Stuck Behind the Times: How Current Controversies Related to Domestic Violence Intervention Programs are Addressed in U.S. State-Specific Documents

ABSTRACT

This research assesses the extent to which current treatment-related controversies are addressed in state documents related to Domestic Violence Intervention Programs (DVIP). Specifically, we consider state-specific guidance on conducting treatment with female-identifying perpetrators, perpetrators in LGBTQ+ relationships, perpetrators located within relationships with bi-directional violence and perpetrators with a trauma history. Relevant DVIP governing documents were obtained from all U.S. states, as available (n = 47, 94%). Documents were coded with good interrater reliability (IRR = 82.4%). Although most states have gender-neutral or gender-non-specified DVIP guidelines (n = 31, 66%), 16 states (24%) have documents that specify they can only be applied to male perpetrators. Only two states (4%) provide detailed guidance for work with LGBTQ+ perpetrators. Of note, 44% of states (n = 22) exclude addressing bidirectional violence within their programs, despite its prevalence among violent couples. Only one state currently advises its DVIPs to assess for bidirectional violence at intake. While a substantial minority of states (n = 20, 40%) advise DVIPs to assess for perpetrator trauma, only a few state documents specifically endorse a trauma-informed approach (n = 6, 12%) even fewer require DVIP facilitators to include trauma information in their curriculum (n = 2, 4%). Problematically, many states’ DVIP guidelines have not been updated recently, with only 17 states having guidelines updated in the last five years. State policies must address the needs, motivations, and experiences of all DVIP perpetrators by acknowledging violence-related dynamics, incorporating a strength-based perspective, providing trauma-informed care, and enacting gender and LGBTQ±specific treatment recommendations.

KEYWORDS:

• Batterer intervention programs
• female perpetrators
• intimate partner violence
• state standards

Domestic Violence Intervention Programs (DVIPs) are a crucial mechanism for addressing domestic violence (DV) perpetration that comes to the attention of the legal system. DVIPs were originally developed to provide a short-term, psychoeducational program for men arrested for misdemeanor DV to provide a middle ground between prison and no required sentence or systematic intervention (Holtzworth-Munroe, 2001). These programs, also known as Batterer Intervention Programs (BIPs), tend to be the go-to treatment option mandated by U.S. courts (Cannon et al., 2020).

The earliest treatment model, the Duluth model (Pence & Paymar, 1993), dominated DVIP program content and surrounding state policy starting in the 1990’s (Dutton & Corvo, 2007). In this model, DV was defined as part of a pattern of behavior that facilitates men’s ability to control and dominate their wives/women in order to maintain their privileged position within the established social hierarchy or patriarchy. The Duluth curriculum was intended to be enacted by a community and its institutions to diminish the power of perpetrators over their victims and to help men consider that the reduction of their violence entails establishing a different kind of relationship with women (Pence & Paymar, 1993).

Strict adherence to the Duluth model has subsequently waned in popularity within state policy, as a recent content analysis of state policies found that only seven states explicitly instruct their DVIPs to utilize the Duluth model (Flasch et al., 2021). Only 22 states explicitly promote incorporating teachings related to power and control in their curriculum content (Flasch et al., 2021). In their place, combined approaches have emerged as the most common model, present in 23 states’ documents (Flasch et al., 2021). Despite changes in state-specific policy, the Duluth model has persisted in practice, as it was endorsed by 75% of DVIP facilitators in a recent major national survey (Cannon et al., 2020).

Emerging research findings have illuminated areas in which traditional DVIPs, often rooted in the Duluth model, may be insufficient. First, it has been suggested that current DVIP policies, rooted in the Duluth model, are primarily applicable to unidirectionally-violent, heterosexual men (Babcock et al., 2016). Consequently, a neglected population is female perpetrators, whose needs may not be fully addressed by standards developed for male populations. Standards for treating female perpetrators are necessary, as the highest proportion of violent crimes committed by women occurs within the context of intimate partner relationships (Desmarais et al., 2012). Additionally, female perpetrators have been found to perpetrate IPV at comparable rates to men (Archer, 2000; Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2005; Straus, 2008). Changes in dual arrest or mandatory reporting laws, in which both offenders are arrested in DV cases, have also resulted in an increase in the likelihood that a female will be arrested for DV (Durfee, 2012). Despite increases in arrest rates, a recent review of 238 DVIP employees found that only 10% of programs provide treatment for female perpetrators (Cannon et al., 2020).

Treatment standards enacted for unidirectionally-violent, heterosexual men may also not fully address the needs of LGBTQ+ perpetrators (Cannon, 2020b). Large, comprehensive national surveys (i.e., 18049 individuals completed the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey; Walters et al., 2013) show that rates of physical and psychological IPV are as high, or higher, within LGBTQ+ relationships as within heterosexual relationships. Specifically, lifetime rates of violence by an intimate partner are significantly higher for lesbian women (43.8%) and bisexual women (61.1%) than heterosexual women (35%) (Walters et al., 2013). For males, lifetime prevalence of IPV was highest amongst bisexual men (61.1%), as compared to heterosexual (29%) and gay men (26%) (Walters et al., 2013).

