Text Box: This article was originally written in 2004-2005 (during graduate school training).  It is republished here as an informational review of the BIP model; the data reviewed are accurate as referenced.  More recent numbers are available, of course, and those numbers would reflect an increase / decrease in prevalence since this article was first written/published.                                                               —-Kurt LaRose MSW LCSW CHT

Men who are arrested for battering their partners make up a relatively small percentage of the overall population.  But arrests do not accurately indicate prevalence.  Nevertheless battering behavior invokes the emotions of not only the victims but batterers present treatment practitioners with a near insurmountable task.  To treat the batterer and deem that they are no longer a threat to others is almost as difficult as it is to understand how a man chooses to abuse those he espouses to love.  It is arguable as to whether or not the efficacy of batterer programs can really be determined, and once determined the most critical question becomes whether or not the assessments of batterer intervention programs are scientifically reliable and valid.  
The definition of battering varies from state to state. For example in Colorado battering falls under the definition of domestic abuse and includes physical acts of violence, threatened acts of violence as well as psychological and emotional aspects of abuse (Corry, 2002).  In Florida the statutes are more limited in that there is no mention of psychological or emotional aspects of domestic abuse and the component of threats are not delineated (see Fla. §§ 741.28).  On a national scale the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) define domestic abuse and battering, in a context that is closer to the Colorado interpretation including broader dynamics of battering such as coercion (DHHS, 2003).  DHHS and the CDC estimates the cost of intimate partner violence at $5.8 billion per year with $4.1 billion being spent on medical and mental health services (DHHS, 2003).
It is reported that once in every nine seconds a woman is beaten in the U.S. (Koppelman, 1996 as cited in Olson, 2004).  The incidence of male battering ranges from 1.8 million cases (Straus & Gelles, 1990) to 5.3 million cases ("National Center for Injury Prevention," 2003).  There were 136,000 men arrested for male battering in the United States and 86% of them were court ordered into counseling programs (Hagen, 1998).  
Battering is not only a male perpetrated phenomenon, because women batter as well (Stuart, Moore, Ramsey & Kahler, 2004; Henning & Feder, 2004).  To be sure, it is not only an issue for heterosexual relationships; homosexuals are both batterers and battered (Cruz, 2003).  Women are victims in 85% of all domestic violence cases (Rennison, 2003).  
While the issue of male batterers is a serious social problem with far reaching implications, its prevalence within the overall U.S. population is relatively small.  According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2004a) there are nearly 295 million people living in the U.S.  Thus 5.3 million cases of domestic abuse represent 1.7% of the population.  Seemingly a small problem in numbers, it is not so when looking at dollars.  At an annual cost of $5.8 billion, the impact of battering costs every man, woman and child in the U.S. nearly twenty dollars per year.  
The demographics of both perpetrators and victims vary.  Men who are batterers are likely to have witnessed or experienced physical abuse as children (Rosenbaum & Leisring, 2003); they are more likely to have been admitted to psychiatric emergency rooms or alcohol treatment programs (White, Gondolf, Robertson, Goodwin & Caraveo, 2002); there is a correlation between men who batter and being under the influence of substances (Leonard, 2001); and batterers frequently are living in poverty and/or have lower educational levels (Chase, O'Farrell, Murphy, Fals-Stewart & Murphy, 2003).  Just as men who batter are likely to be under the influence of substances, the same is true of women who are the victims (El-Bassel, Gilbert, Schilling & Wada, 2000).  Interestingly, there is a greater likelihood of continued battering for university-educated women compared to lesser-educated women (Johnson, 2003).
 Research regarding various types of male batterer treatment programs suggests that there is no certain model that is more or less effective than others (Stith, Rosen, McCullom, & Thomsen, 2004; Tutty, Bidgood, Rothery, & Bidgood, 2001).  Tutty and colleagues evaluated 15 male batterer treatment groups consisting of interventions based upon social learning theory, the feminist perspective, as well as psychoanalytic and self-help methods. There is some agreement as to the use of individual therapy versus group therapy; group treatment is generally accepted as the preferred method for treating male batterers (Reddin & Sonn, 2003; Tutty et al., 2001). 
One model that appears frequently in the literature is the Duluth Model (Pence & Paymar, 1993 as cited in Stith, Rosen, McCullom, & Thomsen, 2004), a feminist perspective in treating male batterers (van Wormer & Bednar, 2002).  Duluth is popular, in part, because it can easily be adapted to batterer intervention programs (BIP).  Florida's batterer intervention program, which mirrors many components of the Duluth model, encourages men to take full responsibility for their abusive behavior, to become sensitive to how it might feel to be the victim of battering, to see their partners as equals, to realize that battering can stop - for good, and it encourages batterers to confront their own need for power and control ("Program Content," n.d.).  And while the state of Florida never clearly says that its BIP mirrors Duluth components, a comparison of the Florida BIP (as governed by Florida's Department of Children and Families) and the Duluth Model supports this supposition.  For example, both programs focus aspects of treatment on the "Power and Control Wheel" and the "Equality Wheel" (see "Creating a Process of Change," n.d.; "Wheel Gallery," n.d.; "Declaration of Policy," n.d., Orientation section), and both programs place emphasis on community involvement, social influences, and victim safety (see "Domestic Abuse Intervention Project," n.d.; "Office of Domestic Violence Program," n.d.).
