Recent Research

»  Scheduled Trainings

»  Catalog

»  Wheels

»  Contact Us

There has been recent controversy over a 2003 study by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) on the effectiveness of Batterer Intervention Programs (BIPs). (www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/195079.pdf). The study examined recidivism of male offenders in Broward County, Florida and Brooklyn, New York. In the two sites, half of the men were ordered to counseling programs using the Duluth batterers’ intervention program curriculum and the other half went to a control group of supervised probation without counseling. The NIJ study has been widely criticized; we believe the study has several problems:

1. The NIJ study refers to the Duluth Model as if it is only a batterers’ intervention program. The batterers’ program curriculum is only one component of the Duluth Model. The Duluth Model was designed in 1981 as a coordinated community response of law enforcement, the criminal and civil courts, and human service providers working together to make communities safer for victims and hold offenders accountable for their behavior by:

1. Focusing intervention on stopping an offender’s use of violence, not fixing the relationship.
2. Using the power of the state through arrest and prosecution to place controls on an offender’s behavior.
3. Providing victims of abuse emergency housing, protections orders, and information to increase safety.
<
4. Tracking cases and working with law enforcement, the courts, and advocacy programs to ensure interventions conform to agreed-upon policies.

The Duluth curriculum, Creating a Process of Change for Men Who Batter is the most widely used program in the country and around the world. It has also been adapted for use with different cultures. The success of this program, or any other batterers’ program, relies on the cohesiveness of agencies in the criminal and civil justice systems in monitoring offenders’ progress, violation of court orders, failure to comply with the program rules, and any further acts of violence. This is then met with swift consistent consequences.

2. NIJ researchers recommend a cognitive behavioral approach for batterers’ intervention programs, but the Duluth curriculum is already a cognitive behavioral program. NIJ researchers cite Emerge and Amend programs as cognitive-behavioral alternatives to the Duluth curriculum. The Duluth curriculum is a cognitive behavioral program that has some similarities to Emerge and Amend. Duluth however focuses less on assessment, and more on how power relationships and entitlement are reflected in individuals, families, communities, and different cultures.

The Duluth curriculum combines feminist philosophy with an adaptation of Brazilian educator Paulo Freire’s work with impoverished illiterate people in South America. A central assumption is that nature and culture are separate. Men are cultural beings who can change because abusive behavior is cultural, not innate. Facilitators engage men in dialogue about what they believe about men, women, marriage and children. Curriculum exercises engage men in critical thinking,and self-reflection; identify the contradictions; and explore alternatives to abuse.

3. In the NIJ’s Brooklyn study, there was a major change in methodology during the research. Defense attorneys objected to some offenders being mandated to counseling while others were being placed on probation. Rather than discontinue the study, researchers offered an accelerated eight-week class as the control group compared to the Duluth curriculum for 26 weeks of classes. Such a major change in methodology seriously weakens the validity of the research project.

4. NIJ tests used to assess batterers’ change were of questionable validity. The researchers state, “In both studies, response rates were low, many people dropped out of the program, and victims could not be found for subsequent interviews. The test used to measure batterers’ attitudes toward domestic violence and their likelihood to engage in future abuse was of questionable validity. In the Brooklyn study, random assignment was overridden to a significant extent, which makes it difficult to attribute effects exclusively to the program.”

5. The NIJ research didn’t analyze treatment programs. The researchers simply concluded that recidivism and offenders’ attitudes about women were basically similar for those offenders who went to counseling, versus those placed on probation with the threat of jail.

6. The NIJ report conflicts with other more comprehensive studies. Edward Gondolf, Ed.D from the Indiana University of Pennsylvania states that the NIJ sponsored Broward County experiment clashes with his much more comprehensive seven-year multi-site evaluation. Gondolf’s study concluded, “…that well established batterer intervention programs with sufficient reinforcement from the courts do contribute to a substantial decline in re-assault”. Gondolf’s multi-site evaluation of batterer programs is at: www.iup.edu/maati/publications/

Other research on batterer intervention programs also demonstrated much different results than the NIJ study. In Scotland, researchers Russell and Rebecca Dobash found that offenders ordered to counseling using the Duluth curriculum and with the threat of immediate consequences for failure to participate (the Duluth Model), had a success rate of 73% as opposed to a 33% success rate for those offenders who were simply placed on probation.

In 1981, when the Duluth Model began, we faced a dilemma: What does the state do with offenders arrested under the new mandatory arrest policy? The options were jail, community service, probation, fines, or marriage counseling. The DAIP (Domestic Abuse Intervention Project) advocated for a combination of probation and counseling. Our philosophy was to offer an opportunity for offenders to make positive change within a tight system that enforces sanctions for those who continue to batter. We also convinced the court to stop ordering marriage counseling in lieu of jail, because of the danger posed to victims. Instead the court agreed to mandate anger management classes for first-time offenders as a condition of probation.

By 1984, DAIP staff, battered women, and advocates had serious concerns about anger management as a treatment model. The theory that anger causes violence simply didn’t resonate with most battered women’s experiences, nor did it help offenders get to the roots of their beliefs about entitlement and the use of violence to settle conflicts. DAIP stopped using anger management, and developed the Duluth curriculum. It helps offenders to understand how their socialized beliefs about male dominance impede intimacy; that violence is intentional and a choice designed to control their intimate partner; that the effects of abusive behavior damage the family; and that everyone has the ability to change.

We agree with the NIJ researchers that changing offenders’ attitudes towards women is extremely difficult. We still live in a sexist society where women are devalued, where many men still believe they are entitled to be in control in an intimate relationship, and where men who batter believe they have the right to use violence. While it is a goal to change the attitudes of men who batter, the ultimate goal of the Duluth Model has always been to ensure that victims are safer by having the state intervene in an accountable way to stop the violence.

We believe anyone considering the most effective response to domestic violence offenders needs to critically examine all research, and choose approaches that systemically address domestic violence as a social problem rather than just an individual dysfunction. Please contact us for more information:

pbergquist@duluth-model.org                      218 722 2781 ext 205