Furthermore, among those in heterosexual relationships, several different patterns of violence have been identified (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2012); others have delineated subtypes of male perpetrators (Gottman et al., 1995; Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994; Johnson, 1995). Of note, these different categories, or typologies, of perpetrators also occur among those identifying as gay and lesbian. Most perpetrators engage in situational or common couple violence, but others engage in battering, also known as controlling-coercive violence (Russell, 2020). These findings highlight that DV perpetrators embedded in heterosexual as well as in LGBTQ+ relationships may differ from one another in the extent, nature, and motivation for their perpetration. These differences should be addressed in DV treatment through tailored treatment strategies or by DVIPs that operate on models that address multiple risk factors for violence.

Perpetration that is bidirectional, rather than unidirectionally perpetrated by a male perpetrator toward a female victim, has also been raised as a controversial issue in DVIP policy (Aaron & Beaulaurier, 2017; Bates, 2016; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2012). Bidirectional violence, in which both individuals experience both the role of perpetrator and victim, has generally been prohibited from being addressed by DVIPS through state governing documents (Bates, 2016). While there has been some hesitancy to address bidirectional violence due to fear of victim blaming, research consistently shows that bidirectional violence exists and is a more common pattern among couples than unidirectional violence (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2012; Straus, 2008). Bidirectional violence is also associated with worse IPV outcomes, as it predicts higher frequencies of violence and greater injury when compared to couples who have experienced unidirectional IPV (Whitaker, 2007). As Bates (2016) argues, the substantial prevalence and severity of bidirectional violence suggests that the causes of IPV are likely different from those offered by the “gender perspective” applied to unidirectional violence. For non-male populations of offenders, bi-directional violence may be even more salient. Among females arrested for domestic violence, as many as 82% have been victimized by their partner (Bernard & Bernard, 1983). Due to the prevalence of bidirectional violence and its association with impact severity and female perpetration, the prohibition of its incorporation in DVIP curriculum content could lead to less effective and comprehensive services for diverse program participants.

Noting another related and emerging controversy, the trauma history of offenders has historically been overlooked in DVIPs, perhaps due to the fears of diminishing offender responsibility for their actions. Increasing offender accountability through challenging various internalized and socialized beliefs (Pence & Paymar, 1993) often through “confronting” offenders was a component of early DVIP philosophy and treatment. Therefore, addressing past trauma experiences may be perceived as contradictory to the main goals of treatment, as it could provide offenders with justification for their use of violence. Despite this concern, trauma has been found to be a risk factor for IPV perpetration in populations of both male and female offenders. Specifically, childhood experiences of violence are associated with IPV occurrence in present relationships, as demonstrated within the systemic review conducted by Gil-González et al. (2008). Scholars have developed the intergenerational transmission of violence theory as a potential hypothesis for this connection, theorizing that childhood experiences of violence in the home may lead to social learning of violent behavior, which has been supported by recent findings using structural equation modeling (Cochran et al., 2017). As childhood experiences of violence are common risk factor for IPV perpetration, it may be necessary for programs to address it to create effective, lasting change for participants.

Previous research on state standards

Only one known study has examined the extent to which female perpetrator-specific considerations are present in state governing documents for DVIPs. In 2009, Kernsmith and Kernsmith reported on the extent to which female perpetrators are represented in such documents. One of the key findings was that in 38% of states (n = 20), the DVIP requirements were designed to only be enforceable in populations of male DV perpetrators, leaving programs working with female DV perpetrators without guidance or accountability. Another key finding from the 2009 review was that only one state had specified guidelines for female perpetrators: Illinois. At that time, Illinois was described as having “model” standards for female perpetrators.

Previous research has also examined the presence of advice related to LGBTQ+ perpetration, bidirectional violence, and trauma. A recent analysis of Risk-Needs-Responsivity principles in state DVIP documents by Richards et al. (2021) found that 33% of states advise programs to provide treatment specific to LGBTQ+ couple violence. Flasch et al. (2021) conducted a broad content analysis of DVIP state standards, finding that 23 states prohibit “circular causality of family systems approaches to violence” (p. 699) as a primary theoretical approach or program belief model. Finally, Flasch et al. (2021) also coded the number of state documents that indicated that DVIPs must train facilitators to utilize a trauma-informed approach (n = 3, 7%), a framework gaining increased national attention (Voith et al., 2020).

