In the United States, the judicial system response to violence between intimate partners, or intimate partner violence (IPV), typically mandates that adjudicated perpetrators complete a batterer intervention program (BIP). The social science data has found that these programs, on the whole, are only minimally effective in reducing rates of IPV. The authors examined the social science literature on the characteristics and efficacy of BIPs. More than 400 studies were considered, including a sweeping, recently conducted survey of BIP directors across the United States and Canada. Results of this review indicate that the limitations of BIPs are due, in large part, to the limitations of current state standards regulating these programs and, furthermore, that these standards are not grounded in the body of empirical research evidence or best practices. The authors, all of whom have considerable expertise in the area of domestic violence perpetrator treatment, conducted an exhaustive investigation of the following key intervention areas: overall effectiveness of BIPs; length of treatment/length of group sessions; number of group participants and number of facilitators; group format and curriculum; assessment protocol and instruments; victim contact; modality of treatment; differential treatment; working with female perpetrators; working with perpetrators in racial and ethnic minority groups; working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) perpetrators; perpetrator treatment and practitioner–client relationships; and required practitioner education and training. Recommendations for evidence-based national BIP standards were made based on findings from this review.

No abstract

A critical examination is needed of the often mandated one-size-fits-all Duluth intervention for male perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV). The underlying philosophy of Duluth-based interventions is evaluated as well as the treatment outcome literature for this intervention. There is very little evidence to justify the current legal system practice of mandating all perpetrators to psychological interventions addressing power and control issues. A literature review of scientific findings with IPV perpetrators and the issues that need to be taken into consideration in developing alternative evidencebased interventions are presented. The evidence seems to favor heterogeneity and not homogeneity with respect to both type of perpetrator and type of violence. Assessment and treatment suggestions are made to address this evidence-based heterogeneity and a call is made to those responsible to stop perpetuating the practice of mandating all perpetrators to attend a single intervention for which there is very limited evidence of effectiveness. About twothirds of male perpetrators of IPV cease being physically aggressive against their partners if they are assigned to a probation officer, but there is minimal evidence that the addition of a Duluth-based intervention makes perpetration less likely.

This study explores the existence of different types of batterers in a sample of 266 men who had been court referred for intimate partner violence. The data collected in the assessment that have been used to perform a hierarchical and a two-step cluster analysis fall into three areas: aggression towards the partner, general aggression and presence of psychopathology and personality traits, more specifically, alcohol use, borderline and antisocial personality traits, psychopathy traits, state anger and trait anger, anger expression and control, anger, hostility, and, finally, impulsivity. The results show a typology consisting of 3 types of batterers on the basis of violence level and psychopathology: low (65%), moderate (27.8%) and high (7.1%). This study provides empirical support for the development of batterer typologies. These typologies will help achieve early detection of different types of batterers, allowing us to tailor interventions on the basis of the needs of each of the types.