally, the interview process should occur in three parts: interview with the youth, interview with the parent and a joint
interview with the youth and parent. If it is not possible to do a joint interview, separate interviews can suffice. If either
the youth or the parent is unavailable, the ADBTT should be considered incomplete and any results viewed
with caution. As noted in Chapter One, the timing and location of the interview process can vary by jurisdiction but the
earlier in the process the better. Earlier assessments have a greater chance of impacting diversion decisions.
The inclusion of parents/caregivers is integral to the process of completing the ADBTT. In addition to providing informa-
tion about the referring incident, they are also in a position to provide both historical and dynamic information about the
youth’s patterns of violence and behavior. Having both a youth and their parent/caregiver account, together with the other
available information, provides for the most accurate representation of the level of both risk and need. Basing the ADBTT
scoring on the youth’s self-report alone is likely to be skewed. Moreover, some items of the tool are scored based on the
parents’ concerns, which would be difficult to discern without a parent interview.
When completing the ADBTT, the assessor needs to be aware that scoring the domains and the Progression Risk Scores
requires him or her to assess the youth’s patterns of behavior. With the exception of Domain 3, “Predictability of Event”,
each domain should be scored by examining multiple incidents, events or scenarios. The assessor should look for patterns
of behavior, attitudes, concerns, relationships, etc., in order to most accurately assign the youth’s typology. Make sure
your agency has safeguards in place to keep information the youth and family gives you about prior incidents confidential
(within any legal or ethical limits).
While the ADBTT is not simply a list of questions that the assessor asks the youth and the parents, this manual does
include some “Suggested Interview Questions” in both Chapter 2 and in Appendix C. These examples demonstrate the
type of questions the assessor might use in order to make a clinical judgment regarding the domains and the PRS. The
assessor is able to use his own questions as appropriate and is not required to get answers to all of the suggested
questions.
If there are discrepancies between the youth and parents’ reports these discrepancies should be resolved during the joint
interview. If discrepancies cannot be resolved, the assessor should score the ADBTT based on the most reliable and cred-
ible source.
Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Tool Manual
36
Chapter 3
HANDLING ISSUES THAT ARISE
The utilization of the ADBTT and the accompanying clinical interview and screening process may result in increased
disclosure of acute youth or family situations. Although, this is certainly aligned with the general purpose of any effec-
tive juvenile justice intake process, the more intensive nature of this process can also provide more revelations than a
more cursory intake process. Issues that will likely arise include mental health and substance abuse issues, neglect or
dependency indications, health issues and evidence of child physical/sexual abuse. Additionally, a clear ongoing threat of
violence to family members, or others, may be discernable. Most of these situations already have clear responses stipu-
lated in local policy and protocol for intake interviews.
When closely screening for violence/abuse/trauma patterns, the assessor may encounter cases where they may need
to provide for, or arrange for, an immediate crisis de-escalation or response. There should be clear protocol developed
for whom to contact in these situations when using the ADBTT process, and a basic level of crisis de-escalation training
provided to all assessors.
As stated in previous sections, there is also the risk of discovering the occurrence of ongoing abuse, which would require
an immediate report to the local child welfare agency by the assessor who is likely to already be a mandated reporter.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE ADBTT
The ADBTT process probes into some very sensitive areas in the lives of youth and families entering the system after a
family violence event. As such, it is critical that the process be presented in as non-threatening, cohesive, and profes-
sional a manner as possible. Sites using the tool should develop both a “script” for the assessors to follow as well as set
of clinical interview questions to be used as guide to access information (see Chapter 2 and Appendix C for “Suggested
Interview Questions”). These tools are best devised locally to meet the specific need of your population and to take into
account local standards and practices. We recommend an introductory script using the structure outlined below.
1. Read the script introducing the ADBTT.
Script: To the youth and parent(s): “I am going to ask you some questions that will help us to better understand what
has happened with your family to plan the appropriate services and action for you. This will require that I have some time
to speak with both of you separately and then I would like to speak with both of you together.”
2. Review the limits of confidentiality as per standards in your jurisdiction and provide any other details as to how the
information might be used.
3. Complete the client information. See next page.
37
Chapter 3
4. Answer Question #1 regarding “violence in response to physical threat”. If the answer is “yes”, follow the specific
instructions indicated by the asterisk (*) in the question box. If the answer is “no” proceed to instruction #3.
Name: __________________________ DOB_________ ID#: __________________________
Race: American Indian/Alaska Native Asian
Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
White other
Multiple Races Unknown
Ethnicity: Hispanic Non-Hispanic Unknown Gender: Male Female
Site: _______________________________ Screening Setting: _________________________
(Jurisdiction/County, State) (Detention, court, etc.)
Screener Name: ________________________________ Date of Screening: _______________
John Carter
June 15, 2004John Smith
2/11/00
DuPage County, IL Youth Home
X
X X
15-000234
ID# is the number your agency
assigns to the youth
Domain 2 PARENTAL AUTHORITY
Check the box next to the option(s) that best fits.
Defensive Isolated Incident Family Chaos Escalating
Parent demonstrates
developmentally
unreasonable level of
authority (authoritarian)
Parent demonstrates
developmentally reasonable
level of authority (authoritative)
Parental authority is inconsistent
or unclear
Parental authority is
shifting or has shifted to
youth
Domain 2 PRS Scale Rate “Parental Authority” on a scale of zero to four. Enter score in the box.
0
Parental authority is not
shifting or has not shifted
to youth
1
Parental authority is
becoming ineffective
and control is shifting to
youth
2 3 4
Youth demonstrates
unreasonable level of
control/decision-making
over parent; parent has
no influence over youth
PRS SCORE
EXAMPLE
X
Do not score these typologies. BUT complete the PRS scores on all the
domains. (See #5 for instructions on how to complete PRS Score.
Score this; check box if “Yes”;
leave unchecked if “No.”
Question #1: Has every incident of violence by the youth toward the parent, ONLY been in response to a physical
threat by the parent? Yes* No
*If the answer is “yes” score only the Defensive items for the other domains. In each domain, check the
Defensive box if it fits the youth and family. If it does not fit, do not check any domain boxes. Complete all the PRS
Scales for every domain as well as the “Additional Instructions to Assign Typology and Calculate Risk Score” on
page 4 of the ADBTT.
X
Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Tool Manual
38
Chapter 3
5. Each domain is scored based on information garnered through interviews with the youth/parent as well as any collateral
information the assessor has. Refer to “suggested interview questions” in Chapter 2 of the manual. The scorer should
choose the option that he feels is the most accurate description of the family based on his observations and knowledge,
in addition to the family and youth’s answers to his questions.
6. For each domain, check the box next to the option(s) that best fits the youth and his/her family. If the check box is
blacked out “n”, there is no option available for that typology. Do not check that box.
Domain 3 PREDICTABILITY OF EVENT
Check the box next to the option(s) that best fits.
n Defensive Isolated Incident Family Chaos Escalating
There is no option
available for this typology.
Do not count this box as
checked
Both parent and youth may
be surprised that situation
deteriorated to point of violence
Neither parent nor youth is
surprised by the predictable
pattern/intensity of youth’s
increasingly aggressive behavior;
parent not living in fear
Neither parent nor youth
is surprised by aggression;
may or may not be
surprised at the intensity
of the aggression; parent
is increasingly fearful
Domain 3 PRS Scale Rate “Predictability of Event” on a scale of zero to four. Enter score in the box.
0
Parent is not fearful
1
Both express surprise
at intensity; parent is
beginning to be fearful
2 3 4
Neither is surprised by
intensity; parent lives in
constant fear
PRS SCORE
7. Refer to the domain definitions provided in the manual to score the items as accurately as possible.
EXAMPLE
Choose the option that best describes the family
Do not score this typology
(Domain 3: PREDICTABILITY OF EVENT)
Family Chaos: Neither parent nor youth is surprised by the predictable pattern/intensity of youth’s increasingly
aggressive behavior; parent not living in fear
Definition: Parent can describe the pattern of increasingly aggressive behavior that youth uses to get what he/
she wants. (For example, asking>whining>pleading>arguing>yelling>shoving>hitting, etc.) Neither party is
surprised by the youth’s behavior. Parent may be fearful at the time of the incident but does not live in constant
fear for his/her own safety.
EXAMPLE
39
Chapter 3
8. If no option appears to fit, or if more than one option appears to fit, follow these instructions:
a. Refer back to the definitions for clarification.
b. Ask the youth or family member additional questions. (See “Suggested Interview Questions” in the Chapter 2 of the
manual).
c. Example for Predictability of Event:
• How did you feel when the incident was happening?
• What was your reaction when it was over?”
d. Choose the option that most closely fits.
e. If no answer is close, leave that domain unchecked, but score the PRS as accurately as possible.
f. If the assessor still believes that the options fit the family equally, he can choose both, but it is less desirable than
choosing one. The assessor should be careful not to choose contradictory options.
9. The Progression Risk Score (PRS) measures the likelihood that a youth will commit another ADB or could move to a
more serious typology. The PRS looks at the range of behaviors within the Escalating Typology domains but is scored
for each domain even if the Escalating Typology was not chosen.
10. In the gray “PRS Scale” box under each domain item, rate the domain on a scale of “0” to “4” according to the
description that best fits the youth and his/her family. Each item defines the “0”, “1”, and “4” ratings. The “2” and
“3” ratings are intentionally undefined so that the assessor can rate answers that may fall between the two extremes.
Provide a PRS score even when scoring the domain is not possible (e.g., the check box is blacked out), or no typology
definition fits the youth/family.
Domain 3 PREDICTABILITY OF EVENT
Check the box next to the option(s) that best fits.
n Defensive Isolated Incident Family Chaos Escalating
There is no option
available for this typology.
Do not count this box as
checked
Both parent and youth may
be surprised that situation
deteriorated to point of violence
Neither parent nor youth is
surprised by the predictable
pattern/intensity of youth’s
increasingly aggressive behavior;
parent not living in fear
Neither parent nor youth
is surprised by aggression;
may or may not be
surprised at the intensity
of the aggression; parent
is increasingly fearful
Domain 3 PRS Scale Rate “Predictability of Event” on a scale of zero to four. Enter score in the box.
0
Parent is not fearful
1
Both express surprise
at intensity; parent is
beginning to be fearful
2 3 4
Neither is surprised by
intensity; parent lives in
constant fear
PRS SCORE
11. Once all domains and PRS Scales have been completed, follow instructions #11 through #15 on the last page of the ADBTT.
Choose the option that best describes the
family. Enter the number in the box.
PRS
EXAMPLE
2
Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Tool Manual
40
Chapter 3
12. Count the number of items that are checked in each of the typologies: Defensive, Isolated Incident, Family Chaos
and Escalating. (Do not count boxes that have been “blacked out”.) Record “number of items checked” on the
indicated lines.
13. Refer to the “Typology Scoring Table” to find the youth’s score in each typology and enter them into the indicated boxes.
Typology Scoring Table Typology Score
Domains
Checked Defensive Isolated
Incident Family Chaos Escalating Defensive
0
00000
1 17 13 14 13
Isolated Incident
13
2 33 25 29 25
3 50 38 43 38
4 67 50 57 50
Family Chaos
29
5 83 63 71 63
6 100 75 86 75
7 - 88 100 88 Escalating
63
8 - 100 - 100
14. Re-enter the answer to question #1 (from page 1 of the ADBTT) and answer question #2.
15. The youth is assigned to the typology with the highest score, unless otherwise indicated by the answers to #1 or #2.
If the Defensive and/or Isolated Incident typologies are ruled out, then assign the youth to the typology with the next
highest score. Check the box with the final typology assignment.
Final Typology Assignment PRS SCORE TOTAL
24
Defensive Isolated Incident Family Chaos Escalating
16. Add together the Progression Risk Scores (PRS) from the shaded boxes on pages 2 and 3. Enter the total (0 – 32) in the
shaded box below. (Note: This is separate from the Typology Score)
Defensive items: ___ /6 Isolated Incident Item: ___ /8 Family Chaos: ___ /7 Escalating: ___ /8
0 1 2 5
Question #1: Has every incident of violence by the youth toward the parent, ONLY been in response to a physical
threat by the parent? (If “no,” youth CANNOT be assigned to the Defensive typology.) Yes No
Question #2: Were there less than 3 incidents of youth aggression in a 24-month period?
