Perpetrators of intimate partner violence

Full text

Read More
Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence 
Larry W. Bennett and Oliver J. Williams
Subject:
Couples and Families, Criminal Justice, Human Behavior, Mental and Behavioral Health, Populations and
Practice Settings
Online Publication Date:
Jun 2017
DOI:
10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.013.996
Encyclopedia of Social Work
Addictions and Substance Use
Administration and Management
Aging and Older Adults
Biographies
Children and Adolescents
Couples and Families
Criminal Justice
Disabilities
Clinical and Direct Practice
Ethics and Values
Gender and Sexuality
Health Care and Illness
Human Behavior
International and Global Issues
Macro Practice
Mental and Behavioral Health
Policy and Advocacy
Populations and Practice Settings
Poverty
Race, Ethnicity, and Culture
Religion and Spirituality
Research and Evidence-Based Practice
Social Justice and Human Rights
Social Work Profession
Browse All
Close

•View PDF
Page of
PRINTED FROM the Encyclopedia of Social Work, accessed online. (c) National Association of Social Workers and Oxford
University Press USA, 2016. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the applicable license agreement governing use of the
Encyclopedia of Social Work accessed online, an authorized individual user may print out a PDF of a single article for personal
use, only (for details see Privacy Policy).
Subscriber: Indiana University - South Bend; date: 27 September 2017
Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence
Abstract and Keywords
Perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) use coercive actions toward intimate or
formerly intimate partners, including emotional abuse, stalking, threats, physical violence,
or rape. The lifetime prevalence of IPV is 35% for women and 28% for men, with at an
estimated economic cost of over ten billion dollars. IPV occurs in all demographic sectors
of society, but higher frequencies of IPV perpetration are found among people who are
younger and who have lower income and less education. Similar proportions of men and
women use IPV, but when the effects of partner abuse are considered, women bear the
greatest physical and behavioral health burden. Single-explanation causes for IPV such as
substance abuse, patriarchy, and personality disorders are sometimes preferred by
practitioners, advocates, and policymakers, but an understanding of IPV perpetration is
enhanced when we look through the multiple lenses of culture and society, relationship,
and psychological characteristics of the perpetrators.
Keywords: intimate partner violence, intimate terrorism, batterers, domestic violence,
spouse abuse, coercive relationship, traumatic bonding, dating violence, partner abuse
intervention programs
Introduction
Perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) use coercion, including emotional abuse,
stalking, physical violence, and rape within intimate or formerly intimate relationships,
including dating relationships. More commonly referred to as batterers, spouse abusers, or
wife beaters, not all IPV perpetrators are married and not all are men. IPV perpetrators are
present in almost every domain of social work practice although in most cases they remain
hidden in plain sight. While there is little disagreement about the presence and magnitude
of IPV in society, or about its effects on victims, there is considerable debate about the
place of gender in any definition of IPV, about how we should understand the origins and
maintenance of IPV, and even about whether we should describe the roles of IPV

participants as “perpetrator” or “victim.” IPV is a field of research and practice which
abounds with controversy, even in its definitions.
In different settings, social workers will hear IPV perpetrators described as criminals, as
men who have exercised their male privilege, as men who use power and control over a
female partner, as men who violate their partner’s civil rights, as men and women who
behave aggressively within an intimate relationship, as people with anger control issues, or
as people with traumatic attachment issues and abusive personalities. IPV may be
characterized as expressive of stress or frustration, as an instrument of control over
another person, or both. Any of these descriptions may be accurately applied to individual
episodes or individual people, but none of them apply to all episodes or to all people who
use IPV.
Terminology
Intimate partner violence is a more accurate term than other commonly used terms like
family violence, wife beating, spouse abuse, marital violence, domestic aggression, marital
aggression, domestic violence, and gender-based violence. IPV could be considered a sub-
category of family violence if not for its occurrence in non-family configurations such as
dating couples and former partners. In addition, the typology of family violence often
includes aggression outside an intimate relationship, including child abuse, elder abuse,
sibling violence, animal abuse, and violence between roommates. “Domestic aggression”
is limited by the same failure to capture aggression in nondomestic intimate relationships.
“Wife beating” suggests the victim is a wife and the target of a beating, neither of which
are necessary in IPV. IPV occurs at roughly equivalent rates among married, cohabiting,
and dating couples (Machado, Martins, & Caridade. 2014). “Beating” is a colloquial
expression for physical assault, but physical assault is not a necessary component in IPV.
Nonphysical, coercive, and continuous forms of intimate aggression such as dominating
behavior, isolation of the partner, extreme control measures, and emotional abuse occur
more often than physical assault and may be as hurtful. “Marital violence” is rejected due
to its limitation to married partners, except in those cases where researchers wish to study
IPV within the institution of marriage, including marriage of same-sex partners. Domestic
violence is probably the most frequently used term in our list of synonyms, but not all IPV
is domestic, for reasons discussed above. Finally, “gender-based violence” refers to a
broader spectrum of assault on girls and women, including sexual assault, incest, sex-
selective abortion, female infanticide, femicide, forced prostitution, and war rape (Edleson,
Lindhorst, & Kanuha, 2015).
If terms like domestic violence are too narrow, and if terms like gender based violence are
too broad, what shall we call those who use it? “IPV perpetrator” references a broad range
of individuals who use acts of physical and nonphysical coercion against an intimate