Current study

Multiple scholars have argued that state standards for DVIPs need to be updated to be aligned with key research findings related to risk factors for DV perpetration, growing evidence about the diversity of DV offenders, and ongoing concerns that current treatment is less effective than is optimal (Babcock et al., 2016; Maiuro & Eberle, 2008). However, to change DVIP policy and associated state governing documents, which guide DVIP curriculum in many states, one must first evaluate their content. This is the primary purpose of the current project. Specifically, this study examines the extent to which state-specific documents have been updated to address DV perpetration by female perpetrators, LGBTQ+ perpetrators, and perpetrators located within bi-directionally violent relationships. The study’s final aim is to determine the extent to which trauma is incorporated in US states’ current DVIP governing documents. This study will also code the length of time since each state’s guidelines have been updated, as it is argued that routinely revisiting state standards is an important component of providing relevant and effective guidance for DVIP administration.

This study will be guided by the following research questions:

1. What advice do state documents provide regarding treating female perpetrators?

2. What advice do state documents provide regarding treating perpetrators in LGBTQ+ relationships?

3. How is bidirectional violence to be addressed in state governing documents for DVIPs?

4. To what extent are DVIPs expected to incorporate information about trauma or provide trauma-informed care according to state governing documents?

Methodology

To address these four research questions, a mixed-methods content analysis of relevant state laws and documents was conducted, which is consistent with the methodology used in other recent studies on DVIP governing documents (e.g., Flasch et al., 2021; Richards et al., 2021). A content analysis involves “the systematic reading of a body of texts, images, and symbolic matter” for the purpose of analysis, categorization, and condensation (Krippendorff, 2004, p. 3). This consists of several steps: developing research questions, selection of relevant texts, creating coding categories, coding content, analyzing data, and drawing conclusions. We enhanced this method by presenting exemplar quotes from the documents to represent important codes.

Governing documents

State-specific governing documents containing curriculum information about the conduct of each state’s Domestic Violence Intervention Programs (DVIPs) were obtained, as possible. These DVIP documents were located through exhaustive internet searches that included keywords such as “batterer intervention program,” “state standards,” and “intimate partner violence.” When multiple DVIP document types were located pertaining to one state (e.g., a single state had both a law and state standard related to the functioning and scope of DVIPs), the study team coded the document which contained information about the variables of interest for this study (e.g., female perpetrators, LGBTQ+ perpetrators, bi-directional violence, trauma). For example, Alabama has both a law and a published state standard related to DVIPs, but state standards were chosen for coding as this document described recommended DVIP curriculum and inclusion criteria. In contrast, the Alabama law contained information about how to certify and fund DVIPs. For states for which the research team could not locate a DVIP governing document per internet searches, we reached out to the committee or organization in charge of DVIP programming for that state and requested access to the governing documents. Three states that did not respond to these requests and did not have laws, guidelines, or standards online. These three states were coded as “no practices available.”

Coding scheme

A codebook was created to assess the research questions focused on in this study. This primarily included variables dealing with the existence of standards and recommendations for female and LGBTQ+ perpetrators, bidirectional violence in curriculum content, and trauma within the curriculum and training of facilitators. Two coders from the study team coded the data and met regularly to prevent coder drift and come to a consensus on complex codes. Good interrater reliability was obtained for the codes in this study (82.4%).

RQ1: What advice do state documents provide regarding treating female perpetrators?

Female perpetrators

Information on perpetrator gender was located in two different places: the introductory and definitions portions of the governing documents. These sections were reviewed to determine whether recommendations were only enforceable for male offenders or for all offenders. A state’s guidelines were coded as “male only” when they explicitly stated that perpetrators in the document were defined as male or stated that the documents only apply to populations of male perpetrators. A state’s guidelines were coded as “all offenders” when there were no statements that specified applicability or enforcement value of the documents based on gender. Example quotations from the governing documents will be reported in the results.

Female-specific recommendation information was in various locations throughout state governing documents, such as the introductory or curriculum section. In some cases (e.g., Illinois), female-specific recommendations were in a separate document from male-specific recommendations. States were coded “yes” when their governing documents provided any advice on how programs should treat female perpetrators and “no” when they provided no information on the subject. States that were coded “yes” were then broken down into two categories “yes nonspecific” and “yes specific.” “yes nonspecific” was given when states provided vague advice, such as that programs should utilize a different program for female perpetrators but did not provide what these program components should entail. “yes specific” was given when states provided specific philosophy, curriculum content, training requirements, or any other information that DVIPs could actionably utilize to provide services to female perpetrators. Example quotations from the governing documents will be reported in the results.

RQ2: What advice do state documents provide regarding treating perpetrators in LGBTQ+ relationships?

LGBTQ+ perpetrators

Recommendations for LGBTQ+ perpetrators were also located in various locations throughout state governing documents, most often in the introductory portion or with structural guidance regarding the curriculum. In the most detailed cases (e.g., Missouri), LGBTQ±specific recommendations were given their own section. States were coded as “yes” when their governing documents provided any advice on how programs should treat LGBTQ+ perpetrators and “no” when they provided no information on the subject. States that were coded “yes” were then broken down into two categories “yes nonspecific” and “yes specific.” “yes nonspecific” was given when states provided advice that was vague, such as the sentiment that programs should utilize a different approach for LGBTQ+ perpetrators but did not provide what program components should entail. “yes specific” was given when states provided specific philosophy, curriculum content, training requirements, or any other information that DVIPs could actionably utilize to provide services to LGBTQ+ perpetrators. Example quotations from the governing documents will be reported in the results.

RQ3: How is bidirectional violence addressed in state governing documents for DVIPs?

Bidirectional violence

For the purposes of this study, bidirectional violence was defined as the use of violence by both partners within a relationship. In the laws, bidirectional violence was often referred to using the following terms: “systems theory approaches,” “circular theory,” “family systems theory,” and “mutual violence.” The information regarding bidirectional violence was almost exclusively located in the curriculum exclusions section of governing documents. States were considered to “exclude” bidirectional violence from their understanding of IPV when one of the keywords presented above was explicitly stated as a prohibited or inappropriate curriculum topic. Example quotations from the governing documents will be reported in the results.

RQ4: To what extent are DVIPs expected to incorporate information about trauma or provide trauma-informed care according to state governing documents?

For the purposes of this study, trauma was defined as mentions of negative experiences in an offender’s past, such as abuse in previous relationships, violence in the family of origin, previous sexual victimization, etc. Apart from the variable “trauma-informed,” this did not require use of the keyword “trauma.” Four codes were used to evaluate the extent to which state policy addresses trauma: Trauma Assessment, Trauma-Informed Approach, Trauma Inclusions, and Trauma Exclusions. First, trauma assessment was coded “assess” when trauma was expected to be assessed in the DVIP intake and “not mentioned” when it was not included as a component of the intake. Second, a state’s laws were described as “trauma-informed” when governing documents used these exact words to describe staff training or curriculum philosophy. Third, states were determined to “include” trauma when they mentioned curriculum topics that state trauma explicitly, or align with the definition given above, as included in their program topics. Lastly, states were determined to “exclude” trauma when they mention curriculum topics that explicitly state trauma or traumatic experiences as described above are prohibited or inappropriate to include in curriculum content. Example quotations from the governing documents will be reported in the results.

Results

Governing documents were obtained for 47 states. Mississippi, South Dakota, and Pennsylvania either did not have or did not provide any relevant laws, state standards, or guidelines to advise DVIPs within their state. Of the 47 states with accessible policy to guide their assessment and curriculum practices, only 21% (n = 10) were governed by laws, 68% (n = 32) were directed by state standards, and 10% (n = 5) relied on suggested guidelines for the operation of their DVIPs. Seventeen states indicated that their governing documents had been updated sometime after 2016, 13 reported a last update between 2010 and 2016, and 13 indicated that they had not been updated since before 2010. Only 10 states had governing documents available that had been updated post COVID (2020 or later). The majority of states (n = 36) continue to either explicitly endorse adherence to the Duluth model or promote consideration of power and control dynamics as central. Eleven states of the 47 coded have DVIP related documents that neither mention the Duluth model nor discuss the centrality of power and control in DV perpetration.

RQ1: What advice do state documents provide regarding treating female perpetrators?

Of the 47 states with governing documents, 30 states have guidelines that apply to all offenders regardless of gender. This means that DVIPs that serve male and female offenders alike would be required or advised to follow the same criteria that is outlined in their state’s documents. Seventeen states (36%) still have guidelines that only apply to male offenders. For example, Nebraska state standards indicate that “although there are women in heterosexual or homosexual relationships who also perpetrate intimate partner abuse related crimes, these standards do not apply to intervention programs that currently exist in Nebraska for such women” (Nebraska Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, 2016, p. 1).

Twenty-eight of the states with guidelines make recommendations for female perpetrators (60%). Of the states with recommendations, 19 (68%) make nonspecific recommendations and nine states (32%) offer specific recommendations. Nonspecific recommendations often acknowledge that female perpetrators should not be in the same group as male perpetrators. For example, Minnesota law dictates that “programs must provide separate sessions for male and female offenders and abusing parties” (Minnesota Statutes, 2021, p. 1). Another type of nonspecific recommendation was the sentiment that new programs or different standards should be developed in the future to address female populations; however, the characteristics of DVIPS for female perpetrators were not described. For example, Georgia state standards specify that:

The Commission recognizes that men and women often use violence differently and that interventions for men and women need to be structured differently. Most curriculums are specifically designed for men who batter their intimate women partners. A different curriculum shall be used or developed by an FVIP providing classes to women who use violence against their intimate partners

(Georgia Commission on Family Violence, 2018, p. 21).

