Elements Needed for Quality Batterer Intervention Programs: Perspectives of Professionals Who Deal with Intimate Partner Violence

Practitioners’ Views on IPV and Its Solutions: An Integrative Literature Review

“…No consensus was found as to what treatment method worked best with violent partners, even though the group method was recommended by numerous practitioners (Audet, 2002; Leisey, 2008; Morrison et al, 2016; Virkki, 2015). According to the practitioners and professionals that Morrison and colleagues (2016) met with, groups must be cofacilitated (preferably by a man and a woman) and must be limited in size. There was no agreement, however, as to the maximum number a group should include (e.g., 12, 16, 20).…”

“…In addition to these personal characteristics, the practitioners drew attention to variables related to the severity and dynamics of the violence committed. They distinguished, for example, between first time and repeat offenders and between self-referral and court-mandated attendance in programs (Featherstone & Fraser, 2012; Jamieson & Vesala, 2008; Morrison et al, 2016). The practitioners considered, moreover, that the treatment programs should be longer, since it takes several weeks for a considerable number of the men to let down their guard, the therapeutic work only beginning after 8, 10, or 12 meetings (Leisey, 2008; Morrison et al, 2016).…”

“…The terms “practitioners” and “managers” refer to professionals who specialize in intervention with perpetrators of IPV, which would exclude, for example, child protection practitioners who sometimes have to deal with them. As well, the designation “organizations that provide services to violent partners” includes standard BIPs like those in the United States (e.g., Dalton, 2009; Morrison et al, 2016) but is not limited to them. Indeed, we included various settings such as family centers, prisons, or crisis centers for men in which there are practitioners specialized in intervention with IPV perpetrators (e.g., Edin, Lalos, Högberg, & Dahlgren, 2008; Enosh, Buchbinder, & Shafir, 2014).…”

“…These people are not simple witnesses to the debates concerning their field of work. Indeed, Morrison et al (2016) have suggested that, as “on the ground” professionals who work daily with IPV perpetrators, practitioners may offer an important and crucially needed perspective on batterer intervention programs (BIPs). They also play a fundamental role, not only in the running of the services but also in the elaboration of their organization’s public presentation of the IPV problem.…”

“…They also play a fundamental role, not only in the running of the services but also in the elaboration of their organization’s public presentation of the IPV problem. Nevertheless, research on practitioners’ perspectives on IPV and its solutions appears to be very limited (Morrison et al, 2016). Even though a few studies have documented the practitioners’ viewpoints, to our knowledge, there have been no recent reviews examining this type of study.…”