partner or ex-partner. Severe physical assault may be rare, but it is usually episodic rather
than a one-time event. In many of those cases, the singularity of that one physical event is
embedded in a milieu of coercion and nonphysical abuse, all of which predicts a second
physical assault in the future. We also include in our definition of IPV perpetrator a person
who physically assaults on only one occasion, unlike a batterer, who uses physical assault
on multiple occasions.
IPV is best conceptualized as a continuum of behavior from nonphysical aggression to
murder. The IPV continuum may not be a good fit with the definition provided by most
state laws. State laws against IPV usually attend only to physical aggression or threats of
physical aggression. Episodic events of physical aggression as defined by state statutes
are indeed IPV, but the IPV continuum also includes nonphysical acts of coercion,
emotional abuse, dominance, and isolation. At the same time that physical and
nonphysical abuse are combined into a unitary IPV construct, physical and nonphysical IPV
describe different behaviors that may be correlated with one another but are often
predicted by different sets of variables (O’Leary, 1993).
The IPV perpetrator and his partner may be married or never married, living together or
dating, gay or straight, young or old. An IPV perpetrator may assault a lifelong partner, a
first date, or a person he is estranged from. IPV perpetrators are present throughout our
society across all social groups, although groups within a society vary in the prevalence of
IPV.
Prevalence of IPV
The World Health Organization found considerable variation in the lifetime prevalence of
physical IPV against women across ten countries, ranging from 13% in Japan to 61% in
Peru (García-Moreno, Jansen, Ellsberg, Heise, & Watt, 2005). In the United States, the Center
for Disease Control found that 35.6% of women and 28.5% of men are physically
assaulted, raped, or stalked and 48.4% of women and 48.8% of men are emotionally
abused by a partner in their lifetime (Black et al., 2011). However, when the impact of IPV is
examined by considering such factors as fear, concern for safety, trauma symptoms, need
for health care, injury, and missing work, the cumulative effect of IPV on women is much
greater than the effect on men (Carbone-López, Kruttschnitt, & Macmillan, 2006).
Although it is true that IPV is prevalent across all categories of age, income, gender, race,
sexual orientation, and age, it is also true that IPV is prevalent at different levels across
several of those categories. In a meta-analysis of eighty-five studies examining risk factors
for physical IPV, significant correlations with IPV victimization were found among those who
were poorer, younger, and less educated (Stith, Smith, Penn, Ward, & Tritt, 2004).

Predictably, Stith’s group also found lower incomes, younger age, and less education had
significant effects on men’s IPV perpetration.
Explanations
Single causes for IPV (e.g., substance abuse, violence in the family of origin, and male
dominance) may appeal to some practitioners and policymakers, but as sole explanatory
variables they do not enjoy much research support. Understanding IPV perpetration is
enhanced when we look at the culture and society within which IPV occurs, at the
interpersonal context within an intimate relationship, and at the psychological
characteristics of perpetrators.
Looking broadly across cultures, Levinson (1989) studied IPV and other forms of family
violence in 90 monocultural societies throughout the world. He found that, among the 85%
of small societies where IPV occurred, the most common correlates of IPV were women’s
lack of access to divorce, men’s economic control, men’s domestic authority, and social
approval of violence. In this study, social approval of violence was measured by per capita
gun ownership, use of animals in sporting events, the social prominence of male military
glory, and a society’s response to rape and IPV. Community reinforcement, or the chances
of getting away with it, emerged as a marker between societies which experienced higher
rates of IPV and those that had little IPV.
Closely related to Levinson’s cross-cultural perspective on IPV are feminist views on IPV
(e.g., DeKeseredy & Dragiewicz, 2007; Yllo & Bograd, 1988). From a feminist perspective, the
institutions maintaining patriarchy—male power, authority, and privilege—are woven into
daily life so they are effectively invisible. Beginning in the 1960s, the second wave of
feminism used the methods of mutual support, community organizing, and consciousness
raising to bring such institutions to light and continue to do so. It was the women’s
movement that identified IPV and sexual assault as tools to maintain the authority and
status of men in society. Even those who do not accept feminism as a coherent and
testable theory of IPV acknowledge that feminism and the women’s movement of the
1960s brought IPV to the attention of government, law enforcement, health care, and
social services—thus making it part of our national conversation. From a feminist
perspective, men abuse women because they can and because men benefit from such
domination. They also abuse women because the social institutions that could prevent IPV
are male dominated.
The feminist perspective on IPV is sometimes criticized as an ecological fallacy (Dutton,
1994; Heise, 1998), a social theory that does not explain behavior at the individual level.
Critics of the feminist theory of IPV point out that all men grow up in a patriarchy, but
relatively few men perpetrate IPV. These critics charge that feminist theory has no ability