(If “no,” youth CANNOT be assigned to the Isolated Incident typology.) Yes No
X
X
41
CHAPTER 4: Responding to Typology Scores
MATCHING TYPOLOGIES WITH INTERVENTIONS
The ADBTT is designed to aid in dispositional and treatment planning by identifying youth at risk of reoffending violently
in a domestic context. By assigning youth to distinct typologies, the ADBTT provides the basis for recognizing that youth
who commit domestic battery are not all the same; they do not have the same risk level to reoffend and should be given
different responses. The tool’s classification methodology provides the foundation for a developing a structured frame-
work to effectively match intervention level to risk level, thus providing a much greater likelihood for successful treatment
outcomes. For example, a youth classified as an “isolated case” would not be appropriate for an intensive long term treat-
ment program but would likely benefit from some form of educational programming through a diversion contract.
1. Two Cautions: Decisions about how to intervene with a youth and his or her family should not be based solely on the
ADBTT. Other youth characteristics must be considered including additional screening as necessary, for mental health,
substance abuse and trauma issues. Family needs and resources should also be considered.
2. Additional research is needed to match interventions to youth who have committed ADB. While the research behind the
ADBTT included measuring the impact of interventions to recidivism rates, the results are not definitive.
System Responses:
Because every jurisdiction has its own set of responses, terminology and available resources, it is impossible to create a
decision-making grid that will include every potential system response. The System Response grid is based on responses
utilized in the state of Illinois and is an example of how the typologies could be matched to those responses. Each site
will need to develop its own grid by employing risk levels, risk management principles and an understanding of dynamics
of the typologies.
The System Response grid is not intended to recommend any system response that would be more intensive than would
normally occur. Specific cases may at times defy the logic of the grid and must be evaluated individually as it is possible
that the grid may overreact or underreact to any unique set of circumstances.
One System Response, not currently available in Illinois, but used successfully in other jurisdictions is the “Specialized
Docket or Specialized Court.” These courts differ from traditional courts in that they focus on one type of offense or
offender. Usually the judge plays an intensive supervisory role. Other criminal justice components (e.g., probation) and
social services agencies (e.g., drug treatment) are involved and collaborate closely in case processing. Specialized dockets
for family violence fall under the scope of Therapeutic Jurisprudence to reduce criminal offending through thera-
peutic and interdisciplinary approaches that address the underlying issues without jeopardizing public safety and due
process. Specialized dockets for ADB would be appropriate for Family Chaos and Escalating Types but would most likely
be too intensive for the Isolated Incident category. Family cases within the Defensive Type would likely be heard in a child
welfare jurisdiction court.
Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Tool Manual
42
Chapter 4
Recommended Juvenile Justice System Responses to ADB (Example only)
System Responses
to ADBTT Typologies of ADBTT
CRISIS RESPONSE Defensive Isolated Family Chaos Escalating
Crisis Intervention These services should be available for all typologies and should inform subsequent responses.
May be done by police or other agency.
Safety/Screening and
Planning
ADB Assessment If ADB assessment cannot be done at the point of crisis, it should be done as soon as possible.
Referral to Child Welfare Mandated by Illinois law As indicated
Respite/Shelter Care
If necessary; it should be
a DCFS (child welfare)
placement
Not likely to be necessary If available If available and only if
no significant history of
aggression
Detention Not appropriate Not appropriate May be appropriate; over-
ride not recommended
May be appropriate; over-
ride as needed
POLICE RESPONSE
(FOLLOWING CRISIS) Defensive Isolated Family Chaos Escalating
Family Generated Solution
(no arrest)
May be appropriate; if
DCFS is investigating or if
family is receiving services
elsewhere
Appropriate for first time
offenders; based on parent's
resources and request as
well as youth attitude
Not appropriate Not appropriate
Station Adjustment (S.A.)
May be appropriate; if
DCFS is investigating or if
family is receiving services
elsewhere
Appropriate, (both informal
and formal S. A.)
Formal S.A. only; requiring
programmatic response
Not appropriate
Refer case to Probation
May be appropriate if it
is the only way to get the
family services
Appropriate if the family
does not feel it has the
resources to generate a
solution
Appropriate Appropriate
Referral for Treatment As needed (If other agency is providing the crisis response, agency should offer or link family to follow-up services.)
PROBATION/COURT
SERVICES RESPONSE Defensive Isolated Family Chaos Escalating
Family Generated Solution
(close case)
May be appropriate; if
DCFS is investigating or if
family is receiving services
elsewhere
Appropriate for first time
offenders; based on parent's
resources and request as
well as youth attitude
Not appropriate Not appropriate
Mediation Not appropriate Appropriate Appropriate if only other
offenses are minor
Not appropriate
Informal Supervision
(Diversion)
May be appropriate; if
DCFS is investigating or if
family is receiving services
elsewhere
Appropriate, with or without
requiring programmatic
response
Appropriate only if requiring
programmatic response
Appropriate only if requiring
programmatic response
Continuance under
Supervision
May be appropriate if it
is the only way to get the
family services
Appropriate, with or without
requiring programmatic
response.
Appropriate only if requiring
programmatic response
Appropriate only if requiring
programmatic response
Formal Supervision
(Probation)
Not appropriate Not appropriate, unless all
attempts at diversion have
failed
Appropriate if attempts
at diversion have failed
or if intensity of incident
warrants it. Should include
programmatic response.
Appropriate if attempts
at diversion have failed
or if intensity of incident
warrants it. Should include
programmatic response.
Residential Placement Not appropriate Not appropriate Not appropriate Only in extreme cases
Referral for Treatment If case reaches Probation and Court Services, a referral for assessment for treatment is appropriate
43
Chapter 4
Treatment Responses:
Choosing a treatment response for each of the typologies presents a challenge to many jurisdictions. Jurisdictions must
identify resources (time, money, staffing, etc.), collaborate with various agencies (usually the juvenile justice system as
well as a community provider at a minimum) and choose a treatment program that will work within their system.
The Treatment Response Grid is not to be considered an exhaustive list of treatments; there may be other valuable
programs that have not been included. A “recommended” treatment means that it should be considered as an option for
that typology, not that it should be required for every youth categorized in that typology. “ADB specific” means that the
treatment was designed to specifically address ADB or DV. “Non ADB specific” means that treatment is used to treat other
issues or problematic behaviors but can be applied to ADB. A “Blended Response” is both a system response as well as
treatment. Specialized dockets would fall into the “Blended Response” category.
Recommended Juvenile Justice Treatment Responses to ADB (system responses)
Justice Trearment
Responses
to ADB
Typologies of ADBTT
Non ADB Specific Treatment Defensive Isolated Family Chaos Escalating
Individual Counseling
Recommended, especially
if youth has trauma issues;
focus on coping skills
Usually not necessary
unless youth demonstrates
need based on other
assessment
Not recommended to
address domestic violence,
unless paired with other
services
Recommended, needs to
be paired with services to
support the family
Family Counseling
Not recommended unless
abusive parent has received
DV services prior to family
counseling
Usually not necessary
unless family requests or
demonstrates need based
on other assessment
Recommended Recommended if it does not
put other family members
at risk
Brief Strategic Family
Therapy
See Family Counseling Recommended on case by
case basis
Highly Recommended Recommended for early
incidents and only if it
does not put other family
members at risk
MST/FFT
See Family Counseling Not recommended, service
is more intensive than
needed
Highly recommended Recommended if it does not
put other family members
at risk
Parent Education
Recommended; needs to
include abusive parent
accountability to the system
(monitoring)
May be recommended Recommended, focus on
parent skills
Recommended, focus on
parent skills and support
Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Tool Manual
44
Chapter 4
Recommended Juvenile Justice Treatment Responses to ADB (system responses)
Anger Management
Not recommended for youth,
may be recommended for
abusive parent
Usually not necessary Recommended on case by
case basis; should be paired
with other services
Recommended; should be
paired with other services
ADB Specific Treatment Defensive Isolated Family Chaos Escalating
Safety Planning
Recommended, including
planning around parent
violence
Recommended, may include
“behavior contract”
Recommended; may include
“behavior contract”; may
need to include planning
around parent behavior
Highly Recommended, may
want to safety plan with
parent alone
Domestic Violence
Education (4 hour educa-
tional program)
Recommended on case by
case basis and only if it has
a parent component
Recommended on case by
case basis
Recommended if it has a
parent component
Recommended for early
incidents
Step Up (21 week group
therapy curriculum with
parent component)
Not recommended unless it
is the only treatment option
available
Due to length of program,
not recommended unless
parents are requesting
additional support
Highly recommended;
emphasize accountability
Highly Recommended;
emphasize safety planning;
needs to include youth
accountability to the system
(monitoring)
Traditional Adult DV
education
Not recommended Not recommended Not recommended Recommended only for
escalating youth with very
high risk scores
Blended Responses
(system and treatment) Defensive Isolated Family Chaos Escalating
Mediation
Not recommended Highly Recommended Recommended if there
is additional system
monitoring/accountability
Recommended only for
early incidents and only if
there is additional system
monitoring/accountability
Specialized Docket
Child Welfare Jurisdiction
Court
Not recommended, service
is more intensive than
needed
Highly recommended Highly recommended
The Response Grids are provided merely as examples of structured decision making grids. Specific individual cases may at
times defy the logic of the chart and must be independently evaluated as it is possible that the response grid may overreact
or underreact to any unique set of circumstances.
45
CHAPTER 5: The ADBTT Validation Study:
Identification of The Typologies
The authors developed and finalized the version of the ADBTT described in this manual based on findings from the multi-
site ADBTT Validation Study. This study has the largest reported sample of youth who have been arrested for an act of
domestic battery toward a parent. Therefore, the characteristics of this sample can be used to understand this popula-
tion generally. The validation study examined: (1) whether the ADB characteristics fit statistically into the classifications
created by the developers, (2) how other youth and family risk factors (e.g., history of potentially traumatic events, mental
health issues, substance abuse, parental criminality) correlated with the typologies and (3) whether some of these catego-
ries identified youth who were more likely to commit domestic battery again or to reoffend generally over the course of a
year. The research methodology also examined the inter-rater reliability of items to ensure different types of assessors
could rate the items of the assessment consistently.
The sample was drawn from six court jurisdictions, each of which implemented the ADBTT interview and scoring as part
of their routine practice for youth charged with ADB toward a parent. Each of these sites also completed their own general
risk assessment with the youth and parent as part of their routine practice to estimate risk of reoffending and to guide case
planning. In addition, the sites administered a questionnaire about prior potentially traumatic experiences and a checklist
of additional risk factors to the youth to complete on their own.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITES
It was important to test the ADBTT and interview procedures in different juvenile justice settings and with assessors from
different types of professions to strengthen its generalizability. The location where the assessment was conducted varied
across sites as follows:
• Lucas County Juvenile Court – ADBTT assessments were conducted when the youth first entered the detention facility.
• DuPage County Juvenile Court – ADBTT assessments took place with youths at intake, either at diversion or pre-
arraignment. Youths who committed felonies were automatically referred for a formal delinquency petition and not
included or assessed.
• Pima County Juvenile Court Center – ADBTT assessments took place at the Domestic Violence Alternative Center
(DVAC), which serves as an alternative to detention intake for youth who are arrested for misdemeanor domestic
violence offenses. Youth who committed felonies were automatically petitioned and not included or assessed.
• Bexar County Juvenile Probation Department – ADBTT assessments were typically completed at the first meeting
with the probation department. Youths who committed felonies were automatically filed and not assessed.
• Connecticut Judicial Branch Court Support Services Division (New Britain and Hartford) – Most of the youth
involved in the project were first and second time offenders who were eligible for non-judicial handling, so the ADBTT
assessments were administered at the first meeting after an admission to the charges.
Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Tool Manual
46
Chapter 5
DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE
The sample for the study comprised youth who were charged with a domestic battery offense. The ADBTT initially was
completed for 515 adolescents charged with a domestic battery offense who were brought to one of the six juvenile justice
locations in the study. A total of 142 of these cases were excluded as follows: 93 cases were removed because they were
ineligible for the study (there wasn’t a real battery charge, ADB was not against a parent), 45 were removed because they
were duplicate cases, and 4 were removed due to incomplete assessments. The final sample included 373 adolescents
charged with a domestic battery specifically against at least one parent or caregiver.
