American Journal of Community Psychology

, Volume 53, Issue 1–2, pp 218–230 | Cite as

The Impact of Legislative Standards on Batterer Intervention Program Practices and Characteristics

  • Ashley L. BoalEmail author
  • Eric S. Mankowski
Original Article


Changes in social policy are often pursued with the goal of reducing a social problem by improving prevention efforts, intervention program practices, or participant outcomes. State legislative standards for intimate partner violence intervention programs have been adopted nearly universally across the US, however, we do not know whether such standards actually achieve the intended goal of affecting programs’ policies and practices. To assess the effect that batterer intervention program (BIP) standards have on policies and practices of programs, this study used longitudinal surveys collected as part of an ongoing evaluation conducted from 2001 to the present to compare intervention program (N = 74) characteristics and practices at three time points before and after the adoption of standards in Oregon. Analyses were conducted to examine all BIPs in Oregon at each time point, as well as change among a subset of programs in existence at all survey assessments. Results indicate that across all programs, the use of mixed gender group co-facilitation increased by 14 % between 2004 and 2008, while program length increased by approximately 12 weeks. However, other practices such as programs’ coordination with community partners were unchanged. Analyses of within-program change revealed fewer differences, with only program length increasing significantly over the three assessments. These and other findings indicate that while standards affected program length as intended, other practices commonly addressed by legislative standards remained unchanged. The findings provide needed information regarding programs’ compliance with components of the standards, the potential need for compliance monitoring, and the potential impact of state standards on program effectiveness and on the prevalence of intimate partner violence.


Intimate partner violence Batterer intervention programs Policy implementation 



The authors acknowledge and appreciate the contributions of Chris Huffine and Margaret Braun to the development of the survey instrument and assistance with data collection; Brianna Finney, Stephanie Morgan, and Daniel Wilson to data coding; Meleshiw Agegnehu, Kimberly Fulks, Kamber Goold, Matt Johnson, Margaret Langslet, Michelle Lohn, David Moore, Janice Moore and Marilyn Ring to survey design and data collection; the Oregon Attorney General’s Standards Advisory Committee for their support of the project; and, the BIP program directors for their participation in the study.


