Multiple Perspectives on How Intimate Partner Violence Surrogate Impact Panels Affect Abusive Partners

Restorative justice programs, including surrogate impact panels, are increasingly used to address intimate partner violence (IPV) but research has not assessed adequately how panels may affect participating abusive partners. This article reports the perceived impacts of surrogate impact panels on justice-involved individuals (JIIs) who attended a panel as part of their batterer intervention programs (BIPs) using surveys of JIIs ( N = 289) and focus groups or interviews with panelist speakers, JIIs, and BIP providers. Findings suggest that JIIs can connect with speakers, reach new understandings of IPV, and express emotional impact/intent to change. The findings can inform decisions to use panels as part of IPV interventions.

IPV Perpetrator Groups: Client Engagement, and the Role of Facilitators

Based on the emerging literature being developed in Motivational Interviewing that suggests certain group process factors and facilitator attributes predict treatment outcomes, this study sought to investigate the relationship between both client and facilitator ratings of the batterer intervention group experience. This study presents data from 16 group facilitators drawn from five agencies and 175 clients being served by these facilitators. The data gathered included both facilitator ratings of clients (i.e., Group Engagement Measure-GEM) and client ratings of facilitators and the group experience (i.e., Client Rating of Facilitator-CRF, Client Perceived Benefits of Group-CPBG). Results indicate that facilitators rated clients as being engaged in the group process across all the domains assessed by the GEM and that clients viewed the facilitators and group experiences favorably as assessed by the CRF and CPBG. There was no significant correlation between the GEM and CRF or the GEM and CPBG, but there was a strong, positive correlation between the CRF and CPBG. The results here support previous research findings suggesting a strong correlation between client engagement in the therapeutic process, based on their perception of the facilitator, and their perceived benefits of the group experience. Implications of the findings for improving empirical investigations of the batterer intervention group experience were explored and discussed.

Male IPV Perpetrators’ Self-Reports of Accountability: A Content Analysis of Exit Letters Written by Clients Who Completed a Batterer Intervention Program Between 1990 and 2015

Batterer intervention programs (BIPs) continue to be the primary mode of intervention for male perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV). The extent, however, to which BIPs are effective remains unclear. In particular, studies are needed that can provide detailed information on how accountability is promoted during the BIP process, and if clients leave a BIP with a clear sense of what it means to be responsible for their behaviors. The present study seeks to expand our knowledge of accountability as it is understood in the BIP context through an exploration of clients’ written reflections on their experiences with such a program. A random sample of 555 exit letters were collected from a participating BIP in 2015 and analyzed to understand clients’ perceptions on accountability. A three-coder iterative approach to analysis, focusing on content and global coding of broad thematic and subthematic categories was used. Our findings show that many clients admitted to the use of some type of abusive behavior as the precipitating factor for their involvement in the BIP, and that additionally, they generally recognized the need to be responsible for their behaviors and the consequences associated with their abuse. However, we also found that an increased emphasis on accountability in BIPs may be warranted. In particular, more research is needed to explore how BIPs promote accountability among their clients, and how individuals who complete a BIP understand and interpret their role in perpetrating abuse.

Perpetration and Victimization of Emotional Abuse and Controlling Behaviors in a Sample of Batterer Intervention Program’s Participants: An Analysis of Stressors and Risk Factors

The study employs a sample of 584 men and women referred to a multisite BIP and investigates IPV risk factors and stressors. The study also identifies unique risk factors and stressors in association with both IPV perpetration and IPV victimization. The findings show that women in the sample were more likely than men to report IPV victimization but the difference between the two groups is only marginally significant. Criminal thinking shows the most robust findings and is significantly associated with both IPV perpetration and IPV victimization. Mental health problems are consistently associated with both IPV perpetration and IPV victimization. The study’s findings are particularly relevant for the design and implementation of BIP that address participants’ needs based on gender.

Key Components of the Batterer Intervention Program Process: An Analysis of Observational Data From Two Community-Based BIPs

Qualitative research on batterer intervention programs (BIPs) has primarily consisted of interview-based studies of clients and facilitators. To date, no research has utilized observational data to understand how BIPs “work,” or the processes occurring in BIPs that promote prosocial behavioral change. Forty-four observations of BIP group sessions were conducted. Two key processes were found: “facilitator processes” (e.g., managing group dynamics and engaging clients in learning) and “client processes” (e.g., mutual aid, help-seeking, and support). More observational research on BIPs is needed to uncover the full range of processes occurring during BIPs and that can link group processes to client outcomes.

A Comparison of Clients in a Differentiated Batterer Intervention Treatment Program: The Importance of Treatment Level Matching by Referral Sources

Recent research has emphasized the applicability of the Principles of Effective Intervention for batterer intervention treatment programs (BIPs), including using differentiated treatment models for first-time offenders compared to repeat offenders. The current study seeks to examine treatment matching across clients in two such differentiated BIPs from a mid-Atlantic state—one short-term program aimed at first-time IPV offenders ( n = 121) and one program implementing BIP “as usual” ( n = 125)—regarding client characteristics and recidivism. Findings indicate that clients in the short-term program were not significantly different than those referred to BIP “as usual” regarding common risk factors such as substance use, education, or employment, and while clients in the short-term program had fewer criminal history offenses, participants were rarely first-time criminal offenders. Further analyses showed no impact of the short-term program completion on client recidivism, while completion of BIP as usual was related to lower rates of reoffending among the program’s clients. Findings suggest the importance of how clients are matched to their level of treatment and more education and monitoring of referral agencies regarding differentiated BIP models. Further research is needed to assess whether short-term BIP programs are associated with recidivism reduction.

Research-Supported Recommendations for Treating LGBTQ Perpetrators of IPV: Implications for Policy and Practice

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a global social problem that results in economic, social, and health costs for individuals and their communities. Moreover, due to the stress, anxiety, and home isolation brought on by COVID-19, recent reports suggest an alarming increase in the number of reported IPV victims and, thus perpetrators the world over. In particular, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) identified people are as or more likely than heterosexuals to experience and perpetrate IPV, while they are less likely to receive media attention, social support, or legal protections. Batterer intervention programs, informed by public policy and laws, are the predominant mechanism of interventions for perpetrators of IPV in the United States. As a vulnerable population with increased health and economic disparities, how do disasters impact treatment of IPV perpetration by LGBTQ people? To answer this question, the current article reviews the literature on batterer intervention programs and IPV in sex and gender minority relationships to better understand how to deliver research-supported treatment during disasters. Next, to reduce such disparities, we provide research-supported recommendations for treating LGBTQ perpetrators of IPV and shed light on meaningful interventions in the COVID-19 context. Implications and recommendations for public policy are further discussed.

The Double Standard of Accountability: A Call for Treatment Integrity of IPV Offender Programs

In this study, we explain the importance of treatment integrity by listing and exploring state standards for service providers of intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetrator programs across the United States. The overall expectations of batterer intervention programs (BIPs) will be discussed as we compare and contrast the Duluth Model with evidence-based practice. Expectations of treatment efficacy will be explored from the stance of the professional code of ethics and ethical practice. The context for this article is inspired by the following issues: (a) mental health professionals’ ethical obligations to clients and to standards of practice; (b) the value of treatment integrity; (c) expectations regarding program efficacy; (d) the nature of court-mandated batterer intervention programs. Potential ethical concerns that are explored include: failure to consider and utilize research evidence, failure to ensure treatment integrity, inadequate assessment/diagnosis, failure to connect assessment to treatment, using a diagnosis on a client not identified in the DSM–V, giving a diagnosis without proper credentials or evaluation of the client, and imploring a homogeneous approach to a complex behavior.