Demographic information for the entire sample is included in Tables 1 through 3, which also provide the information by
site. The youth averaged 14.6 years of age and most were boys, but a surprising 40% were girls. The sites had significant
differences in the number of youth with child welfare involvement (see Table 1), with the highest rates in Hartford County
and the lowest rates in Pima and DuPage Counties; 2(5, 358) = 60.92, p < .01.
Table 1: Age, Gender, and Child Welfare Involvement By Site
Overall
N = 373
DuPage
n = 32
Lucas
n = 91
Bexar
n = 31
Pima
n = 175
New
Britain
n = 21
Hartford
n = 23
Age Range 9-18 12-18 12-17 11-17 9-17 13-17 12-17
Age M(SD) 14.68
(1.7)
15.44
(1.3)
14.65
(1.5)
14.77
(1.5)
14.51
(1.9)
15.14
(1.5)
14.48
(1.5)
Gender
(n & % Male)
221
(59.2%)
25
(78.1%)
25
(78.1%)
16
(51.6%)
99
(56.6%)
16
(76.2%)
16
(69.6%)
Current Child
Welfare
Involvementa
49
(13.1%) 024
(26.4%)
7
(22.6%)
6
(3.4%)
2
(9.5%)
10
(43.5%)
Prior Child
Welfare
Involvement
96
(25.7%)
1
(3.2%)
40
(44.0%)
14
(45.2%)
27
(15.4%)
7
(33.3%)
7
(30.4%)
Note. There were no significant differences in age or gender across sites. There were significant differences in child
welfare involvement by site 2(5, 358) = 60.92, p < .01
Unlike the general population of youth in the juvenile justice system, the majority of this adolescent domestic battery
sample was White and non-Hispanic (see Tables 2 and 3). There were significant differences in the racial [2(15, N = 373)
= 77.40, p < .001] and ethnic [2 (5, 360) = 29.49, p < .01] breakdown across sites (see Tables 2 and 3). Lucas and Hartford
Counties had the highest proportion of Black adolescents. Bexar had the highest proportion of Hispanic youth.
47
Chapter 5
Table 2: Racial Composition of Sample by Site
Overall
N = 373
DuPage
n = 32
Lucas
n = 91
Bexar
n = 31
Pima
n = 175
New
Britain
n = 21
Hartford
n = 23
Black 81
(21.7%)
5
(15.6%)
41
(45.1%)a
6
(19.4%)
14
(8.0%)
5
(23.8%)
10
(43.5%)a
White 257
(68.9%)
25
(78.1%)
44
(48.4%)
22
(71.0%)
139
(79.4%)
15
(71.4%)
12
(52.2%)
Asian 3
(0.8%)
2
(6.3%) 01
(3.2%) 000
Other 32
(8.6%) 06
(6.6%)
2
(6.5%)
22
(12.6%)
1
(4.8%)
1
(4.3%)
Table 3: Ethnicity by Site (overall n = 123, 34.2% Hispanic)
DuPage
n = 32
Lucas
n = 91
Bexar
n = 31
Pima
n = 175
New
Britain
n = 21
Hartford
n = 23
Hispanic 8
(25.0%)
13
(14.1%)
19
(61.2%)
69a
(39.4%)
4a
(19.0%)
10
(43.5%)
Note: There were significant differences in ethnicity by site 2(5, 360) = 29.49, p < .01. a = Significantly higher proportions
than the other sites.
Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Tool Manual
48
Chapter 5
Juvenile Justice Status
Youth were at various stages in the juvenile justice process at the time they completed their ADBTT interview (see Table 4).
Most juveniles interviewed in DuPage County were placed into a diversion program by the time of the interview. Similarly,
youth in Pima County were interviewed at a Domestic Violence Alternative Center (DVAC) diversion program, which serves
as an alternative to detention intake for youth who are arrested for misdemeanor domestic violence offenses. The majority
of youth in Bexar County, Hartford, and New Haven, were interviewed pre-adjudication while in the community; whereas in
Lucas County, youth were interviewed pre-adjudication in detention.
Table 4: Juvenile Justice Status At Time of Interview
Overall
N = 373
DuPage
n = 32
Lucas
n = 91
Bexar
n = 31
Pima
n = 175
New
Britain
n = 21
Hartford
n = 23
Pre-Adjudication-
in community
228
(61.3%)
7
(21.9%)
13
(14.3%)
15
(48.4%)
155
(88.6%)
15
(75.0%)
23
(100%)
Pre-Adjudication-
in detention
90
(24.2%)
4
(12.5%)
70
(76.9%)
14
(45.2%) 02
(10.0%) 0
Diversion program 35
(9.4%)
21
(65.6%)
6
(6.6%) 08
(4.6%) 0 0
Probation 12
(3.2%) 00012
(6.9%) 0 0
Other (non-
judicial, pending,
post adjudication)
7
(1.9%) 02
(2.2%)
2
(6.5%) 03
(15.0%) 0
Note: Sites differed significantly in the proportion of youths at different juvenile justice stages; 2(20, 372) = 390.02, p <
.01. Information was missing for one case in New Britain.
49
Chapter 5
Victims
Types of victims for the current domestic battery incident were collected using the ADB tool. Youth ranged from having zero
to five victims for their current domestic battery charge, for a total of 435 victims; an average of 1.19 (SD = 0.50) victims
for each index offense. The most likely victims were mothers across the board (see Table 5). The sites significantly differed
with respect to the proportion of victims who were fathers or other relatives, with New Britain and DuPage County having
the highest proportion of father victims; 2 (5, 352) = 14.47, p = .01. Bexar, DuPage, and Hartford counties had the
highest proportion of additional victims that were relatives other than parents or siblings (aunts, uncles, grandparents);
2 (5, N = 353) = 19.30, p < .01. Pima county had the highest proportion of ADB incidents with 2 or more victims (z = 2.1);
2 (5, N = 376) = 50.22, p < .01.
Table 5: Victims of Acts of Domestic Battery
Mother Father Sibling Other
Overall 266
(71.9%)
80
(21.6%)
40
(10.8%)
49
(13.2%)
DuPage 19
(59.4%)
10
(31.3%)a
1
(3.1%)
6
(18.8%)a
Lucas 63
(70%)
14
(15.6%)
10
(11.1%)
12
(13.3%)
Bexar 22
(71%)
4
(12.9%)
2
(6.5%)
6
(19.4%)a
Pima 131
(74.9%)
41
(23.4%)
23
(13.1%)
21
(12%)
New Britain 13
(68.4%)
9
(47.9%)a
1
(5.3%) 0
Hartford 18
(78.3%)
2
(8.7%)
3
(13%)
4
(17.4%)a
NOTE: Youth could have more than one victim for the index offense. There were significant differences in the proportion of
father and other victims by site. a = Significantly higher proportions than the other sites
51
CHAPTER 6: Psychometric Properties
and Reliability
The ADBTT Validation Study investigated many qualities that make an assessment tool like this sound. In order for a tool
to be considered scientifically sound, there should be evidence that (1) it can be rated reliably by different assessors, (2)
the items on the tool hang together statistically to form typologies, (3) the tool relates to other variables it is expected
to correlate with, and (4) the tool predicts reoffending in this case, domestic violence offenses (predictive validity). This
chapter covers items #1 through #3. Chapter 9 describes the ADBTT’s predictive validity and the association between the
typologies, services received, and reoffending.
ADBTT Scoring Procedures
In order to test all aspects of the tool, particularly whether the types fit into statistically valid ‘factors’, it was first neces-
sary to develop a scoring method for each of the individual characteristics to be rated by the assessors that used a
continuous scale. The initial tool created by the developers had eight domains (e.g., “Youth Attitude Toward Change”,
“Triggers to Violence”, “Reaction of Parties”) with five items in each domain, for a total of 40 items. Each of the five items
within a domain was expected to be a quality of only one of the five typologies. For example, for the domain “Parent/
Youth Roles”, the items ranged from a) parent demonstrates inappropriate power and control (Defensive) to e) youth
demonstrates inappropriate power and control (Escalating). Interviewers were instructed to rate each item on a 3-point
scale, with 2 meaning “Yes, describes the youth or situation”, 1 meaning “Maybe, describes the youth or situation in some
respects”, and 0 meaning “No, it does not describe the youth or situation”. This rating scheme permitted the option of
having more than one item within a domain endorsed for a youth if it applied. It also enabled the use of confirmatory factor
analysis statistics to identify whether items fit within the typologies as expected.
Inter-rater Reliability
The ADBTT requires good training and some judgment to rate the items of the tool. Inter-rater reliability (IRR) is the extent
to which independent raters of a test are consistent with each other in assigning ratings to test items or arriving at final
conclusions. In other words, if two probation officers were to complete the ADB Typologies tool on the same youth, they
should rate the items in the same way. If a tool does not have inter-rater reliability than it will not be able to demonstrate
validity and is not much better than simply using one’s judgment without use of a tool.
The procedures were as follows. At each site, a random sample of youth was selected as inter-rater cases. In these cases,
one trained staff member (a clinician or probation officer) conducted the interviews with the youth and parent while
another trained staff member observed. Both staff members then rated the assessment tool independently. The number of
youth cases that were double-rated for this IRR analysis ranged from two to 12 per site for a total of 37 cases.
Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to examine the IRR of each item. ICCs can range from 0 (no association)
to 1.0 (perfect reliability), with ICCs between .60 to .80 indicating good agreement and .80 to 1.00 indicating excellent
agreement. Eighteen of the 40 items on the ADBTT performed in the good to excellent range with ICCs > .60. Twenty-two
items did not have good IRR; however, this was largely due to a lack of variability in the ratings of the items. In other
words, some of these items had very few 0 or 2 ratings. This limits the ability to test the IRR using ICCs. For instance, for
Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Tool Manual
52
Chapter 6
one item the raters had 100% agreement across the 37 cases but because there was no variability in the item responses,
an ICC could not be calculated. For these items, we examined the percent agreement between raters. Nine of the items
with low response variability performed well with a percent agreement greater than 80%. Nine other items with low
response variability performed adequately with percent agreements between 70 and 80%. Only 4 of the 40 items did not
perform satisfactorily with less than 70% agreement.
Overall, the majority of items (36 out of 40) performed adequate to excellent. The four poor items were either rewritten or
eliminated from the final tool. Appendix D contains the inter-rater reliability indices for each item.
Identifying the ADB Typologies Using Factor Analysis
An exploratory factor analysis indicated a four typology framework (instead of five as was originally conceived), suggesting
that there were four somewhat independent types of youth committing domestic battery from the sample. The researchers
used factor analysis to examine whether items of the ADBTT fit into typologies in the way we hypothesized. A series of
steps were taken in order to derive the most appropriate factor structure using MPlus software, which can test factor
structures for ordinal item-level data using polychoric correlations. We started with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
to determine if the five-factor structure derived from the pilot study held up in this new sample. The fit was poor. Thus,
we eliminated the four items with poor inter-rater reliability and conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to use a
statistically-driven approach to identify which items had the best fit within different factors. It was evident some items had
to be eliminated because they were characteristic of more than one typology. Once the best factor structure was identified
using EFA, it was tested again using CFA.
The final model with the best fit was a 3-correlated factors model with some factors having different numbers of items
(RMSEA = 0.076 and CFI = 0.90). The factor loadings ranged from .44 to 1.0 (factor loadings were set to 1.0 for the first item
on each factor), with most equaling .70 or higher. In order to obtain this good model fit, a number of changes had to occur
to the tool, which should explain why it is scored as described in Chapter 3:
• It was necessary to leave all of the defensive type items out of the factor analysis because these items stood alone into
one independent factor with very good fit. Further, a youth can only be classified as this type if every act of ADB has been
in self-defense.
• A number of items had to be removed from the Family Chaos category or rewritten. The researchers believe this was due
to misunderstandings of the raters in the characteristics these items were designed to capture.
• The Escalating category had the most items because two originally conceived types actually characterized only this type.
Researchers interpreted the results to mean the Escalating type falls on a continuum of severity. Further, youth classi-
fied in other Types can have varying degrees of Escalating traits. Therefore, the developers created the Progressive Risk
Score. Some youth may start out as defensive or isolated but are actually holding attitudes consistent with increased risk
of more domestic violence.
