A Survey of Domestic Violence Perpetrator Programs in the United States and Canada: Findings and Implications for Policy and Intervention

Abstract

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.

Domestic Violence Perpetrator Programs: A Proposal for Evidence-Based Standards in the United States

“…Cannon et al (2016) found this model to be the primary treatment approach for 29.1% of programs, and the secondary approach for another 25%. In a European study of 54 BIPs in 19 countries, the majority (70%) indicated that they used cognitive-behavioral principles (Hamilton, Koehler, & Lösel, 2012).…”

“…Furthermore, perpetrators are 60% less likely to be convicted in mandatory arrest and pro-arrest states in comparison to those that have kept discretionary arrest policies (Hirschel, 2008). Also troubling is the disproportionate arrest and prosecution of men (Shernock & Russell, 2012) and the fact that men account for 83%-90% of individuals enrolled in BIPs (Cannon, Hamel, Buttell, & Ferreira, 2016;Price & Rosenbaum, 2009), a percentage that does not reflect prevalence rates of partner violence in the general population.…”

“…In the process of gathering contact information for the most recent national survey on BIPs (Cannon et al, 2016), the authors identified 3,246 programs in the United States based on current lists available on various websites (primarily government websites or state affiliates of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence [NCADV]). However, up to 65% of the addresses were incorrect, and there may have been some duplication between regular mail and e-mail lists.…”

“…A web-based survey of 276 perpetrator programs in 45 different states, 53% of them indicated that they operate under a Duluth philosophy (Price & Rosenbaum, 2009). In the United States, Cannon et al (2016) reported that the Duluth model is the primary treatment approach reported by 35.6% of programs, and the secondary treatment approach reported by 11.7% of programs. Its perpetrator treatment component is psychoeducational in nature, does not subscribe to a therapeutic theoretical framework, and occurs in a group format.…”

“…The percentage who report to having good or excellent relationships with the courts are at 90.1%; for advocacy organizations such as battered women's shelters, the percentage is 86.8%; and 81.2% say they have a positive relationship with law enforcement (Cannon et al, 2016). Maiuro and Eberle (2008) examined state standards on a host of different categories such as processes of certification, risk assessment protocols, length of treatment, theoretical framework, incorporation of research, treatment methods, and protocol for revising standards.…”