![[ Visit Client Website ]](images/banner.gif)
Background: Intimate partner violence is now recognized as a pernicious and serious public health problem that includes physical as well as non-physical forms of relationship aggression among relationships from all ethnic and cultural groups, of both opposite-sex and same-sex orientation (Hines, Malley-Morrison & Dutton, 2013; West, 2012; Walters et al., 2013). Intervention policies are focused on providing services for victims, mostly women, coupled with a vigorous law-enforcement response for perpetrators, mostly targeting men, that includes incarceration, probation and mandatory participation in psychoeducational treatment programs commonly known as batterer intervention programs, or BIPs (Buzawa, Buzawa & Stark, 2011; Shernock & Russell, 2012). This study examined the facilitator demographics, client demographics, facilitator views on policy and treatment, and program logistics of domestic violence batterer intervention programs are across the United States and Canada. Although research suggests a multitude of approaches to IPV perpetration treatment, the North American Domestic Violence Batterer Intervention Program Survey (NADVIPS) was developed and deployed to increase understanding of how batterer intervention programs operate on the ground and to develop evidence-based policy recommendations in order to improve treatment services.
Methods: Data were derived from the NADVIPS administered to batterer intervention programs across the U.S. and Canada. The survey was delivered electronically to 3,256 BIPs for which there were email and physical addresses. Using standards set forth by the American Association of Public Opinion Research’s conservative estimates, there was a 18% response rate (N=238). A mix of forced answer choices and open ended questions were asked. Quantative data were analyzed to reveal descriptive statistics as well as chi square tests were used to test factor relationships, while content analysis was performed on qualitative data to show key insights garnered from participants.
Results: Results indicated that BIPs vary based on their funding resources, length of establishment, geographic location, and client demographic yet the majority of programs implemented the same type of treatment (26 week group therapy) with the same guiding philosophy (violence is always about power and control). Although several respondents indicated the need for more culturally relevant and diverse curricula, most programs utilized some version of the Duluth model, which takes as its model white male perpetrators and white female victims.
Conclusions and Implications: The findings suggest social work research mush further dive into the disconnect between research that identifies the bi-directional nature of IPV and the many causes and impacts of IPV perpetration and the overwhelming use by practitioners of the traditional feminist paradigm informed by policy that legislates treatment interventions, such as the Duluth model. Given this research points towards the importance of culturally relevant curricula, policy must be created that supports these evidence-based outcomes. Thus, treatment interventions must be developed and implemented that embrace other kinds of models to take into account various cultural and social factors informing various sorts of clients (e.g. African American, LGBTQ, parents, etc.).