  1. Adams, D., & Cayouette, S. (2002). Emerge: A group education model for abusers. In E. Alarondo, & Mederos, F. (Ed.), Programs for Men Who Batter: Intervention and Prevention Strategies in a Diverse Society. NY: Civic Research Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, N. E., Todd, N. R., Anderson, C. J., Davis, S. M., Javandi, S., Bruehleer, V., et al. (2013). Council-based approaches to intimate partner violence: Evidence for distal change in the system response. American Journal of Community Psychology. doi: 10.1007/s10464-013-9572-8.
  3. Allen, N. E., Watt, K., & Hess, J. Z. (2008). The outcomes and activities of domestic violence coordinating councils. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 63–73. doi: 10.1007/s10464-007-9149-5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Austin, J. B., & Dankwort, J. (1999). Standards for batterer programs: A review and analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(2), 152–168. doi: 10.1177/088626099014002004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Babcock, J. C., Green, C. E., & Robie, C. (2004). Does batterers’ treatment work? A meta-analytic review of domestic violence treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 23(8), 1023–1053. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2002.07.001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bandura, A. (1974). Behavior theory and the models of man. American Psychologist, December 1974, 589–569. doi: 10.1037/h0037514.
  7. Bennett, L., & Piet, M. (1999). Standards for batterer intervention programs: In whose interest? Violence Against Women, 5(6), 6–24. doi: 10.1177/10778019922181121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bennett, L. W., & Vincent, N. (2001). Standards for batterer programs: A formative evaluation of the Illinois protocol. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 5(2), 181–197. doi: 10.1300/J146v05n02_11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boal, A., & Mankowski, E. (in press). Barriers to compliance with batterer intervention program standards. Violence and Victims. Google Scholar
  10. Bograd, M., & Mederos, F. (1999). Battering and couples therapy: Universal screening and selection of treatment modality. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 25(3), 291–312. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.1999.tb00249.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Castro, F. G., Barrera, M., & Martinez, C. R. (2004). The cultural adaptation of prevention interventions: Resolving tensions between fidelity and fit. Prevention Science, 5, 41–45. doi: 10.1023/ Scholar
  12. Dalton, B. (2007). What’s going on out there? A survey of batterer intervention programs. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 15(1), 59–74. doi: 10.1300/J146v15n01_04.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 327–350. doi: 10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Edleson, J. L., & Syers, M. (1990). Relative effectiveness of group treatments for men who batter. Social Work Research and Abstracts, 26, 10–17. doi: 10.1093/swra/26.2.10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Feder, L., & Wilson, D. B. (2005). A meta-analytic review of court-mandated batterer intervention programs: Can courts affect abusers’ behavior? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 239–262. doi: 10.1007/s11292-005-1179-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Geffner, R. A., & Rosenbaum, A. (2001). Domestic violence offenders: Treatment and intervention standards. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 5(2), 1–9. doi: 10.1300/J146v05n02_01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gelles, R. J. (2001). Standards for programs for men who batter? Not yet. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 5(2), 11–20. doi: 10.1300/J146v05n02_02.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gist, M. E., Schwoerer, C., & Rosen, B. (1989). Effects of alternative training methods on self-efficacy and performance in computer software training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(6), 884–891. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.74.6.884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gondolf, E. W. (1997). Batterer programs: What we know and need to know. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 83–98. doi: 10.1177/088626097012001006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gondolf, E. W. (1999). A comparison of four batterer intervention systems: Do court referral, program length, and services matter? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(1), 41–61. doi: 10.1177/088626099014001003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gray, W. B., & Deily, M. E. (1996). Compliance and enforcement: Air pollution regulation in the US steel industry. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 31, 96–111. doi: 10.1006/jeem. 1996.0034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (2001). Standards for batterer treatment programs: How can research inform our decisions? Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 5(2), 165–180. doi: 10.1300/J146v05n02_10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jason, L. A., Berk, M., Schnopp-Wyatt, D. L., & Talbot, B. (1999). Effects of enforcement of youth access laws on smoking prevalence. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27(2), 143–160. doi: 10.1023/A:1022831617055.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kirk, R. E. (2009). Experimental design. In R. E. Milsap & A. Maydeu-Olivaris (Eds.), The sage handbook of quantitative methods in psychology (pp. 23–45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Klevens, J., Baker, C. K., Shelley, G. A., & Ingram, E. M. (2008). Exploring the links between components of coordinated community responses and their impact on contact with intimate partner violence services. Violence Against Women, 14, 346–358. doi: 10.1177/1077801207313968.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. La Violette, A. (2001). Batterers’ treatment: Observations from the trenches. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 5(2), 45–56. doi: 10.1300/J146v05n02_04.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maiuro, R. D., & Eberle, J. A. (2008). State standards for domestic violence perpetrator treatment: Current status, trends, and recommendations. Violence and Victims, 23(2), 133–155. doi: 10.1891/0886-6708.23.2.133.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maiuro, R. D., Hagar, T. S., Lin, H., & Olson, N. (2001). Are current state standards for domestic violence perpetrator treatment adequately informed by research? A question of questions. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 5(2), 21–44. doi: 10.1300/J146v05n02_03.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mederos, F., & Perilla, J. (2004). Community connections: Men, gender and violence. Paper presented at the Melissa institute for violence prevention and treatment, 8th Annual Conference, Miami, FL.Google Scholar
  31. Meyers, D. C., Durlak, J. A., & Wandersman, A. (2012). The quality implementation framework: A synthesis of critical steps in the implementation process. American Journal of Community Psychology, 50, 462–480. doi: 10.1007/s10464-012-9522-x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  33. Murphy, C. M., Musser, P. H., & Maton, K. L. (1998). Coordinated community intervention for domestic abusers: Intervention system involvement and criminal recidivism. Journal of Family Violence, 13(2), 263–284. doi: 10.1023/A:1022841022524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Oregon Department of Justice (2009). Batterer intervention program rules. Oregon Administrative Rules. Retrieved May 24, 2009, from:
  35. Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1993). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth model. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Price, B. J., & Rosenbaum, A. (2009). Batterer intervention programs: A report from the field. Violence and Victims, 24(6), 757–770. doi: 10.1891/0886-6708.24.6.757.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Respect (2010). Accreditation. The respect accreditation standard and process. Retrieved April 29th, 2010, from:
  38. Riger, S., & Krieglstein, M. (2000). The impact of welfare reform on men’s violence against women. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 631–647. doi: 10.1023/A:1005193603532.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rosenbaum, A., Gearan, P. J., & Ondovic, C. (2001). Completion and recidivism among court- and self-referred batterers in a psychoeducational group treatment program: Implications for intervention and public policy. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 5(2), 199–220. doi: 10.1300/J146v05n02_12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rosenbaum, A., & Leisring, P. A. (2001). Group interventions programs for batterers. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 5(2), 57–71. doi: 10.1300/J146v05n02_05.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Salazar, L. F., Baker, C. K., Price, A. W., & Carlin, K. (2003). Moving beyond the individual: Examining the effects of domestic violence policies on social norms. American Journal of Community Psychology, 32, 253–264. doi: 10.1023/B:AJCP.0000004746.31861.e7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sarason, I. G., & Ganzer, V. J. (1973). Modeling and group discussion in the rehabilitation of juvenile delinquents. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 20(5), 442–449. doi: 10.1037/h0035389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Saunders, D. G. (1996). Feminist-cognitive-behavioral and process-psychodynamic treatments for men who batter: Interaction of abuser traits and treatment model. Violence and Victims, 11, 393–414.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Shepard, M. (2005). Years of progress in addressing domestic violence: An agenda for the next 10. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(4), 436–441. doi: 10.1177/0886260504267879.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shepard, M. F., Falk, D. R., & Elliot, B. A. (2002). Enhancing coordinated community responses to reduce recidivism in cases of domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 551–569. doi: 10.1177/0886260502017005005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Tolman, R. M. (2001). An ecological analysis of batterer intervention program standards. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 5(2), 221–233. doi: 10.1300/J146v05n02_13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Trickett, E. J., & Espino, S. L. R. (2004). Collaboration and social inquiry: Multiple meanings of a construct and its role in creating useful and valid knowledge. American Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 1–69. doi: 10.1023/B:AJCP.0000040146.32749.7d.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tyler, T. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375–400. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Community Research and Action 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentPortland State UniversityPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations