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

Disclosure statement

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

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.