One Size Does Not Fit All in Treatment of Intimate Partner Violence

Abstract

A critical examination is needed of the often mandated one-size-fits-all Duluth intervention for male perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV). The underlying philosophy of Duluth-based interventions is evaluated as well as the treatment outcome literature for this intervention. There is very little evidence to justify the current legal system practice of mandating all perpetrators to psychological interventions addressing power and control issues. A literature review of scientific findings with IPV perpetrators and the issues that need to be taken into consideration in developing alternative evidencebased interventions are presented. The evidence seems to favor heterogeneity and not homogeneity with respect to both type of perpetrator and type of violence. Assessment and treatment suggestions are made to address this evidence-based heterogeneity and a call is made to those responsible to stop perpetuating the practice of mandating all perpetrators to attend a single intervention for which there is very limited evidence of effectiveness. About twothirds of male perpetrators of IPV cease being physically aggressive against their partners if they are assigned to a probation officer, but there is minimal evidence that the addition of a Duluth-based intervention makes perpetration less likely.

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

“…More specifically, the men with a stake in conformity are more likely to complete the BIPs and less likely to reoffend (Cantos & O'Leary, 2014). That is, as Cantos and O'Leary (2014) argued elsewhere, men who are older, are married and living with their partner and children, and are employed are more likely to complete treatment programs and less likely to be rearrested for future intimate violence. Stated similarly, Aldorondo and Mederos (2002) argue that "protective orders, arrests, and BIPs are most inadequate in reducing reabuse among men with weak social and intimate bonds" (p. 16).…”

“…One might also separate perpetrators into groups based on whether they were generally aggressive or only aggressive to their partner. Such grouping is associated with dropout and lack of treatment compliance for the former group especially (Cantos & O'Leary, 2014). Independent investigators have replicated this typology and it has been shown to be both reliable and valid (e.g., Stalans, Yarnold, Seng, Olson, & Repp, 2004).…”

“…The multisite study of BIPs conducted by Gondolf (1999), previously cited, reported that perpetrators enrolled in programs which actively reached out to victims and offered perpetrators individual counseling, substance abuse treatment (or referrals), and legal or educational support subsequently engaged in less severe and less frequent violence after treatment. The importance of case management and coordination with the community has been well articulated by Cantos and O'Leary (2014): Given that most of the generally violent men frequently also score positive on what have been referred to as underclass variables such as unemployment and low income (Bennet, Hsieh, Huss, & Ralston, 2008;Cantos et al, 2013), it would be important to address these underclass variables prior to the intervention proper. Maslow's work would suggest that it would prove difficult to have these men attend to therapeutic intervention when other more basic needs are left unattended (Maslow, 1954).…”

“…Notably, this type of uniform treatment has been criticized for effectiveness, with evidence suggesting that heterogeneous and specialized treatments may be more effective in preventing future violence (Cantos & O'Leary, 2014).…”

“…Search: PsycINFO; Google Scholar Keywords: individually determined treatment; type of violence; characteristic of perpetrators; substance abuse; family only; generally violent; attachment issues; borderline issues As mentioned earlier, state BIP standards are generally based on a "one-size-fits-all" approach to BIPs with little concern for the heterogeneity of IPV (Cantos & O'Leary, 2014). They restrict treatment options in several ways, including the overall approach to intervention, program content, and the modality in which treatment is delivered.…”