Further validation of the factor structure of the final tool will be needed as data accumulate.
53
Chapter 6
After the factor structure was finalized, youth were assigned to a category based on the number of items that were rated
as a ‘2’ within each category. The most common type was Escalating. We examined whether there were differences in the
proportion of youth in each typology by site and demographic characteristics to further validate the structure.2 The highest
proportion of Escalating youth was in CT, with over 50% of youth in the Escalating category (see Table 6). Bexar County had
the highest proportion of defensive adolescents. The differences across jurisdictions are likely due to jurisdictional differ-
ences in youth processing and arrests. However, the notion that this could be due to differences in the site philosophies of
rating items cannot be discounted despite the good to excellent reliability.
Table 6: Number (%) of Cases Falling Within Each ADB Typology By Site
Typology Overall
(N = 373)
DuPage
(n = 32)
Lucas
(n = 91)
Pima
(n = 175)
Bexar
(n = 31)
CT
(n = 44)
Defensive 50 (13.7%) 2 (6.3%) 14 (15.4%) 21 (12.0%) 8 (25.8%)a 5 (11.4%)
Isolated
Incident 96 (26.3%) 11 (34.4%)a30 (33.0%)a35 (20.0%)b10 (32.3 %)a10 (22.7%)
Family Chaos 65 (17.8%) 9 (28.1%)a10 (11.0%)b36 (20.7%) 5 (16.1%) 5 (11.4%)b
Escalating 154 (42.2%) 10 (31.3%)b30 (33.0%)b82 (46.9%) 8 (25.8%)b24 (54.5%)a
Unclassified 8 (2.1%) 0 7 (7.7%)b1 (0.6%)a0 0
Note: There were significant differences in the proportion of youth falling into the typologies by site - 2 (16, N =373) =
42.00, p < .01. a - Significantly higher proportions, b - Significantly lower proportions.
Gender and Race/Ethnicity Differences
There were no significant racial or ethnic differences in the proportion of youth falling within each typology. However, there
were significant differences by gender (see Table 7). Youth falling within the Escalating type were 65.6% male. However,
among girls the highest proportion still fell within the Escalating type. Girls (17.1%) were more likely to be in the defensive
type than boys (10.9%) and were more likely to be unclassifiable.
2 The two CT sites were collapsed into one group for most analyses due to the small numbers in the two sites, and they were relatively similar in most respects.
Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Tool Manual
54
Chapter 6
Table 7: Prevalence of ADB Typologies Within Each Gender
Typology Male (N = 221) Female (N = 152)
Unclassified 2 (0.9%) 6 (3.9%)
Defensive 24 (10.9%) 26 (17.1%)
Isolated Incident 61 (27.6%) 35 (23.0%)
Family Chaos 33 (14.9%) 32 (21.1%)
Escalating 101 (45.7%) 53 (34.9%)
NOTE: Differences across all categories were significant 2 (4, 373) = 11.74, p = 0.02. Percentages reflect the percent
falling into each Type within gender.
Progressive Risk Score
A Progressive Risk Score (PRS) also was calculated for every youth by creating a score for each of the eight domains
ranging from 1 to 3 based on the level of severity and then summing ratings across the eight domains. It was essential to
derive this added scoring procedure because it was evident that individuals within all types could have qualities from the
Escalating type that may indicate whether they are likely to escalate. For example, an individual in the Isolated Incident
type may have just hurt a parent for the first time but could have the potential to do it many more times. The PRS ranged
from 0 to 23 (out of a possible 24) with an average of 6.08 (SD = 5.69). As expected, the PRS was significantly higher for
the Escalating type with an average score equal to 11.52, whereas the other types all ranged from scores of 2 to 2.5; F(3,
364) = 218.6, p < .001.
It should be noted that the authors developed a scoring system ranging from 0 to 4 for each item to calculate the PRS for
this final version of the ADBTT. Therefore, the possible range of scores on the PRS is now 0 to 32.
55
Chapter 6
Concurrent Validity: Correlates With the ADB Typologies Tool
ADB Typologies and Potentially Traumatic Experiences
The Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire (JVQ) (Finkelhor, Hamby, Ormrod, & Turner, 2005) was administered alongside
the ADBTT to determine if there were any differences in the occurrence of prior potentially traumatic events between the
ADB typologies. The JVQ contains 34 yes/no items that gain information on five different types of potentially traumatic
experiences (e.g., conventional crime, child maltreatment, peer & sibling victimization, sexual victimization, and witnessed
crime). Additionally, four composite scores can be derived from the items in order to delineate any type of victimization
from property crime, physical crime, sexual assault, or peer & sibling assault. The JVQ was designed and validated with
community populations so there are no established cutoffs for juvenile justice youth. In other words, we cannot say what
are relatively high or relatively low scores on this tool.
Analyses indicated that the ADB Typologies differed with respect to their self-reported prior experiences in the following
ways (see Table 8):
• Victimization total scores: The Escalating (M = 11.21, SD = 6.85) Type scored significantly higher on victimization
scores than the Isolated Incident Type (M = 8.67, SD = 6.09; p = .024); F (3, 320) = 2.96, p = .03.
• Child maltreatment: The Isolated Incident Type (M = 1.20, SD = 1.13) reported significantly fewer experiences related to
child maltreatment than the Defensive (M = 2.00, SD = 0.95, p = .003), Family Chaos (M = 1.75, SD = 1.34, p = .037), and
Escalating adolescents (M = 1.66, SD = 1.25, p = .045); F(3, 322) = 4.99, p = .002.
• Other scales: There were significant differences on the Sexual victimization [F(3, 321) = 2.71, p = .045, property crime
[F(3, 318) = 3.68, p = .012], and sexual assault [F(3, 222) = 3.05, p = .029] scales such that the Escalating type was signifi-
cantly higher (M = 0.99, SD = 1.48; M = 0.48, SD = 0. 89; M = 1.73, SD = 1.07, respectively) than the Isolated Incident
Type (M = 0.50, SD = 1.09, p = .046; M = 0.19, SD = 0.61, p = .029; M = 1.27, SD = 1.13, p = .012).
Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Tool Manual
56
Chapter 6
Table 8: JVQ Scores by ADB Typology
Primary Subtype
Overall Defensive Isolated Family Chaos Escalating
Modules M(SD), Range of Scores
A. Conventional
Crime
3.67(2.4), 0-9 3.54(2.2), 0-9 3.19(2.3), 0-8 3.85(2.5), 0-8 3.92(2.4), 0-9
B. Child
Maltreatment
1.60(1.2), 0-4 2(0.95), 0-4a1.2(1.1), 0-4b1.75(1.3), 0-4a1.66(1.3), 0-4a
C. Peer & Sibling
Victimization
1.83(1.5), 0-6 1.98(1.5), 0-6 1.65(1.4), 0-5 1.73(1.4), 0-5 1.94(1.5), 0-6
D. Sexual
Victimization
0.75(1.4), 0-6 0.68(1.3), 0-6 0.5(1.1), 0-5b0.59(1.3), 0-6 0.99(1.5), 0-6a
E. Witnessed
Crime
2.42(2), 0-8 2.76(1.9), 0-7 2.1(2), 0-8 2(2.1), 0-7 2.71(2), 0-8
Composite Scores M(SD), Range of Scores
Property Crime 1.57(1.1), 0-3 1.43(1.1), 0-3 1.27(1.1), 0-3 1.72(1.2), 0-3 1.73(1.1), 0-3
Physical Crime 3.78(2.5), 0-11 4.15(2.3), 0-11 3.38(2.3), 0-9 3.73(2.6), 0-9 3.94(2.5), 0-11
Sexual Assault 0.33(0.8), 0-4 0.24(0.8), 0-4 0.19(0.6), 0-3b0.23(0.7), 0-3 0.48(0.9), 0-4a
Peer & Sibling
Assault
1.18(1.1), 0-5 1.27(1.0), 0-4 1.1(1.0), 0-3 1.07(1.2), 0-5 1.25(1.1), 0-5
M(SD), Range of Scores
Total Scores 10.27(6.5), 0-30 10.95(5.5), 0-30 8.67(6.1), 0-25b9.81(6.5), 0-25 11.21(6.9), 0-27a
Note: a - Significantly higher scores, b - Significantly lower scores within JVQ subscales.
There were also significant differences on JVQ score by site; F(3, 328) = 6.16, p > .01. Post hoc comparisons indicated that
the mean JVQ score for Lucas County (M = 12.34, SD = 6.33) was significantly higher than DuPage County (M = 8.22, SD
= 5.74, p = .01) and Connecticut (M = 7.93, SD = 5.14, p > .01). It is unclear whether this is due to differences in youths’
environments (high crime vs. lower crime areas), the setting in which the ADB interviews occurred, or the method of
the assessors. Lucas County, for example, had relatively high reporting on the JVQ and these were the only interviews
conducted in pre-trial detention. Confinement can affect the intensity of a juvenile’s symptoms, or cause them to over-
report symptoms (Krisberg & Wolf, 2005). DuPage County administered the JVQ at the end of an assessment battery when
youth may have been burnt out and less likely to report issues.
ADB Typologies and Behavioral or Mental Health Problems
Youths were asked to complete a checklist containing 26 additional risk factors to examine other characteristics that
discriminate youth within the typologies. Some of these factors pertained to the youth and some pertained to the parents.
Most of the items referred to behavioral problems and a few involved mental health characteristics. Youth classified within
the four typologies significantly differed with respect to 10 of the behavioral items (see Table 9). In general, youth in the
Escalating Type had the most behavioral problems exhibited by the youth; whereas youth in the defensive category had the
most behavioral problems exhibited by a parent or caregiver.
57
Chapter 6
Table 9: Behavioral Factors That Differed Significantly Between Typologies
Defensive
n = 50
Isolated
n = 96
Family Chaos
n = 65
Escalating
n = 154 2(df)
Youth factors
Prior police contact 25 (50.0%)b67 (69.8%)a48 (73.8%)a119 (77.3%)a(3) = 15.53***
Prior runaway > 24 hours 14 (28.0%)b22 (22.9%)b18 (28.0%)b58 (37.7%)a(3) = 7.80*
In Special Education 5 (10.0%)b14(14.6%)b13 (20.0%)b45 (29.2%)a(6) = 15.32**
Hurt someone who lives with
you out of anger 17 (34.0%)b50 (52.1%)a25 (38.5%)b83 (53.9%)a(3) = 10.71**
Physically fight with siblings
often 2 (4.0%)b5 (5.2%)b4 (6.2%)b28 (18.2%)a(9) = 38.15***
Hurt someone who does not live
with you out of anger 9 (18.0%)b18 (18.8%)b9 (13.8%)b45 (29.2%)a(3) = 8.48*
Been so angry you destroyed
something belonging to you or
someone else intentionally
8 (16.0%)b25 (26.0%)b14 (21.5%)b55 (35.7%)a(6) =18.50**
Pushed/kicked parents over cell
phone or other technology > 2x 6 (12.0%)a2 (2.1%)b11 (16.9%)a23 (14.9%)a(6) =14.38*
Parent factors
Parent/caregiver abuses alcohol
or uses illegal drugs 16 (32.0%)a13(13.5%)b16 (24.6%)b35(22.7%)b(3) =7.93*
Parents have been so angry they
hurt youth in an argument 33 (66.0%)a39(40.6%)b33 (50.8%)b77(50.0%)b(3) =10.79**
Note: a - Significantly higher proportions and b - Significantly lower proportions within each factor. * = p < .05, ** = p <
.01, *** = p < .001.
The ADB typologies were similar in the prevalence of the following behavioral factors:
• Criminal record of live-in relative/parent
• Unexcused absences from school
• Behavioral problems at school
• Gang involvement
• Youth’s drug use
• Has harmed a significant other
• Threatened someone with a weapon
• Homicidal ideation
• Witnessed physical abuse in the home
• Witnessed sexual abuse in the home
With respect to mental health concerns, youth in the Escalating type were most likely to have a history of mental health
problems (see Table 10).
Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Tool Manual
58
Chapter 6
Table 10: Mental Health Factors That Differed Significantly Between Typologies
Defensive
n = 50
Isolated
n = 96
Family Chaos
n = 65
Escalating
n = 154 2(df)
Been in counseling or had a
psychological evaluation 27 (54.0%)b62 (65.3%)b42 (64.6%)b111 (72.1%)a(3) =11.59**
Diagnosed with a mental illness 17 (34.0%)b52 (54.2%)b29 (44.6%)b101 (65.6%)a(3) =17.77***
Note: a - Significantly higher proportions and b - Significantly lower proportions within each factor. * = p < .05, ** = p < .01,
*** = p < .001.
The ADB typologies were similar in the prevalence of the following mental health factors:
• Suicidal ideation
• History of self-harm
• Mental illness diagnoses of someone in the home
• Disability of someone in the home
59
CHAPTER 7: The ADBTT and Risk for
Reoffending
The ADBTT Validation Study tracked data from youth in this sample after their ADBTT assessment. Data gathered included
all the services youth attended and all new juvenile and adult petitions and adjudications (dates and charges) incurred
since their ADBTT assessment. The information was tracked from official records and administrative databases. The length
of follow-up for individual youths ranged from 155 days to 467 days for an average of 10.65 months (SD = 2.56 months)
following their ADBTT assessment.
It also was important to track the amount of juvenile justice intervention youth in the sample received or were receiving
during the follow-up period. The more intervention received after their index offenses, the less opportunity they would
have had to reoffend. Table 11 indicates the court outcomes or dispositions received for the whole sample and by site. It
is important to note that the court outcomes in Table 11 were not necessarily a result of the ADB charge. Often times the
ADB charges were pled down and youth instead incurred a disposition as a result of other offenses they were charged with
at the same time (e.g., criminal damage, disorderly conduct). As illustrated in Table 11, only one youth was removed from
the community after their index offense. This case was excluded from all the recidivism analyses.
Table 11: Court Outcomes/Dispositions Following ADB Assessment
Overall
N = 373
DuPage
n = 32
Lucas
n = 91
Bexar
n = 31
Pima
n = 175
CT sites
n = 44
Case Held Open 17 (4.6%) 11 (34.4%) 2 (2.2%) 0 4 (2.3%) 0
Dismissed/Transferred 58 (15.5%) 0 27 (29.7%) 2 (6.5%) 21 (12.0%) 8 (18.2%)
Dismissed After Mediation 14 (3.8%) 0 14 (15.4%) 0 0 0
Informally Handled 107 (28.7%) 0 6 (6.6%) 6 (19.4%) 61 (34.9%) 34 (77.2%)
Diversion 111 (29.8%) 21 (65.6%) 1 (1.1%) 23 (74.2%) 66 (37.7%) 0
Adjudicated Only 19 (5.1%) 0 18 (19.8%) 0 1 (0.6%) 0
Probation 43 (11.5%) 0 23 (25.3%) 0 18 (10.3%) 2 (4.5%)
Intensive Probation 3 (0.8%) 0 0 0 3 (1.7%) 0
Placement 1 (0.3%) 0 0 0 1 (0.6%) 0
ADB Typologies and Risk for Re-Offending Assessment Tools
Each participating site administered a risk assessment tool for general reoffending to each youth completing an ADBTT
assessment as part of their routine practice to assist with case management and supervision decisions. The risk assess-
ment tool utilized varied by site. For example, DuPage County used the Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument
(YASI-2). Lucas County used the Ohio Youth Assessment System (OYAS). Pima County used the Arizona Risk/Needs
Assessment (ARNA). Bexar County used the Positive Achievement Change Tool (PACT). Connecticut (Hartford and New
Britain) used the Juvenile Assessment Generic (JAG). Each of these risk assessment tools, with the exception of the JAG,
has more than one peer-reviewed publication of studies demonstrating the tool’s predictive validity for future offending.
The researchers examined the association between the Typologies and risk levels (Low, Moderate, or High) identified by a
risk assessment tool, regardless of the tool used. This procedure was legitimate because the validity of most of the tools’
Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Tool Manual
60
Chapter 7
risk levels has been established and, therefore, the tools should be measuring the same thing. Surprisingly, the majority
of youth in the sample were rated at Moderate risk for reoffending. This is surprising because most of these youth were
assessed very early in the system, where there is a greater likelihood of youth being Low risk. Youth within the Typologies
differed significantly in their level of risk for reoffending; 2(6, 357) = 27.93, p = .001 (See Table 12). As expected, the
Escalating type was significantly more likely to be rated as High risk than the Isolated or Defensive types. Youth in the
Family Chaos type were the second most likely to be rated High Risk.
Table 12: N(%) of ADB Types Falling Within Each Level of Risk For Reoffending From Risk
Assessment Tools
Typology Low
(n = 57)
Moderate
(n= 178)
High
(n = 122)
Defensive (n = 49) 11 (22.4%) 25 (51%) 13 (26.5%)
Isolated (n = 92) 19 (20.7%) 58 (63%)a15 (16.3%)b
Family Chaos (n = 65) 13 (20%) 27 (41.5%) 25 (38.5%)
Escalating (n = 151) 14 (9.3%)b68( 45.0%)a69 (45.7%)a
Note: 2(6, 357) = 27.93, p = .001; a and b subscripts denote groups that are significantly different from each other.
Rates of Reoffending
Reoffending (or recidivism) was examined in terms of both new petitions and new adjudications. The types of petitions
and adjudications were categorized as follows: generally violent offenses (does not include domestic violence), domestic
violence, non-violent crime, and any crime (includes all of the above and probation violations, but excludes status
offenses).
Overall, the rates of new petitions were fairly high (41.8%). The most common category of new offense was domestic
violence at (25.5%), followed by non-violent reoffending at (19.3%), violent reoffending (10.2%), and probation violations
(8.3%). There were significant differences by site for any type of reoffending and rates of domestic violence (see Table 13).
Pima County had the highest proportion of new petitions for domestic violence and for any recidivism.
Table 13: Rates of New Petitions Within Each Site
DuPage
n = 32
Lucas
n = 91
Bexar
n = 31
Pima
n = 175
CT Sites
n = 44 2(4, 372)
Violent 1 (3.1%) 12 (13.2%) 3 (9.7%) 16 (9.1%) 6 (13.6%) 3.13, ns
Non-Violent 6 (18.8%) 17 (18.7%) 3 (9.7%) 37 (21.1%) 9 (20.5%) 2.77, ns
Domestic Violence 4 (12.5%)b24 (26.4%) 1 (3.2%)b65 (37.1%)a1 (2.3%)b36.31***
Probation Violations 0 13 (14.3%)a1 (3.2%)b17 (9.7%)b0 13.23**
Any 8 (25.0%)b36 (39.6%) 6 (19.4%)b93 (53.1%)a13 (29.5%) 21.32***
Note: a - Significantly higher proportions and b - Significantly lower proportions within recidivism type. * = p < .05, ** = p
< .01, *** = p < .001.
61
Chapter 7
The rates of adjudications for the sample were much lower than petitions because so many youth were diverted or handled
informally. In addition, in some jurisdictions it took a long time for cases to be fully processed. The rate of new adjudica-
tions for any type of offense was 13.9%. The most common type of adjudication was for a domestic violence offense
with a rate of (6.7%), followed by probation violations (4.6%), violent offenses (4.3%), and non-violent offenses (4%). The
Connecticut sites did not have any adjudications because they started the study late, averaging a 7.86 month (SD = 1.26
months) follow-up. Lucas had the highest rates of adjudications because they were the first site in the study. Because the
rates of adjudications were so low and could vary as a function of the length of time each site was in the study, all subse-
quent analyses of recidivism focus only on new petitions.
Table 14: Rates of New Adjudications Within Each Site
DuPage
n = 32
Lucas
n = 91
Bexar
n = 31
Pima
n = 175
CT Sites
n = 44 2(4, 372)
Violenta0 6 (6.6%) 0 10 (5.7%) 0 6.86, ns
Non-Violent 1 (3.1%) 6 (6.6%) 2 (6.5%) 6 (3.4%) 0 4.08, ns
Domestic Violence 2 (6.3%) 17 (18.7%)a1 (3.2%)b5 (2.9%)b0a28.66***
Probation Violations 0 6 (6.6%) 0 11 (6.3%) 0 7.18, ns
Any 2 (6.3%)b25 (27.5%)a3 (9.7%)b22 (12.6%)b0a23.34***
Note: a - Significantly higher proportions and b - Significantly lower proportions within recidivism type. * = p < .05, ** = p
< .01, *** = p < .001.
ADB Typologies and Reoffending
The typologies differed in the rates of reoffending in the expected direction. With respect to new petitions, the Escalating
Type (31.2%) and Family Chaos Type (33.8%) had significantly higher rates of domestic violence than the other types
(see Table 15). In addition, the Escalating Type had significantly higher rates of any type of reoffending than the others.
Because adjudications were relatively low, the typologies only differed significantly for any type of reoffending, with the
Escalating type being the highest.
Table 15: Rates of New Petitions Within Each Typology
Defensive
n = 50
Isolated
n = 96
Family Chaos
n = 65
Escalating
n = 154 2(3, 365)
Violent 3 (6.0%) 10 (10.4%) 6 (9.2%) 19 (12.3%) 2.21, ns
Non-Violent 6 (12.0%) 18 (18.8%) 12 (18.5%) 36 (23.4%) 4.35, ns
Domestic Violence 7 (14.0%)b16 (16.7%)b22 (33.8%)a48 (31.2%)a12.57***
Probation Violations 1 (2.0%) 4 (4.2%) 5 (7.7%) 20 (13.0%) 9.59*
Any 10 (20.0%)b30 (31.3%)b30 (46.2%) 83 (53.9%)a24.86***
Note: a - Significantly higher proportions and b - Significantly lower proportions within recidivism type. * = p < .05, ** = p
< .01, *** = p < .001
Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Tool Manual
62
Chapter 7
Progressive Risk Scores and Reoffending
The PRS was significantly related to all types of reoffending, except for non-violent reoffending specifically. Table 16
illustrates the differences in the average PRS score between the youth who received a new petition and those who did not
by the end of the follow-up period. Most notably, as expected, the PRS was related to repeated domestic violent offending
irrespective of the typology youth were assigned to (although the typology and PRS are strongly related, such that the
higher the PRS the greater the likelihood the youth is the Escalating Type).
Table 16: Progressive Risk Scores (PRS) of Recidivists and Non Recidivists by Re-offense Types
Recidivists M(SD) Non Recidivists M(SD) F(1, 371)
Violent 7.92 (6.11) 5.87 (5.62) 4.46*
Nonviolent 7.18 (6.17) 5.81 (5.55) 3.39, ns
Domestic 7.24 (5.81) 5.68 (5.61) 5.36*
Probation Violation 9.61 (6.75) 5.76 (5.49) 13.44***
Any reoffending 7.60 (6.10) 5.04 (5.16) 18.85***
Note- * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p < .001
General Risk Assessment Tools and Reoffending
Youths’ risk level as identified by risk assessment tools for general delinquent reoffending was also significantly related
to all re-offense types. This is a powerful effect given risk levels were identified by different risk assessment tools at each
site. Risk level was significantly related to domestic violent reoffending despite the fact these risk assessments were
designed to predict general reoffending only. However, despite the statistical significance, the results in Table 17 indicate
the utility of these tools is slightly limited. In almost every category of reoffending, the Moderate risk youth had the same
rates of reoffending as the High risk youth, so the risk assessments did not discriminate well between these two groups.
The only exception was for probation violations. So in sum, the risk assessment tools appeared to be most useful for distin-
guishing between youth at high and low risk for domestic violence and general reoffending.
Table 17: Rates of New Petitions Falling Within Each Risk Level on Risk Assessment Tools (n[%])
Low Risk (n = 58)
Moderate Risk
(n = 184) High Risk (n = 123) 2(2, 364)
Violent 5 (13.2%) 16 (42.1%) 17 (44.7%) 0.32, ns
Nonviolent 6 (8.5%) 32 (45.1%) 33 (46.5%) 7.84*
Domestic 7 (7.4%) 44 (46.8%) 43 (45.7%) 11.46**
Probation Violation 1 (3.2%) 7 (22.6%) 23 (74.2%) 25.11***
Any reoffending 15 (9.7%) 68 (44.2%) 71 (46.1%) 20.57***
Note- * = p < .05, ** = p < .01, *** = p < .001
63
Chapter 7
Does the ADBTT Detect Who Is Likely To Have A Future ADB Charge?
