Batterer Intervention Program Differences in Domestic Violence and Substance Abuse Settings

Background. Research on the effectiveness of batterer intervention programs (BIP) is confounded by methodological problems and competing belief systems. Possible explanations for the anemic effect sizes of BIP include the inclusion of participants with unidentified and untreated behavior disorders, particularly substance use disorder (SUD). Although widely recommended, integrated BIP and SUD approaches are rarely described in the literature, and there are few empirical data to describe how or how much BIPs include SUD in their program, or alternately, how SUD treatment programs conduct BIP. Of special interest to domestic violence advocates and researchers is how the integration of BIP and SUD may differ in traditional intimate partner violence (IPV) settings from that in SUD settings. The current paper explores these differences and commonalities using data from a survey of 92 BIPs.

 Methods.  Data for the current paper are subsamples of a national survey of 204 IPV, SUD, and multi-service agencies who report providing both IPV and SUD services. A sample of 45 BIPs were identified which originated in the domestic violence field (IPV-BIP), and are compared to a sample of 47 BIPs which grew out of SUD agencies or multi-service agencies with SUD origins (SUD-BIP). We use bivariate and multivariate analyses of the level of service integration, inter-agency relationship, staffing, practice models, proprietary status, organizational age, and urbanity to highlight differences and commonalities.  

 Results. Predictably, IPV-BIPs programs have a larger proportion (M=47±32%) of their clients who are batterers than SUD-BIPs (M=29±26%), while SUD-BIPs have more employees (M=35±27) than IPV-BIPs (M=18±19). There were no differences between IPV-BIPs and SUD-BIPs by practice model (76% employ cognitive and behavioral methods), age of the organization (M=1980±22), proprietary status (26%), geographic location (52% urban), and staff ethnicity or gender. Most importantly, IPV-BIP and SUD-BIP did not differ in the frequency of contact with both IPV survivor programs and the criminal justice system, nor in the degree those contacts were judged to be helpful. Overall, AOD-IPV had significantly higher levels of both service integration and range of services offered.

 Conclusions and Implications. Findings of few differences between BIP originating in traditional IPV settings and BIP originating in traditional AOD settings are encouraging. A critical concern about BIP originating outside the IPV field has been the potential disconnection to IPV survivor agencies and law enforcement, a disconnection that is not found in the current study. Of continuing concern is the lower level of coordination among IPV-BIP, increasing the risk they are not screening for and intervening with co-occurring AOD issues. The current study is limited by its non-probability sampling, cross-sectional design, and absence of service outcomes. Future social work research will build on these descriptive findings, including measures of outcomes for both IPV recidivism and evaluation of the effects of increased attention to co-occurring disorders on IPV outcomes.