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

The hidden and often unspoken impact of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has been the prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV). This commentary addresses this issue and highlights a study undertaken to address this public health issue by generating empirical research on the relationship between COVID-19 and IPV.

COVID-19 is a pandemic event not seen in a century. This research aims to determine important predictors of resilience towards the COVID 19/Coronavirus Pandemic. This study uses a cross-sectional design, with purposive snowball sampling, for primary survey data collected over 10 weeks starting the first week in April 2020. Participants completed a self-administered questionnaire on demographics and behavioral factors. Resilience was assessed using the 10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale and perceived stress was assessed using the 10-item Perceived Stress Scale. 374 adults participated in the survey. OLS regression was performed to determine key associations among demographic variables, resilience measures, and perceived stress brought on by COVID-19. Age and education were statistically significantly positively associated with resilience, while English as a second language was significantly negatively associated. Participants who reported needing help from family and neighbors, total number of days in lockdown, and higher perceived stress were all significantly negatively associated with resilience. This study adds to immediate predictors of individual resilience to the ongoing infectious disease catastrophe created by the COVID-19 pandemic.