Nine states provide specific guidelines for female perpetrators such that these states specify actionable ways female perpetrators should be treated within their DVIPs. In five states, these recommendations are brief, such as those written in Utah’s state standards stating, “services for women should include a focus on addressing issues of victimization including safety planning, addressing parenting stress and parenting skills, and a focus on stress reduction with emotion regulation and acceptance and mindfulness strategies” (Utah Domestic Violence Offender Management Work Group, 2021, p. 16).

Four states provide detailed and extensive recommendations for how to address the needs of female perpetrators. For example, Colorado state standards provide separate competencies, curriculum content, and assessment procedures for working with female perpetrators. In order to provide adequate services to female perpetrators, the Colorado standards specify that DVIP facilitators should be trained in additional topics, such as “women’s experience of race, ethnicity, and cultural issues,” the “unique impact of violence on women,” and “women’s trauma issues (e.g., miscarriage, stillbirth, abortion, rape, sexual assault)” (Colorado Department of Public Safety, 2021, p. 108). Programs that treat female perpetrators in Colorado are advised to include curriculum topics such as “integrating parenting and motherhood issues,” “arrest and incarceration trauma experienced by some female offenders’’ and “issues experienced by women (e.g., abortion, miscarriage, stillbirth)” (Colorado Department of Public Safety, 2021, p. 110). Colorado state standards outline assessment considerations for work with female perpetrators. This section states that female-specific assessment domains should include “female offender’s experience of violence in current relationship and barriers to accessing law enforcement and other services,” “women’s use of lethal violence,” and “emotional, psychiatric, and physical health issues acute for women” (Colorado Department of Public Safety, 2021, p. 109). Nineteen states had guiding documents that did not provide any recommendations for DVIPs working with female perpetrators.

RQ2: What advice do state documents provide regarding perpetrators in LGBTQ+ relationships?

Fourteen of the states with locatable guidelines (30%) did make recommendations for how to conduct DVIPs with LGBTQ+ perpetrators. Among these, nine (64%) made nonspecific recommendations and five (36%) provided specific guidelines. Nonspecific recommendations were often centered on the idea that programs should develop additional rules or standards for same-sex or LGBTQ+ perpetrators but were silent on what these rules or standards should entail. For example, North Dakota state standards dictate that:

Batterer treatment groups are primarily designed for adult males who are violent toward others in intimate relationships. However, the Adult Batterer Treatment Forum recognizes the need for other specialized programs to treat … batterers who identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, or Queer (LGBTQ)

(North Dakota Adult Batterer Treatment Forum, 2021, p. 23).

Six states provide specific, actionable guidelines for LGBTQ+ perpetrators. In three of these states, these recommendations are brief, such what the guidance in New York state standards:

The biggest component identified by facilitators and LGBTQ+ participants is that the language used in abusive partner intervention programs needs to be more gender inclusive. Additionally, there needs to be an acknowledgement that LGBTQ+ relationship dynamics are different from heterosexual relationship dynamics and programs must develop curriculums to address these differences (i.e., different types of power and control tactics)

(Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence, 2022, p. 6).

In two states, there were detailed recommendations for how to address the needs of LGBTQ+ DV perpetrators. For example, Missouri state standards provide a list of attitudes to promote and challenge, assessment components, and general advice for DVIPs working with LGBTQ+ perpetrators. DVIP facilitators that treat LGBTQ+ perpetrators in Missouri are advised to promote attitudes of “belief in equality between partners,” “respect for equal rights” and “taking full responsibility for abusive behavior and for stopping it;” while challenging attitudes surrounding “beliefs in entitlement and privilege,” and “homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and heterosexism” (Missouri Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, 2018, p. 13). Finally, Missouri DVIP state standards outline assessment considerations for work with LGBTQ+ perpetrators, emphasizing the importance of “account[ing] for the diversity of client relationships” (Missouri Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, 2018, p. 13). Their guidelines state that multiple relationship dynamics, “poly relationships, multiple partners, and sexual encounters that utilize BDSM may not be a component of abuse or power and control” (Missouri Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, 2018, p. 13). Of note, as of 2023, 36 states still had DVIP guiding documents that did not provide any recommendations for work with LGBTQ+ perpetrators.

RQ3: How is bidirectional violence addressed in state governing documents for DVIPs?

Twenty-two states exclude their state’s DVIPs from including any messages about bidirectional or mutual violence within their program curriculum. For example, Hawaii state standards include “family and other systems theory that conceptualize causality across all members of the family and focus on victim behavior” as an “inappropriate and inadequate” method of intervention (National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence, 2010, p. 24). Only one state explicitly mentions the importance of assessing participants to determine who has experienced bi-directional violence. In their state standards, Alaska advises DVIPs within their state to “identify program participants who have not been the principal physical aggressor in instances of domestic violence and provide separate program services for those participants” (Department of Public Safety, 2004, p. 3). Twenty-seven total states, 24 with standards and three without, are silent about assessing for or addressing bidirectional violence in their governing documents.

RQ4: To what extent are DVIPs expected to incorporate information about trauma according to state governing documents?