The most important question was whether the ADB Typologies predicted domestic violent reoffending. Another important
question was whether the Progressive Risk Score (PRS) added to the prediction of reoffending above and beyond the
youth’s typology classification. The answers to both questions enable us to comment on the utility of the use of the ADBTT
as a risk assessment for domestic violence, which in turn informs the user as to the intensity of monitoring and treatment
intervention that is required.
Cox regression techniques were used to answer these questions. Cox Regression estimates the strength of the associa-
tion between a predictor variable (in this case, the typologies) and a future event (in this case, a new petition) and can
also estimate the relative contribution of multiple predictor variables compared to each other. The advantage of using Cox
Regression is that it accounts for the length of time an individual had the opportunity to reoffend (time ‘at-risk’), which is
crucial for our sample where youth had different lengths of follow-up (some were in the study only 5 months and others
were in the study over one year). In addition, Cox Regression takes ‘censored’ cases into account meaning youth who have
not yet reoffended are still included in the prediction model because they could still reoffend in the future. For these indi-
viduals, the time at-risk is the days between their ADBTT assessment to the end of their follow-up period. The researchers
conducted these statistics for each type of reoffending (new petitions) separately, except violent (non-domestic) petitions
because of the low base rate.
The ADB Typologies were significant predictors of new petitions for domestic violent acts. A Cox Regression
comparing the Types indicated that the Escalating Type was significantly more likely to receive a new petition for a domestic
violent act than the Defensive (2 = 5.31, p = .02) and Isolated Types (2 = 6.13, p = .01). The Family Chaos Type also was
significantly more likely to receive a new petition for a domestic violent act than the Defensive (2 = 5.41, p = .02) and Isolated
Types (2 = 5.80, p = .02). As expected, the Defensive and Isolated Types did not differ in their likelihood of domestic violent
reoffending and the Family Chaos and Escalating Types also were not significantly different from each other.
The PRS also significantly predicted time to a new domestic violence offense on its own (2 = 5.83, p = .02), but it did not
add to the tool’s ability to predict domestic violent reoffending after taking the Typologies into account as a whole. This is
largely due to the overlap in content between the PRS and the Escalating Type. In practice, this means the types will
be the best predictors of who is likely to commit more acts of ADB (if the youth is classified as Escalating or
Family Chaos they have the greatest likelihood). However, the PRS can have clinical value in individual cases
when trying to gauge the risk of youths on lower levels of the spectrum; namely, the Defensive or Isolated
youths. Put simply, if one of these youths had a relatively high Progressive Risk Score, they may be in need of more inter-
vention or victim safety planning.
The researchers also investigated the ADBTT’s ability to predict other types of reoffending. The Escalating Type was signifi-
cantly more likely to commit any type of new offense than any other Type except Family Chaos (2 = 1.36, p = ns). Family
Chaos had a greater likelihood of any reoffending than the Defensive (2 = 7.47, p = .01) and the Isolated youth (2 = 3.90,
p = .05). The PRS alone also predicted whether youth were likely to reoffend generally (2 = 24.87, p < .001) and added
significantly to the ADB Typologies’ ability to estimate the likelihood of any reoffending (2 = 5.70, p = .02). This means that
youth with relatively high Progressive Risk Scores have greater likelihoods of reoffending generally regardless of their Type
classification.
Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Tool Manual
64
Chapter 7
Do the ADB Typologies Detect Who Is Likely To Have A Future ADB Charge Better
Than General Risk Assessment Tools?
The next important question was whether the ADBTT predicted future acts of domestic violence better than the risk
assessments used for general reoffending. It turns out that the risk levels from the general risk assessment tools alone
significantly predicted domestic violence (2 = 9.99, p < .001, Exp[B] = 1.75). The Exp[B] is the hazard function and can be
loosely translated in this case to mean that as risk level increases, the likelihood of obtaining a new petition for an act of
domestic violence increases by 1.75 (almost twice as likely). However, as was evident in Table 17, the risk assessments
only tell us that both the Moderate and High risk youth have close to a 50% chance of receiving a new petition for a
domestic violent act but the Low risk youth were very unlikely to do this. So the tools are not very discriminating.
The Typologies significantly added to the risk assessment tools’ ability to predict domestic violent reoffending. Adding the
Typologies to the regression equation significantly improved the model fit (Likelihood ratio test = 35.683(3), p < .001). This
means that even though risk level on a general risk assessment tool predicted domestic violence, the ADB Typologies were
more discriminating. The ADB Typologies did not add anything to the prediction of non-violent reoffending, which is better
estimated by a general delinquency risk assessment. Moreover, the PRS alone did not contribute significantly to the predic-
tion of domestic violent reoffending after taking level of risk from the general risk assessment tools into account.
In conclusion, the ADB Types significantly detect youth at increased likelihood for continued acts of domestic
violence, particularly the Escalating and Family Chaos Types. The PRS can assist with the determination of risk for
continued ADB if it is elevated for youth within the lower risk Types. Risk assessment tools also have value for detecting
who is likely to commit future acts of ADB but these may not discriminate as well as the ADBTT. To explain, there were
307 youth identified as moderate or high risk on the risk assessment tools and they reoffended at the same rates – around
45%. Thus, if one relied on the risk assessment tools to identify youth needing lots of intervention to prevent reoffending,
this would be 87% of their youth. The overall re-offense rate for the whole sample was only 41%. Conversely, if one used
the ADBTT to identify youth they should be most concerned about, this would be 59% of the sample (Family Chaos and
Escalating Types) or 41% of the sample if they just used Escalating. This is much closer to the actual reoffending rate in
this sample. In other words, a risk assessment tool may ‘screen in’ too many youth for higher levels of intervention.
Interventions, ADB Types and Reoffending
If one follows the risk principle (see Andrews & Bonta, 2010), youth at increased likelihood for committing future acts of
ADB are in need of more intervention or effective ADB services. The next question was whether youth receiving different
types of interventions were more or less likely to reoffend. The researchers conducted some cursory analyses to examine
this question and whether interventions appeared to have differential effects based on youths’ ADB Type. The analyses
were limited due to inconsistencies in data availability. Studies with a more rigorous research design are needed to better
evaluate the impact of intervention services.
65
Chapter 7
Services Youth Received
The types of services youth received from the courts, probation, or programs in the study included both domestic battery-
related services (e.g., domestic violence education for youth and parents, respite, mediation, safety planning, etc.) and any
other juvenile justice interventions (e.g., mental health treatment, substance abuse treatment, family services, education/
employment services, peer mentoring programs, etc.). Data were obtained for each service received since the youths’ ADB
assessments, including: the name of service (what was it actually called); the agency where the service was received; the
date the youth started receiving the service; the date the service ended; and some indicator of completion status (e.g.,
terminated early/failed to complete, successful completion, sporadic attendance, on-going).
The researchers counted only services that were successfully completed or that were attended for at least one month
before the service was terminated or the youth was transferred.3 In addition, we only counted services that were initiated
prior to the youth receiving a petition for a new act of domestic violence (services received after a youth reoffended would
not have impacted their re-offense). After all the exclusions, a total of 165 youth received at least one service and some
received more than one service during the study period.
The researchers explored whether youth attending certain services were more or less likely to reoffend. The analyses indi-
cated that none of the services tested were associated with decreased reoffending. Next services used by ADB Type were
examined because it is conceivable that youth in some Types may benefit more from some services than others; however
none of these differences were significant.
There were several limitations with the service analyses that impair one’s ability to draw strong conclusions. First, we
were unable to control for the length of time spent in services because of missing data. We attempted to get the number
of sessions youth attended for each service but this was rarely available in the court data. Second, the analyses do not
account for youth receiving multiple services (65 youth received two or more services). However, initial analyses indicated
youth receiving two or more services were just as likely to receive a new DV petition as youth who received none or one.
Third, sites probably differed in the quality of services that were available. Service quality was not measured in this study
because it was well beyond the scope. Lastly and most importantly, there were simply not enough youth within each Type
receiving each type of service to conduct meaningful statistical comparisons. More studies are needed that examine the
effectiveness of services for treating ADB and treating youth in different Typologies.
3 Services were not counted if there was no information about whether the youth actually attended the service, if the service was unsuccessfully terminated in
less than one month, or the youth was transferred in less than a month.
67
REFERENCES
Agnew, R. & Huguley, S. (1989). Adolescent violence towards parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 699-711.
Andrews, D.A. & Bonta, J. (2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law,
16(1), 39-55.
Andrews, D. & Dowden, C. (2006). Risk principles of case classification in correctional treatment: A meta-analytic investi-
gation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminiology, 50, 88-100.
Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Development, 37 (4), 889-907.
Bobic, N. (2004). Adolescent violence toward parents. Austrailan Domestic and Family Violence Clearninghouse. Retreived
January 2015 from http://www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/pdf%20files/adolescent_violence.pdf.
Brezina, T. (1999). Teenage violence toward parents as an adaptation to family strain. Youth and Society, 30 (4), 416-444
Buel, SM. (2002). Why juvenile courts should address family violence: promising practices to improve intervention
outcomes. Juvenile and Family Courts Journal, 53 (2), 1-16.
Condry, R. & Miles, C. (2012). Adolescent to parent violence: Framing and mapping a hidden problem. Criminology and
Criminal Justice, 14, 257-275.
Cornell, C.P. & Gelles, R.J. (1982). Adolescent-to-parent violence. Urban Social Change Review, 15 (1), 8-14.
Estevez, E. and Gongora, J.N. (2009). Adolescent aggression towards parents: Factors associated and intervention
proposals. Handbook of Aggressive Behavior Research, 6, 1-25.
Gebo, E. (2007). A family affair: the juvenile court and family violence cases. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 501-509.
Hamby, S. L., Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R. K., & Turner, H. A. (2004). The juvenile victimization questionnaire (JVQ):
Administration and scoring manual. Durham, NH: Crimes Against Children Research Center.
Hartnett, S., et al. Adolescent Domestic Battery: Responding Effectively to Families in Crisis. Illinois Models for Change
Initiative. December 2012.
Hawkins, J.D., et.al. (2000). Predictors of Youth Violence (Bulletin). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Office of
Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Holt, A. (2013). Adolescent-to-parent abuse: Current understandings in research, policy, and practice. Bristol, England:
Policy Press.
Kethineni, S. (2004). Youth-on-parent violence in a central Illinois County. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 2, 374-394.
Krisberg, B. & Wolf, AM. Juvenile offending in juvenile delinquency: prevention, assessment, and intervention. Edited by
Herbrun K, Sevin Goldstein NE, Redding RE. New York, Oxford University Press, 2005, 67-84.
Norcross, et al. (2013). Self-help that works. (4th Ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Prochaska, J. & DiClemente, C. (1982). Transtheorectial therapy: Toward a more integrative model of change.
Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 19, 276-288.
Routt, G. & Anderson, L. (2011). Adolescent violence towards parents. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, & Trauma, 20,
1-19.
Routt, G. & Anderson, L. (2015). Adolescent violence in the home: Restorative approaches to building healthy, respectful
family relationships. New York, NY: Routledge.
Snyder, H. N., McCurley, C. (2008). Domestic assaults by juvenile offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office
of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Tool Manual
68
References
Ullman, A. & Straus, M.A. (2003). Violence by children against their mothers in relation to violence between parents and
corporal punishment by parents. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 34, 41-60.
Tremblay, R. ,et al. (2004). Physical aggression during early childhood: Trajectories and predictors. Pediatrics 114, 1,
e43-e50.
Walsh, J. and Krienert, J. (2008). A decade of child initiated family violence: comparative analysis of child-parent violence
and parricide examining offenders, victims, and event characteristics in a national sample of reported incidents;
1995-2005. Retrieved from www.castonline.ilstu.edu/krienert/vita/CPV_Parricide_2009.pdf
69
Chapter 1
APPENDICES
71
Appendix A: Literature Review of Prevalence Studies on Adolescent
Domestic Battery
Author Year Sample Type Findings
Cornell and Gelles 1981 Nationally representative sample of
608 families in 1976
9% of the parents of adolescents reported
that their child had used one form of violence
against them at least once. Authors further
projected that more than 2 ½ million adoles-
cents struck a parent at least once in that
same year. They note that these are likely
underestimates as the data was limited to
two parent households and that single parent
households are likely to have higher rates of
adolescent violence.
Smith et.al 4 1992 Patients reporting domestic violence
in the Emergency Room at a UK
hospital
6% of the domestic violence cases presenting
in the ER were child-to-parent
British Crime Survey 51996 Small community sample 3% of domestic violence cases were
child-to-parent
Wilson, et al. 62006 2005 Offending, Crime, and Justice
Survey
3% of youth reported parents as their victim
Walsh and Krienert 2007 National Incident Based Reporting
System (NIBRS) data representing 23
states in 2002
17,957 youth ages 21 and younger assaulted
their parent or step parent
Parentline Plus (UK
Charity)7
2008/2010 Calls to agency helpline 8% of 30,000 calls to the helpline were for
child aggression toward parents; From June
2008-June 2010, the helpline received 22,537
calls from parents dealing with aggression
from their children, with 7,000 of those calls
for physical aggression
Snyder and McCurley 2008 FBI’s National Incident Based
Reporting System (NIBRS) data repre-
senting law enforcement agencies in
20 states in 2004
Juveniles represented 9% of all domestic
assault offenders. Half (51%) of juvenile
domestic assault offenders victimized a
parent.
Walsh and Krienert 2009 FBI’s National Incident Based
Reporting System data examining
victim, offender, and incident
characteristics of domestic violence
incidents from 1995-2005
Between 1995 and 2005, there were 108,231
child-to-parent violence offenders in the
NIBRS data
Hunter8 2010 Family Intervention Projects 11% of 256 families have reported experi-
encing violence from their children
Howard92011 Police data from the state of Victoria
(Australia)
9% of all family violence incidents recorded
in 2009-2010 involved adolescent to parent
violence
Condry and Miles 2013 Domestic violence incidents reported
to the London police from April 2009-
March 2010
1,892 cases of violence from adolescents
(13-19 years) toward a parent, most of which
involved violence against the person or
criminal damage in the home, were examined
4 As cited in Condry & Miles (2013)
5 As cited in Condry & Miles (2013) and Holt (2013)
6 As cited in Condry & Miles (2013)
7 As cited in Holt (2013)
8 As cited in Condry & Miles (2013) and Holt (2013)
9 As cited in Condry & Miles (2013)
73
Appendix B: Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Tool
Instructions for Completing the ADBTT items:
1. Read the script and complete the Client Information below.
2. Answer “Question #1” regarding “violence in response to physical threat”. If the answer is “yes”,” follow the specific
instructions indicated by the asterisk (*) in the question box. If the answer is “no,” proceed by scoring each domain as
described below.
3. Each domain is scored based on information garnered through interviews with the youth/parent as well as any collateral
information the screener has. Refer to “suggested interview questions” in the manual.
4. For each domain, check the box next to the option(s) that best fits the youth and his/her family. If the check box is
blacked out “n”, there is no option available for that typology. Do not check that box.
5. Refer to the domain definitions provided in the manual to score the items as accurately as possible.
6. If no option appears to fit, or if more than one option appears to fit, follow the instructions on page __ of the manual.
7. In the gray “PRS Scale” box under each domain item, rate the domain on a scale of “0” to “4” according to the
description that best fits the youth and his/her family. Each item defines the “0”, “1”, and “4” ratings. The “2” and
“3” ratings are intentionally undefined so that the screener can rate answers that may fall between the two extremes.
Provide a PRS score even when scoring the domain is not possible (e.g., the check box is blacked out), or no typology
definition fits the youth/family.
8. Once all domains and PRS Scales have been completed, follow the additional instructions #9 through #13 on the last
page.
At the start of the interview, read the following script to youth and/or caregiver: “I am going to ask you some questions
that will help us to better understand what has happened with your family to plan the appropriate services
and action for you.”
*If the answer is “yes,” review only the Defensive items for each of the domains. If the Defensive domain description fits
the youth and family, check the Defensive box; otherwise do not check ANY typology for that domain. Complete all the PRS
Scales for every domain. (See #5 of the instructions.)
ADBTT Client Information
Name: __________________________ DOB_________ ID#: __________________________
Race: American Indian/Alaska Native Asian
Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
White other
Multiple Races Unknown
Ethnicity: Hispanic Non-Hispanic Unknown Gender: Male Female
Site: _______________________________ Screening Setting: _________________________
(Jurisdiction/County, State) (Detention, court, etc.)
Screener Name: ________________________________ Date of Screening: _______________
Question #1: Has every incident of violence by the youth toward the parent, ONLY been in response to a physical
threat by the parent? Yes* No
Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Tool Manual
74
Appendix: B
Domain 1 SCOPE OF ADB Check the box next to the option(s) that best fits.
n Defensive Isolated Incident n Family Chaos Escalating
This option was scored in
Question #1. Do not count this
box as checked
**Isolated/infrequent (<3 in past 24
months.) incidents; Incidents are not
“ONLY” in response to a physical
threat
There is no option available for this
typology. Do not count this box as
checked.
Frequent (3 or more in past 24
months) and serious incidents;
Incidents are not ONLY in
response to a physical threat
Domain 1 PRS Scale Rate “Scope of ADB” on a scale of zero to four. Enter score in the box.
0
Defensive/Isolated incident OR
behavior is not worsening
1
Threats or aggressive
incidents by youth are
beginning to increase in
frequency and severity
2 3 4
Youth demonstrates an
established pattern of
frequent and severe aggres-
sion; at least one incident
required medical attention
PRS SCORE
Domain 2 PARENTAL AUTHORITY Check the box next to the option(s) that best fits.
Defensive Isolated Incident Family Chaos Escalating
Parent demonstrates
developmentally unreasonable
level of authority (authoritarian)
Parent demonstrates
developmentally reasonable level of
authority (authoritative)
Parental authority is inconsistent or
unclear
Parental authority is shifting or
has shifted to youth
Domain 2 PRS Scale Rate “Parental Authority” on a scale of zero to four. Enter score in the box.
0
Parental authority is not
shifting or has not shifted to
youth
1
Parental authority is
becoming ineffective and
control is shifting to youth
2 3 4
Youth demonstrates
unreasonable level of
control/decision-making
over parent; parent has no
influence over youth
PRS SCORE
Domain 3 PREDICTABILITY OF EVENT Check the box next to the option(s) that best fits.
n Defensive Isolated Incident Family Chaos Escalating
There is no option available for
this typology. Do not count this
box as checked
Both parent and youth may be
surprised that situation deteriorated
to point of violence
Neither parent nor youth is surprised
by the predictable pattern/intensity
of youth’s increasingly aggressive
behavior; parent not living in fear
Neither parent nor youth is
surprised by aggression; may
or may not be surprised at the
intensity of the aggression;
parent is increasingly fearful
Domain 3 PRS Scale Rate “Predictability of Event” on a scale of zero to four. Enter score in the box.
0
Parent is not fearful
1
Both express surprise at
intensity; parent is beginning
to be fearful
2 3 4
Neither is surprised by
intensity; parent lives in
constant fear
PRS SCORE
Domain 4 TRIGGERS TO VIOLENCE Check the box next to the option(s) that best fits.
Defensive Isolated Incident Family Chaos Escalating
Violence is protective and in
response to physical threat by
parent
Response to atypical stress without
which incident would not have
occurred
Response to inconsistent parental
discipline, request or limit
Overall pattern shows
lessening tolerance for anger
and frustration
Domain 4 PRS Scale Rate “Triggers to Violence” on a scale of zero to four. Enter score in the box.
0
Youth’s trigger does not fall on
the continuum
1
Response to parental
discipline, request or limit
with which youth would have
previously complied
2 3 4
No trigger necessary,
unpredictable pattern
PRS SCORE
75
Appendix: B
Domain 5 BEHAVIORAL INTENT Check the box next to the option(s) that best fits.
Defensive Isolated Incident Family Chaos Escalating
Attempt to protect self or other
family members
Impulsive, immediate remorse; no
intent to harm
Pattern of increasingly aggressive
behavior will stop once youth gets
own way, no intent to harm
Pattern of behavior designed
to intimidate or control in order
to seize parental authority; will
harm if necessary
Domain 5 PRS Scale Rate “Behavioral Intent” on a scale of zero to four. Enter score in the box.
0
Youth’s behavioral intent does
not fall on the continuum
1
Youth is struggling to get what
he wants and attempts to
use intimidation to take over
parental authority
2 3 4
Behavior establishes
coercive control over parent;
deliberate with intent to
harm
PRS SCORE
Domain 6 YOUTH ATTITUDE TOWARD VIOLENCE Check the box next to the option(s) that best fits.
Defensive Isolated Incident Family Chaos Escalating
Believes violence is
inappropriate but is justified in
this incident
Believes violence is inappropriate
and can identify more appropriate
ways he could have resolved
situation
Verbally acknowledges violence as
inappropriate but is willing to use it
again if less aggressive behaviors are
not effective in achieving his purpose.
Youth is beginning to consider
or has decided that violence is
appropriate
Domain 6 PRS Scale Rate “Youth Attitude toward Violence” on a scale of zero to four. Enter score in the box.
0
Youth believes violence is
inappropriate
1
Is ambivalent about the
appropriateness of violence but
is experimenting with violence
to see if it is effective
2 3 4
Accepts violence as
preferred response
PRS SCORE
Domain 7 YOUTH ATTITUDE TOWARD CHANGE Check the box next to the option(s) that best fits.
Defensive Isolated Incident Family Chaos Escalating
Youth hopes he won’t have
to repeat but may do so in
response to a perceived threat
Believes own behavior was wrong
& is willing to change (preparation/
action stage)
May believe own behavior is wrong
but states he is only willing to change
if parents change their behavior
Resistant toward changing
behavior
Domain 7 PRS Scale Rate “Youth Attitude toward Change” on a scale of zero to four. Enter score in the box.
0
Aggression was solely protec-
tive OR youth is willing to
change
1
Unsure if own behavior needs
to change; may believe it is
wrong but knows he may
repeat because it is effective
(contemplation)
2 3 4
Unwilling to change
behavior; believes own
behavior is acceptable and
preferred (pre-contemplation)
PRS SCORE
Domain 8 PARENT’S CONCERN Check the box next to the option(s) that best fits.
Defensive Isolated Incident Family Chaos Escalating
Wants to deflect responsibility
for incident to youth: may want
to see youth punished
Wants situation resolved/no ongoing
concerns regarding safety; may take
some responsibility
Desires to have someone else (JJ
system) impact/influence youth;
Parent does not want to be required
to change
Parent is concerned for
Personal or Family Safety/
Future
Domain 8 PRS Scale Rate “Parent’s Concern” on a scale of zero to four. Enter score in the box.
0
Parent does not have any
concerns about safety
1
Expresses some concerns
about safety but mostly
anxious for youth, family,
and own future if behavior
continues
2 3 4
Constant and overwhelming
fear for personal and family’s
safety.
PRS SCORE
Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Tool Manual
76
Appendix: B
Additional Instructions to Assign Typology and Calculate Risk Score
9. Count the number of items that are checked in each of the typologies: Defensive, Isolated Incident, Family Chaos and
Escalating. (Do not count boxes that have been “blacked out”.) Record “number of items checked” on the indicated
lines.
10. Refer to the “Domain Scoring Table” to find the youth’s score in each typology and enter them into the indicated boxes.
Typology Scoring Table
Domains
Checked Defensive Isolated
Incident Family Chaos Escalating
00000
1 17 13 14 13
2 33 25 29 25
3 50 38 43 38
4 67 50 57 50
5 83 63 71 63
6 100 75 86 75
7 N/A 88 100 88
8 N/A 100 N/A 100
11. Re-enter the answer to question #1 (from page 1 of the ADBTT) and answer question #2.
12. The youth is assigned to the typology with the highest score, unless otherwise indicated by the answers to #1 or #2.
If the Defensive and/or Isolated Incident typologies are ruled out, then assign the youth to the typology with the next
highest score. Check the box below with the final typology assignment.
13. Add together the Progression Risk Scores (PRS) from the shaded boxes on pages 2 and 3. Enter the total in the shaded
box below.
