Beyond Gender: Finding Common Ground in Evidence-Based Batterer Intervention

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

“…In particular, it would be worthwhile for a factor analysis to be conducted on the CRF, to find out which of its 18 CRF items most strongly predict higher CPBG scores. As well, although women perpetrate IPV at comparable rates as men, for similar reasons, and subject to the same risk factors, female offenders may relate to one another, and to the group facilitator, differently (Hamel, 2020; Wexler, 2020). It would therefore be useful to administer these instruments to a sample of female IPV perpetrators, for clinical use within that population.…”

“…For example, the widely cited meta-analysis by Babcock et al (2004) found only a 5% reduction in rates of recidivism from studies that utilized RCT methodology. A debate has raged among researchers and treatment providers alike regarding the superiority of one model over the others, and it has centered mostly around the causes of IPV—e.g., whether it is male patriarchal attitudes (Duluth), family-of-origin issues (psychodynamic and trauma-informed models), or irrational beliefs and poor coping skills (CBT; see Babcock et al, 2016; Hamel, 2020, for a review). Surveys of BIP directors indicate that most BIPs employ multiple theoretical models, employ similar curricula, and utilize a similar set of interventions (e.g., teach anger management and conflict resolution, raise awareness about the effects of IPV on children) to help clients overcome their abuse (Cannon, et al, 2016); thus, the tepid effectiveness of BIPs cannot be explained solely on the basis of treatment model, or what curriculum is used.…”

“…In line with principles from the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model of offender treatment (Stewart et al, 2013), a consensus has emerged over the past few years among IPV scholars that it would be more productive to identify the treatment factors that predict lower recidivism rates across treatment models, and that different client populations have different needs and require differing approaches—in terms not only of the particular risk factors addressed, but the length and intensity of the treatment and the way treatment is delivered (Babcock et al, 2016; Hamel, 2020). Elements of the latter principle (responsivity) are reflected in the second part of the American Psychology Association’s definition of evidence-based practice: “integration of the best available research with clinical expertise in the context of patient characteristics, culture, and preferences ” (italics added; APA Presidential Task Force, 2006, p. 273).…”