Twenty states with accessible governing documents (43%) advise their DVIPs to assess for trauma among their participants. This was almost exclusively mentioned in guidelines for DVIP intake procedures, but was occasionally found elsewhere (e.g., in a description of referral procedures, supplemental treatments). One example is Massachusetts state standards, which state that,

Issues such as substance abuse, mental health, and past trauma shall be identified without allowing these issues to excuse or justify individual responsibility for abuse but only as correlatives to an abuser’s behavior and for purposes of referral to adjunctive treatment

(Department of Public Health, 2015, p. 8).

Another example can be found in Louisiana state standards, which require their DVIPs to “collect information about the applicant’s history of abusive behavior, including: … experience as a target or witness of abuse” (Louisiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 2015, p. 6). A total of 30 states, 27 with guidelines and three without, are silent about whether perpetrator trauma history should be part of their assessment.

Six states explicitly mention endorsing a “trauma-informed” approach in their programs. In four states, this was included in the facilitator training requirements. For example, Indiana state standards state that a “provider must develop a core competency in Trauma Informed Care as defined by the National Center for Trauma Informed Care – SAMHSA” (Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence, n.d.., p. 19). In four states, trauma informed approaches were described in the general philosophy of the program or as main principles under which the DVIP was operating. For example, New York guidelines state that

Current research suggests that a program that has incorporated trauma-informed practices may have a better chance of helping participants recognize and acknowledge their abusive behavior. … Programs that utilize trauma-informed practices skillfully address past experiences and trauma while also making participants understand that this is not the cause of or reason for their behavior; each individual is responsible for the choices they make in their lives (including their abusive behavior)

(Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence, 2022, p. 5).

Two states discussed trauma as both an important training component for facilitators and as a key program philosophy. Forty-one states with guidelines and three without, were silent on the need for perpetrator trauma assessment.

Ten states have guidelines that recommend including trauma as a DVIP curriculum topic. In some states, the inclusion is explicit, such as in Connecticut’s state standards:

At a minimum the following content areas should be included in the program and addressed by the facilitators: … Trauma is an important concept to review with participants including exposure during childhood to domestic violence, personal history of sexual/verbal/physical or emotional abuse, and their current methods for dealing with or avoiding their trauma history. Methods for healing from past traumas should be explored

(Criminal Justice Policy Advisory Commission, 2014, pp. 7–8).

Others were less explicit (i.e., they did not explicitly use the word “trauma”), but still implied that there should be inclusion of trauma-related topics in their program curriculum. For example, North Dakota requires their programs to “include the following minimum curriculum elements … intergenerational patterns of violence” (North Dakota Adult Batterer Treatment Forum, 2021, p. 21).

Eleven states have an exclusionary criterion in their prohibited curriculum component related to trauma. For example, Oregon law prohibits their state’s DVIPs from “identifying any of the following as a primary cause of battering or a basis for batterer intervention: … past experiences … or mental health problems of either participant or victim” (Department of Justice, 2021, p. 1).

Discussion

In the U.S. criminal justice system, DVIPs are utilized as the main avenue for rehabilitating DV offenders and, ultimately, reducing recidivism and curtailing future incidents of domestic violence. Consequently, when an individual attends a DVIP for an DV offense, there is an expectation from their victim(s), their community, and society at large that these treatments will be efficacious. However, research has shown that DVIPs are less efficacious than ideal (Babcock et al., 2004) and that many types of perpetrators fall outside of the heterosexual, uni-directional, coercively controlling prototype which informed the traditional treatment model underlying most DVIPs. There is a need to keep U.S. policies (laws, guidelines, state standards) up to date and in alignment with current scientific advances as well as with the changing demographics of DV perpetrators mandated to treatment. Unfortunately, findings from the current project indicate that not all U.S. states have accessible, current, or locatable guiding documents for DVIPs. No documents were located for three states. Furthermore, the majority of available guidelines were last updated more than five years prior to this study. The nature of the DVIP governing documents was also found to vary from enforceable laws to well-specified and extensive state standards, to non-enforceable and nonspecific recommendations about a variety of topics that have fueled current controversies related to DV (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2012). The United States is clearly not united in its policies regarding the treatment of perpetrators.

There is a growing chorus of voices arguing for the need to modify existing treatment programs to better serve female perpetrators (Dutton & Corvo, 2006), LGBTQ+ perpetrators (Cannon, 2020a), and perpetrators within bi-directionally violent relationships (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2012). Broadening the discourse and actively updating clinical treatment, including treatment initially conceptualized via the Duluth Model, is a shared undertaking that requires many to challenge “iron clad” or inflexible ideological positions (Gondolf, 2007).