Final Typology Assignment PRS SCORE TOTAL
Defensive Isolated Incident Family Chaos Escalating
Defensive items: ___ /6 Isolated Incident Item: ___ /8 Family Chaos: ___ /7 Escalating: ___ /8
Defensive Isolated
Incident
Family Chaos Escalating
Question #1: Has every incident of violence by the youth toward the parent, ONLY been in response to a physical
threat by the parent? (If “no,” youth CANNOT be assigned to the Defensive typology.) Yes No
Question #2: Were there less than 3 incidents of youth aggression in a 24-month period?
(If “no,” youth CANNOT be assigned to the Isolated Incident typology.) Yes No
77
Appendix C: Introductory Script and Suggested Interview Questions
Before completing the ADBTT, read the following script:
To the youth and parent(s): “I am going to ask you some questions that will help us to better understand what has
happened with your family to plan the appropriate services and action for you. This will require that I have some time to
speak with both of you separately and then I would like to speak with both of you together”
Suggested Interview Questions
Domain One: Suggested Interview Questions to assess Scope of ADB
1. Has this ever happened before? Describe previous events.
2. If yes, how often does this happen?
3. Were there ever visible marks?
4. Did victim ever need to go to the emergency room?
5. Was the youth ever the victim or witness of aggression?
6. Does the aggression always have the same victim/perpetrator?
Domain Two: Suggested Interview Questions to assess Parental Authority
1. What are the “rules” in your house? (Actual rules and unspoken rules)
2. What happens when “rules” are broken or expectations are not met?
3. Does the youth comply with discipline?
4. Does the parent follow through with discipline?
5. Who makes decisions about family events, like where to go out to dinner or what to do on vacation
or what TV show is on?
6. How has parenting changed from when the youth was younger?
7. What happened after this particular incident?
Domain Three: Suggested Interview Questions to assess Predictability of Event:
1. How did you feel when the incident was happening?
2. Did you see this coming? If so, what were signs?
3. What was your reaction when it was over?
4. How do you feel about the incident now?
Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Tool Manual
78
Appendix: C
Domain Four: Suggested Interview Questions to assess Triggers to Violence
1. What does parent/youth think caused the event?
2. Describe the sequence of events that led up to this particular incident.
3. If applicable, describe the sequence of events that led up to prior incidents.
4. Describe typical sequence of events that lead up to arguments in the family or that occur when there is a
disagreement between parent and youth.
5. Do parent and youth agree about sequence of events?
6. Describe situations when conflict does not lead to aggression.
7. On a scale of one to ten how stressed do you think you are normally, the day of the incident, now…?
Domain Five: Suggested Interview Questions to assess Behavioral Intent:
1. What was youth hoping to achieve by using aggression?
2. Would aggression have occurred if youth had gotten own way earlier?
3. What else, if anything could have prevented the aggression?
4. What was the immediate behavior of youth and parent following the event?
5. What usually happens after an event like this?
6. Does/did youth demonstrate remorse? How?
Domain Six: Suggested Interview Questions to assess Youth Attitude toward Violence
1. Does being aggressive/violent get you what you want? Why or why not?
2. Are you ever violent or aggressive at school, work, with your friends, etc.?
3. Do you think being aggressive is ever justified? Under what circumstances?
4. How do you (youth) feel about hitting your parent (or friend) or (someone else)?
5. If you had it to do over, what (if anything) would you do differently?
6. Can you think of other ways you could have handled this?
7. If you saw one of your friends being aggressive/violent, what would you do/say/feel?
8. If one of your friends saw you being violent, what would they have said?
79
Appendix: C
Domain Seven: Suggested Interview Questions to assess Youth Attitude toward Change
1. Do you think your aggression/violence is a problem for you?
2. Is being aggressive something you could change? Why or why not?
3. Do you think it is something you should change? Why or why not?
4. Is this something you want to change?
5. What do you think it would take to motivate you to change?
6. What do you think would help you change it?
7. When do you intend to change it?
8. What would the benefits to changing be?
Domain Eight: Suggested Interview Questions to assess Parent’s Concern
1. What bothers you most about the situation that occurred?
2. What, (if any) safety plans have you made?
3. If it were to happen again, what would you do?
4. What do you think should happen to your child now?
5. Would you be willing to participate in a program to help your child?
6. Have you talked to anyone else about your child’s behavior?
81
Appendix D: Inter-Rater Reliability for Original ADBTT Items
Inter-rater Reliability (IRR) = Reliability refers to consistency. Inter-rater reliability is the extent to which independent
raters of a test are consistent with each other in assigning ratings to test items or arriving at final conclusions. The ADB
tool’s inter-rater reliability was tested by having trained intake workers independently rate the items with a random sample
of youth cases that were seen by both intake workers (one conducted the interview and one observed).
Intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) = Another way of performing reliability testing is to use the intra-class correla-
tion coefficient. This statistic is used for continuous items. The range of the ICC may be between 0 and 1.0. The ICC will
be high when there is little variation between the scores given to each item by the raters, for example if all raters give the
same or similar scores to each of the items. Like the kappa, ICCs ranging between .60 to .80 indicate good agreement and
between .80 to 1.00 indicates very good agreement
Inter-Rater Indices By Item:
1. Parent and Youth Roles N ICC1p
1a. Parent demonstrates inappropriate power and control 37 0.59 < .001
1b. Appropriate balance of power and control 37 0.55 < .001
1c. Power and control unclear/varies 37 0.69 < .001
1d. Signs of shift to youth power and control 37 0.25 .073
1e. Youth demonstrates inappropriate power and control 37 0.97 < .001
2. Intensity of Adolescent Domestic Battery (ADB)
2a. Incident(s) only in response to parental threat 36 0.58 < .001
2b. Isolated or infrequent 36 0.60 < .001
2c. Consistent level of low severity 36 0.52 .001
2d. Frequent with increasing severity 36 0.57 < .001
2e. Frequent and severe 36 0.40 .007
3. Reaction of Parties
3a. Relief/fear by youth and anger/surprise by parent 37 0.50 .001
3b. Both parties surprised incident escalated to point of violence 37 0.73 < .001
3c. Neither party surprised by predictable escalation 36 0.41 .006
3d. Neither party surprised by aggression, may be by intensity 37 0.63 < .001
3e. Neither party surprised by incident or intensity, parents fear 37 0.73 < .001
4. Triggers to Violence
4a. Violence is protective and in response to physical threat 37 0.66 < .001
4b. Response to unusual stress 37 0.73 < .001
4c. Response to inconsistent parental discipline, request or limit 37 0.54 < .001
4d. Varies with situation; pattern of lessening tolerance 37 0.44 .003
4e. Trigger are unclear and/or unpredictable pattern 37 0.78 < .001
5. Behavioral Intent
5a. Protective 37 0.58 < .001
5b. Impulsive, immediate remorse 36 0.80 < .001
5c. Opposing parental request, not necessarily intent to harm 37 0.55 .00
5d. To get what he wants, may use intimidation 37 0.50 .001
5e. Controlling or intimidating as well as deliberate or premeditated.
Intent to harm as a means to control 37 -0.04 .589
Adolescent Domestic Battery Typology Tool Manual
82
Appendix: D
6. Youth Attitude Towards Violence
6a. Accepts violence as inappropriate, this incident as justified 37 0.63 < .001
6b. Accepts violence as inappropriate 37 0.68 < .001
6c. Accepts violence if nothing else works 37 0.59 < .001
6d. Accepts violence as sometimes appropriate, experimenting 37 0.63 < .001
6e. Accepts violence as preferred response 41 0 Var
7. Youth Attitudes Toward Change
7a. Believes he is justified but hopes he won’t have to repeat 37 0.32 .026
7b. Believes behavior was wrong does not want to repeat 37 0.55 < .001
7c. Will repeat if other options are not available 36 0.36 .017
7d. Ambivalent toward behavior change 37 0.42 .004
7e. Believes others should change 37 0.65 < .001
8. Parent’s Primary Concern
8a. Transfers blame to youth 37 0.37 .013
8b. Wants to get past/move on, may take some responsibility 37 0.64 < .001
8c. Initially overwhelmed/angry, some resistance to system 37 0.69 < .001
8d. Primarily concerned with re-establishing balance, 2nd safety 36 0.79 < .001
8e. Concern for personal/family safety 36 0.91 < .001
Note. VAR = lack of variability. Highlighted items have poor reliability.
83
Appendix: D
Percent Agreement for Items With Poor ICCs (from above)
1. Parent and Youth Roles n # Agree # Disagree % Agreement
1a. Parent demonstrates inappropriate power and
control 37 33 4 89.2%
1b. Appropriate balance of power and control 37 26 11 70.3%
1d. Signs of shift to youth power and control 37 28 9 75.6%
2. Intensity of Adolescent Domestic Battery (ADB)
2a. Incident(s) only in response to parental threat 36 31 5 86.1%
2c. Consistent level of low severity 36 27 9 75.0%
2d. Frequent with increasing severity 36 28 8 77.8%
2e. Frequent and severe 36 32 4 88.9%
3. Reaction of Parties
3a. Relief/fear by youth and anger/surprise by parent 37 32 5 86.5%
3c. Neither party surprised by predictable escalation 36 26 10 72.2%
4. Triggers to Violence
4c. Response to inconsistent parental discipline,
request or limit 37 27 10 72.9%
4d. Varies with situation; pattern of lessening
tolerance 37 24 13 64.8%
5. Behavioral Intent
5a. Protective 37 30 7 81.1%
5c. Opposing parental request, not necessarily intent
to harm 37 25 12 67.6%
5d. To get what he wants, may use intimidation 37 24 13 64.9%
5e. Controlling or intimidating as well as deliberate
or premeditated. Intent to harm as a means to
control
37 34 3 91.9%
6. Youth Attitude Toward Violence
6c. Accepts violence if nothing else works 37 28 9 75.6%
6e. Accepts violence as preferred response 37 37 0 100.0%
7. Youth Attitudes Toward Change
7a.. Believes he is justified but hopes he won’t have
to repeat 37 33 4 89.2%
7b. Believes behavior was wrong does not want to
repeat 37 27 10 73.0%
7c. Will repeat if other options are not available 36 25 11 69.4%
7d. Ambivalent toward behavior change 37 29 8 78.4%
8. Parent’s Primary Concern
8a. Transfers blame to youth 37 34 3 92.0%
Note: Highlighted items had poor agreement that was not due to lack of variability in responses. These items were elimi-
nated or rewritten for the final ADBTT.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Hunter Hurst, Senior Research Associate at the National Center for Juvenile Justice for his pivotal
role in the early development of the ADB typologies. Recognition is also extended to Lisa Jacobs, Illinois Models for Change Proj-
ect Coordinator and Jennifer Burrows, MSW, Independent Licensed Social worker (LISW) for their valuable insights, which guided
the authors in the finalization and completion of this manual.
Finally, the authors express deep gratitude to the juvenile justice sites that adopted the ADB tool and were willing to provide their
data and their input to this project: Lucas County Juvenile Court, DuPage County Juvenile Probation, Pima County Juvenile Court
Center, Bexar County Juvenile Probation Department, and the Connecticut Judicial Branch Court Support Services Division. We
greatly appreciate the administrators and staff who participated in the data collection and project related meetings to develop the
contents of this manual.
Bexar County, Texas
Andrea Ames, Elisa Cruz, Dennis Donelson, Rachele Guerrero, Karl Johnson, Marcella Rincon, Jeannine Von Stultz, Alberta Ortiz
Connecticut Judicial Branch Court Support Services Division
Deborah Ahl, Marck Ciccio, Alex Colon, Jeff Florian, Michael Gagnon, Daniella Guzman, Tasha Hunt, Peter Kochol, Nordia Napier,
Deborah, Mayano, Julie O’Leary, Carol Zadziko
DuPage County, Illinois
Lois Dresselhaus, Rebecca Kaplan, Christal Ireland, David Nix, Ray Stubner
Lucas County, Ohio
Nicholas Boggionia, Hans Giller, Debra Hodges, Kendra Kec, Amy Lentz, Sindhia Swaminathan (Research Assistant, Bowling Green
University), Chuck Vogelbacher
Pima County, Arizona
Joanne Basta, Patricia Canterbury, Julie Kudrna, Martin Schulte, Beverly Tobiason
An initiative supported by the John D.
and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
www.macfound.org
www.modelsforchange.net