Some researchers argue against models that utilize power and control and equality as the central themes to support why it is that men batter and their significance in treating batterers.  Power, control, and equality, as presented in the Duluth Model are too simplistic, it is argued, in addressing male batterers' array of issues; the two concepts can be associated with childhood victimization at the hands of caregivers and peers, posttraumatic stress, depression and other psychiatric disorders (Rosenbaum & Leisring, 2003).  The male batterer literature, however, suggests that power and control are predictors to abusive behavior (Gerlock, 2001).  
The Duluth Model (and much of Florida's BIP's) is/are set up in such a way that the batterer is not enabled to use excuses to minimize responsibility for battering.  Excuses that are utilized by batterers include lack of anger control and substance use.  Research has shown that while substances can be a factor in domestic violence, it is not the cause of it (Forjuoh, Coben & Gondolf, 1998; Leonard, 2001).  
Another common factor in providing treatment to batterers, while using Duluth concepts, is promoting equality between partners.  Men who see their partners as equals are less likely to abuse them, and batterers who learn to be respectful and supportive are less likely to re-abuse (Gerlock, 2001).  Likewise, BIP and Duluth do not focus on conjoint therapy for the batterer and the victim; in fact it is prohibited (likely going against the norm of many therapeutic techniques).  The literature indicates that doing so puts women at increased risk of further abuse (Jory, Anderson & Greer, 1997).  
One issue that confronts practitioners who must deal with abusive men is that many theories of treatment emphasize the circular relationship between clients and their partners; in essence therapists generally look at all parties in a relationship and treat clients from the didactic or systemic approach (Brogad, 1992 as cited in Jory, Anderson & Greer, 1997).  The Duluth Model, on the other hand, requires practitioners to confront batterers and pursue the responsibility issue assisting batterers in assuming full and sole responsibility for battering behavior.  
At issue in any treatment program, is efficacy.  The literature is contradictory, at best, in regards to what intervention method is most beneficial for male batterers.  Many batterer intervention programs have shown significant success rates (a cessation of battering) that are near 60% at thirty months post intervention (Gondolf, 2000).  Gondolf (2000) evaluated four different batterer intervention programs, including those that utilize aspects of the Duluth Model, from different regions of the U.S. with a sample of over 600 men.  His research indicated that the men were predominantly successful in no longer battering partners, and this finding remained constant whether or not the men were voluntarily enrolled in the programs, or court ordered. 
Stith, Rosen, McCollum and Thomsen (2004) argue that there are problems with the Duluth Model, particularly in that it limits the ability of practitioners to develop interventions that meet the specific needs of batterers; treatment is not a "one size fits all" process.  Stith and colleagues argue that couples therapy is effective when working with batterers and their partners evaluating a small sample of couples with the use of random assignment and a control group.  The other argument against Duluth is that it is based upon an intervention that is rooted in the views and perspectives of the victims and it discounts those factors that cause abusive behavior to be exhibited by a batterer in the first place, such as childhood experiences (Rosenbaum & Leisring, 2003).  
To be sure the debate about the preferred and most effective treatment modality for male batterers will not be settled here.  But the need for treatment is clear.  Last year, in the state of Florida for example, nearly 14,000 people were assisted in domestic violence shelters, and almost 210,000 people were counseled in domestic related matters ("Department of Children and Families," 2004).  According to the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) statistics, in Florida there are 137 different batterer intervention programs, in which 4,376 batterers were treated during the fiscal year of 2002-2003 ("Department of Children and Families," 2004).  For next year, OPPAGA reports that the Florida Legislature has budgeted $25.3 million for domestic violence related matters; the cost to Florida's 17 million residents (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004b) will be more than $1.48 for every man, woman and child.
Obtaining data on the success/failure rates for Florida's batterer intervention programs was unsuccessful in the preparation of this report.  The lack of data on the batterer intervention programs in Florida may be in part due to BIP's being stopped for a number of years and then re-instated in 1996.  Arguably, the data needs to be gathered; it was easy to find the BIP monitoring guidelines, necessary forms for program implementation, fees, and educational requirements for staff that lead, supervise and evaluate batterer intervention programs for Florida.  The one assessment of domestic violence programs in Florida that could be found, neglects to address batterer programs and the authors note "the program should collect information to assess whether its services help victims remain safe from domestic violence over the long term" (Stake, Alvarez & Turcotte, 2002).  In other words, Stake et al. reveal that supporting data is not

Website layout, text & design Copyright © 2005-2012 - Kurt LaRose

Top of page

Text Box: Male Batterers Intervention Program 
(A Literature Review of the Prototypic Group)

Text Box: HOME
Text Box: TalkifUwant
Text Box: — Answers to Common FAQS —

Free Initial Session Available

Meet In Office, Online or Onsite

Insurance Authorizations & Approvals

Assessment, Testing, & Diagnosis

Brief Treatment Services Offered

Visa & Master Card Accepted

Order All Services Online or In Office

Budget Sensitive Pricing Available

Professional Development Seminars

Program Implementation for Schools

Published Articles—Provider Available

Complete Forms Conveniently Online

Pay Pal Available for Online Orders

Clinical Hypnosis and other Treatment

Treating Individuals, Couples, Families

Mental Health Retreats

General Practitioner—Array of Services

24 Hr Scheduling, HIPPA Compliant, Online Access!  (set chat, video, & office)

 

Follow Talkifuwant on Twitter
Add me to Skype
View Kurt  LaRose MSW LCSW's profile on LinkedIn
verified by Psychology Today verified by Psychology Today Directory