Unfortunately, our results indicate that over one-third of states with DVIP guidelines (n = 13, 36%), continue to specify that these guidelines are only applicable to male perpetrators. The obtained percentage is only slightly different from what was reported by Kersnmith and Kernsmith in 2009 (38%). These state policies seem outdated in the face of national and international data highlighting the prevalence of DV perpetration by women in heterosexual relationships (Archer, 2000; Desmarais et al., 2012; Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2005; Straus, 2008), the greater number of women being brought into the criminal justice system via dual arrest laws, and the prevalence of domestic violence in lesbian relationships.

Furthermore, most states (n = 38, 81%) continue to lack specific guidelines for treating female perpetrators, with only 19% (n = 9) of states providing specific guidelines for female perpetrators. While low, the number of states with female-specific guidelines has increased substantially since a low of 1% according to Kernsmith and Kernsmith (2009).

Even fewer states provide DVIPs with any guidance for how to adapt treatment for LGBTQ+ perpetrators (n = 14, 30%) and only 4% (n = 2) of states provide specifics related to the required adaptations. This finding replicates Richards et al. (2021), who found that one third of their sample (n = 14) provide guidance for same-sex couples. Our study further extends upon findings by Richards et al. (2021) by categorizing standards as specific or nonspecific, as well as detailed or brief. Coding the information in this manner clarifies the extent to which standards are actionable and enforceable. Most of the guidelines that mention LGBTQ+ perpetrators are nonspecific, meaning that they likely can’t be enforced or incorporated in the curriculum in a meaningful way, leaving individual programs to decide how to address this population themselves. According to a recent survey. Nearly 88% of practitioners reported that they fail to offer LGBTQ-specific services (Cannon, 2020b). Increased specificity and detail in policy may help to increase the number of organizations that offer services for LGBTQ+ perpetrators.

Additionally, we found that recommendations regarding bidirectional violence are typically not mentioned within state guidelines. (n = 24, 51%). When guiding documents do speak to the occurrence of bi-directional violence, as first noted by Flasch et al. (2021), it is generally to exclude this from being discussed within program philosophy (n = 22 states in the current study or 47%). Relatedly, in a review by Richards et al. (2021), they report that 77% of states prohibit the use of couple counseling when treating IPV offenders. However, we do note that one state, Alaska, does acknowledge that bidirectional violence may necessitate different treatment needs by providing separate services for individuals who have not been the primary aggressor within the relationship.

As originally noted by Flasch et al. (2021) and replicated in the current study, relatively few states have updated their DVIP governing documents to support providing trauma-informed care within DVIPs (n = 3 states per Flasch et al., 2021 and n = 4 states in the current study). In the current study, we also examined the governing documents to ascertain the inclusion of trauma-informed program philosophies, recommendations for trauma assessment, and the inclusion of trauma as a curriculum topic within DVIP curriculums. A minority of states incorporate trauma in the assessment at intake (n = 20, 43%) and as a curriculum topic (n = 10, 21%) in state policy. The current study revealed that trauma is not always explicitly discussed, as it is often addressed indirectly by probing or educating about specific traumatic experiences (e.g., witnessing abuse in family of origin). A more prevalent and explicit focus on trauma may help DVIPs to address the important link between a perpetrator’s past experiences and their current patterns of violence within their relationships. Other scholars have called for a greater emphasis on trauma in DVIPs, citing that trauma-informed principles are a component in the most effective treatments for IPV (Taft et al., 2016).

Implications and recommendations

As our understanding of what it means to be a perpetrator of domestic violence becomes more nuanced and inclusive, scholars holding a range of ideologies agree that DVIPs need to adapt and progress (Cannon, 2020a; Gondolf, 2007; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2012). To decrease DV perpetration across the United States, in turn, promoting and improving physical and mental health and wellness, DVIPs that treat female and LGBTQ+ perpetrators need to account for the different motivations, behaviors, and experiences that are associated with their perpetration. The inclusion of specific guidelines for these perpetrators increases accountability for the treatment of female and LGBTQ+ perpetrators, yet this is not standard of practice. Ideally, every state should have some governing document for DVIPs that is relevant and enforceable for female and LGBTQ+ perpetrators. This could be through broadening guidelines to be applicable for the diversity that exists among perpetrators of differing genders and comorbidities, or by outlining separate considerations for female and LGBTQ+ perpetrators. We also advocate collaboration among states to increase policy consistency. States could consider using other state guidelines (e.g., Colorado, Missouri) with detailed recommendations to specify assessment procedures and curriculum components for female and LGBTQ+ perpetrators. All changes should aim to align DVIP policy with what is shown to be effective in research and clinical practice.

