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.

A 15-page questionnaire, the North American Domestic Violence Intervention Program Survey, was sent to directors of 3,246 domestic violence perpetrator programs (also known as batterer intervention programs, or BIPs) in the United States and Canada. Respondent contact information was obtained from state Coalitions Against Domestic Violence and from various government agencies (e.g., Attorney General) available on the Internet. Two hundred thirty-eight programs completed and returned the questionnaire, a response rate of 20%. The survey yielded descriptive data on respondent characteristics; program philosophy, structure, content, and service; client characteristics; treatment approach and adjunct services; and group facilitator views on intervention approaches and domestic violence policy and treatment standards. The programs varied in the extent to which they adhere to treatment approaches suggested by the empirical research literature. In addition, chi-square analyses were conducted on the associations between several factors. Significant correlations were found between respondent low level of education and adherence to a feminist-gendered program philosophy; respondent low level of education and use of a shorter assessment protocol; feminist-gendered program philosophy and incorrect facilitator knowledge about domestic violence; and feminist-gendered program philosophy and a program focus on power and control as the primary cause of domestic violence.

No abstract

In Western, industrial nations, there is a high level of gender symmetry in intimate partner abuse. Nevertheless, efforts to reduce domestic violence have been stymied by public policies that favour rigid, feminist models based on flawed theories of patriarchy, and that stereotype males as perpetrators and females as victims. The treatment model advanced in this paper, developed by the author and used in his family violence clinic near San Francisco, California, is based on an accumulated body of research evidence on the etiology and characteristics of intimate partner abuse. Partner abuse cannot be fully understood without considering that the family typically involves mutual dynamics, and requires interventions based on a systemic assessment and understanding of each case. In this model, all modalities may be utilised, and treatment proceeds in a three‐phase approach to maximise both treatment effectiveness and victim safety.

Research on partner abuse has lagged in much of the world where attention has been on other problems (such as famine and war) and other crimes against women (e.g., honor killings, genital mutilation). We conducted a sweeping review of scholarly articles published in peer-reviewed journals and by government agencies outside of the United States and English-speaking developed nations that provided quantitative data on physical, psychological, and sexual abuse of intimate partners as well as consequences, risk factors, and attitudes. One hundred sixty-two articles reporting on more than 200 studies in Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and Europe met the inclusion criteria from various types of samples. Most of the studies reported on female victimization only, but 73 reported on both male and female victimization.We also conducted an analysis of data from our literature review, including 1 major cross-national study, to determine the relationship among prevalence of abuse, social factors, and women’s empowerment. Results indicate that partner abuse is a widespread problem around the world, with multiple causes. Overall prevalence of abuse is higher in Third World countries compared to the United States, and rates for physical and psychological abuse are comparable across gender in most countries when all types of samples are considered. No significant association was found between rates of partner violence (PV) and a nation’s level of human development. However, a significant relationship was found between a nation’s level of gender empowerment and rates of PV by both males and females but only for university dating samples from the International Dating Violence Study (IDVS). In addition, an analysis of the IDVS indicates that efforts by 1 partner to dominate the other are positively correlated with physical abuse perpetration for women, but not for men. Among the limitations of this review was the relatively few numbers of large population studies that ask about both male and female perpetration and victimization and the consequences and context of PV. Implications of the findings include the need for a broader conceptualization of PV as not merely a gender problem but also (and perhaps primarily) a human problem.