Practice Profile: Court-Mandated Batterer Intervention Programs (BIPs)

This practice involves psychoeducational and cognitive–behavioral approaches to reduce the recidivism for individuals who have committed intimate-partner violence offenses. The practice is rated Ineffective for reducing either official or victim reports of repeated intimate-partner violence.

Practice Goals

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, intimate-partner violence can take many forms, including physical violence, sexual violence, threats of physical/sexual violence, and psychological/emotional abuse, and can be perpetrated by a current or former spouse, common‐law spouse, nonmarital dating partner, or boyfriend/girlfriend of the same or opposite sex (Saltzman et al. 1999). While both men and women can be victims of intimate-partner violence, it disproportionately affects women, since roughly one of every five women in a heterosexual intimate relationship is a victim of intimate-partner violence. Within the United States specifically, females make up the vast majority of victims killed by an intimate partner (Catalano et al. 2009). Court‐mandated batterer intervention programs for men who have committed intimate-partner violence have been implemented in many jurisdictions as a means of addressing this problem. The goal of these programs is to reduce intimate-partner violence recidivism.

Practice Theory

Interventions for men who have committed intimate-partner violence were originally derived from the women’s shelter movement and often are based in feminist orientation or cognitive–behavioral therapeutic principles. The various programs encourage men to confront their sexist beliefs and accept responsibility for their past abuse, while also teaching these men alternative behaviors and reactions (including anger management, assertiveness, relaxation techniques, and communication skills) [Wilson, Feder, and Olaghere 2021].

Programs based in cognitive–behavioral therapy approach violence as a learned behavior, meaning that nonviolence also can be learned by those who may potentially perpetrate a crime (Smedslund et al. 2011). Further, feminist and sociological frameworks acknowledge and work to challenge the societal factors that may lead to intimate-partner violence, including patriarchal cultural norms (Babcock et al. 2016).

Practice Components/Target Population

Many court‐mandated batterer intervention programs are based in feminist orientation, while others draw from cognitive–behavioral therapy with feminist components. For programs based in feminist orientation, the primary treatment method is psychoeducational and concentrates on changing men’s beliefs regarding their societal privilege and the unequal or subservient position they believe women should have (Miller 2010; Pence and Paymar 1993). The presumed mechanism of change for programs that draw from this orientation is that teaching men about gender parity will reduce incidents of intimate-partner violence (Babcock et al. 2016). The Duluth Model is one of the earliest and more widely used programs that is based on the feminist approach. This model concentrates on providing group-facilitated exercises that challenge a male’s perception of entitlement to control and dominate his partner. A fundamental part of the model is the “Power and Control Wheel,” which is used to illustrate that violence is part of a pattern of behavior that includes male privilege, intimidation, and emotional abuse, and is not merely isolated incidences of anger. The goal of treatment is to move toward behaviors on the “Equality Wheel,” which form the basis for equal relationships (Babcock, Green, and Robie 2004; Pence and Paymar 1993).

Other court‐mandated batterer intervention programs draw from cognitive behavioral or other mental health frameworks, where intimate partner violence is thought to be caused by cognitive distortions about an individual and his partner, and a lack of skills to appropriately express and process feelings that lead to anger (Banks, Kini, and Babcock 2013).

Sessions within this approach aim to teach a variety of skills relevant to reducing continued intimate-partner violence, including social skills, cognitive restructuring, empathy enhancement, and communication skills (Dunford 2000; Babcock, Green, and Robie 2004). These approaches may also include behavioral components that address the deficits in skills related to dealing with anger (using anger management techniques such as timeouts, relaxation training, and changing negative attributions) (Babcock, Green, and Robie 2004), and often include homework outside of counseling sessions to help participants solidify their changes in cognitive processes. More recently, cognitive behavioral based programs have incorporated motivational interviewing or motivational planning as a preintervention component (Alexander et al. 2010; Santirso et al. 2020) to increase treatment compliance and engagement, enhancing the treatment effect.

Overall, many programs combine the approaches described above, and may also include components from other techniques or philosophies.

Additional Information

This practice encapsulates interventions targeting men who commit intimate partner violence that are based in the feminist psychoeducational approach (the Duluth Model) or Cognitive–Behavioral Therapy. As described above, there are numerous differences between these two types of interventions; therefore, Interventions for Persons Who Committed Intimate-Partner Violence: Duluth Model and Interventions for Persons Who Committed Intimate-Partner Violence: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy are rated as separate practices on CrimeSolutions.

These sources were used in the development of the practice profile:

These sources were used in the development of the practice profile:

Alexander, Pamela C., Eugene Morris, Allison J. Tracy, and Alice Frye. 2010. “Stages of Change and the Group Treatment of Batterers: A Randomized Clinical Trial.” Violence and Victims 25(5):571–87.

Babcock, Julia C., Nicholas Armenti, Clare Cannon, Katie Lauve–Moon, Fred Buttell, Regardt Ferreira, Arthur Cantos, John Hamel, Don Kelly, Catheleen Jordan, Peter S. Lehmann, Penny A. Leisring, Christopher M. Murphy, Daniel K. O’Leary, Sarah Bannon, Katie Lee Salis, and Ingrid Solano. 2016. “Domestic Violence Perpetrator Programs: A Proposal for Evidence‐Based Standards in the United States.” Partner Abuse 7(4):356–460.

Babcock, Julia C., and Jaslean La Taillade. 1999. “Evaluating Interventions for Men Who Batter.” In John P. Vincent and Ernest N. Jouriles (eds.). Domestic Violence: Guidelines For Research‐Informed Practice. London, England: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 37–77.

Banks, Josilyn, Sheetal Kini, and Julia C. Babcock. 2013. “Interventions That Work to Stop Intimate-Partner Violence.” In Leam A. Craig, Theresa A. Gannon, and Louise A. Dixon (eds.). What Works in Offender Rehabilitation: An Evidence‐Based Approach to Assessment and Treatment. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley, 159–72.

Catalano, Shannan, Erica Smith, Howard N. Snyder, and Michael R. Rand. 2009. Female Victims of Violence. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Miller, Scott. 2010. “Discussing the Duluth Curriculum: Creating a Process of Change for Men Who Batter.” Violence Against Women 16(9):1007–21.

Davis, Robert C., and Bruce G. Taylor. 1999. “Does Batterer Treatment Reduce Violence?” Women & Criminal Justice 10(2):69–93.

Dunford, Franklyn W. 2000. “The San Diego Navy Experiment: An Assessment of Interventions for Men Who Assault Their Wives.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 68:468–76.

Pence, Ellen, and Michael Paymar. 1993. Education Groups for Men Who Batter: The Duluth Model. New York, New York: Springer.

Saltzman, Linda E., Janet L. Fanslow, Pamela M. McMahon, and Gene A. Shelley. 1999. Intimate-Partner Violence Surveillance: Uniform Definitions and Recommended Data Elements, Version 1.0. Atlanta, Georgia: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

Santirso, Faraj A., Gail Gilchrist, Marisol Lila, and Enrique Gracia. 2020. “Motivational Strategies in Interventions for Intimate-Partner Violence Offenders: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.” Psychosocial Intervention 29(3):175–90.

Smedslund, Geir, Therese K. Dalsbø, Asbjørn Steiro, Aina Winsvold, and Jocelyn Clench–Aas. 2011. “Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Men Who Physically Abuse Their Female Partner.” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 3 (CD006048).