State policy should also aim to include bidirectional violence and trauma in meaningful ways within their governing documents. Due to the high prevalence of bidirectional violence, states should consider how to address this important topic without taking away from other main goals of the program, which are often to foster greater responsibility and accountability for one’s behaviors. Assessing and addressing bidirectional violence in DVIP participants may provide a better understanding of the risks of continued violence and person-specific motivations for engaging in violence. In regard to trauma, programs should both incorporate trauma-informed principles in their approach and facilitator training, as well as include trauma-related topics as a component of the curriculum. These inclusions will help to ensure that participants are being educated about areas that may have influenced their behavior and impact their perpetration of IPV. States should also be cognizant of including trauma or trauma-related teachings in their prohibited topics, as this may prevent engaging conversations about the general link between trauma and IPV in DVIPs.

Limitations

Consistent with Flasch et al. (2021) and Kernsmith and Kernsmith (2009), our study team made extensive efforts to collect all the relevant DVIP guiding documents. However, given that these were located in a variety of places and follow-up e-mails were not uniformly responded to, additional documents may exist. There may also be revisions to these documents that are in process or are not readily accessible via the internet. Furthermore, given that the relevant information was located within multiple sections of these documents, and that the document types varied (laws, standards, guidelines, recommendations), some information may have been missed when coding. This may also explain variations or differences from other recent reviews, such as Flasch et al. (2021) and Richards et al. (2021), as there were differences in sample sizes and, potentially, in codebook definitions of certain variables (e.g., program model). For example, our findings indicated that 36 states endorse principles of the Duluth model, while Flasch et al. (2021) reported that only seven states identify the Duluth model as their main approach. Our methodological choice to assess principles versus an explicit declaration of main model likely led to these discrepancies and further, may clarify why the proportion of organizations that report current use of the Duluth model is as high as 75% in Cannon et al. (2016). Further work about the extent to which changes in state law effect DVIP practices could better illuminate the discrepancy between practice and policy. Additionally, the link between how practitioners and programs categorize themselves and what is delivered warrants further investigation.

Another limitation of our findings is that the governing documents that were coded might not represent the extent to which policies are implemented or adhered to within any given state. While these curriculum documents were the most useful source of standardized state specific DVIP information, there are likely to be considerable differences between policy and clinical practices. Furthermore, there are likely to be different interpretations of policy, variance in application due to clinical judgment, and diversity in the extent to which any particular DVIP choses to include elements beyond those specified in the minimum standards. This concern is bolstered by recent evidence that many DVIP facilitators are practicing eclectically (Cannon et al., 2020). There is also a need to encourage DVIP facilitators to routinely collect standardized evaluation data, which could be aggregated across states to better determine collective impact. European researchers are recommending similar efforts, highlighting the need for a coordinated system and adequate legislation and funding for DV intervention efforts (Wojnicka et al., 2016).

Finally, this study was limited due to the current state of research regarding how to treat female perpetrators, LGBTQ+ perpetrators, perpetrators in relationships with bidirectional violence that may or may not be mutual. We are also evolving in our understanding of trauma and how to apply trauma-informed care efficaciously. While it is likely that state guidelines that provide specific, enforceable standards for female and LGBTQ+ perpetrators; that give guidance on the importance of assessing for and addressing bi-directional violence, and that recommend providing trauma informed care will be of benefit to program participants, these practices are still being developed, adapted, and tested. Thus, it is imperative that DVIP-related policy be regularly revisited and revised so that it does not thwart needed progress toward effectively treating diverse DV perpetrators located within a variety of relationships. Updating policy will also help the field incorporate important advances in DV treatment (e.g., Lawrence et al., 2021).

Conclusion

Overall, our results indicate that controversial topics related to the functioning of DVIPs, including the degree to which DVIPs can address perpetration that occurs outside of the traditional unidirectional heterosexual male to female dynamic or that is rooted in trauma are not routinely addressed in US states’ governing documents. Concerns that acknowledging the existence of female or LGBTQ+ perpetrators and the prevalence of bidirectional violence will move the focus from men’s violence against women and may do unintended harm through reducing perpetrator culpability may be warranted. However, we assert that it is possible for DVIPs to embrace multiple goals including fostering accountability for violence that is rooted in societal structures, many of which favor men’s dominance over women, while allowing for, assessing, and addressing the nuanced relationship dynamics and precipitants of violence that are relevant to each perpetrator. Crafting state policy that fosters a better understanding of the full dynamics and expression of DV in a variety of relationships, while moving away from a one-size-fits all, perpetrator/victim model of treatment, will allow DVIPs to address a broader range of perpetrators and their needs, potentially increasing their effectiveness (Cannon & Buttell, 2016). The need for differential perpetrator treatment is supported among a host of generally criminal populations, in which relevant research is paired with effective clinical practice techniques (e.g., the Risk-Need-Responsivity framework) when conceptualizing treatment (Cannon et al., 2020). However, such an approach requires DVIP facilitators to have an updated understanding of IPV characteristics, dynamics and risk factors; a situation that is not currently in place (Cannon et al., 2020) and one that is not promoted by current DVIP guidelines, standards, and policies in place across the United States.

Ethical standards and informed consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards for the conduction of archival research on public records. No human subjects were involved in this research.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).