to predict which men will perpetrate IPV. Much of the criticism of feminist theory hinges on
conflicts over women’s use of IPV, the so-called gender symmetry argument (see Kimmel,
2002; Straus, 2006).
Equivalence of IPV perpetration by men and women has been a theoretical, political, and
practical debate since the publication of the first national family violence survey (Pleck,
Pleck, Grossman, & Bart, 1978; Steinmetz, 1978; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980). This
debate often triggers emotional responses from proponents, in part because of implicit
practice and policy consequences, and in part from the association of proponents with
political movements in the United States. Early elements of the conflict included the
characterization and quantification of the battered husband syndrome (Steinmetz, 1978).
Although feminist theory does not say that women are always the IPV victims and men are
always the IPV perpetrators, the criticisms of feminist theory almost always use this as a
starting point. As Schechter (1982) pointed out in the early days of the feminist construction
of IPV, psychological characteristics may be useful post hoc explanations of why an
individual man was violent with his partner, but psychological characteristics are silent on
why men rather than women are significantly more likely to perpetrate serious violence.
The ability of any theory to accurately predict at the individual level which men will
perpetrate IPV is not much greater than zero, variables that may help differentiate
between men (e.g., emotional attachment, alcohol use, employment, and observation of
violence in the family of origin) can increase the usefulness of the theory as a plausible
explanation and therefore as a source for possible interventions.
Micro-level theories of IPV perpetration often incorporate some aspects of the feminist
perspective as background, but focus most attention at either the relationship level or the
psychological characteristics of the perpetrator, and sometimes even on the psychological
characteristics of the victim. Empirically, the effects of individual-level variables on IPV are
larger than exosystem effects. A meta-analysis of risk factors related to intimate partner
violence perpetration found that the effect size of exosystem variables (e.g. age,
unemployment) ranged from very small to medium, while the effect size of microsystem
variables (e.g. jealousy, marital satisfaction) and individual level variables (e.g., anger/
hostility, alcohol use) were in the small to moderate range (Stith, Smith, Penn, Ward, &
Tritt, 2004). The largest effects on men’s IPV perpetration in the meta-analysis were use of
emotional abuse, forced sex, use of illegal drugs, attitudes condoning marital violence,
marital dissatisfaction, and the woman’s use of violence against the man.
Single variable explanations of IPV (e.g., patriarchy, relationship satisfaction, or
attachment problems) have given way to multivariate theories which have the potential to
better predict which groups are at higher risk for perpetrating IPV and why women are the
most likely target. Straus’ (1973) general systems theory, Carlson’s (1984) analysis, and
Dutton’s (1988B) nested ecological framework are examples of such multivariate models.
Currently, the most widely cited ecological approach is Heise’s (1998) framework proposing
that key variables in a multivariate theory would be found at the level of personal history
(witnessing IPV in the family of origin, being abused as a child, absent or rejecting father),
the microsystem (dominating males in the family, male control of finances, psychoactive
substance use, marital interaction), the exosystem (socioeconomic status, isolation, and

negative peer support), and the macrosystem (male entitlement, social construction of
masculinity, rigid gender roles, tolerance for IPV, and endorsement of physical
punishment). Ecological models may be more useful for guiding research than informing
practice, but social workers trained in a person-in-environment paradigm (e.g., Kemp,
Whittaker, & Tracy, 1997) will recognize the value of looking out from within and looking in
from the outside to more fully understand IPV perpetration.
Impact
The physical, psychological, and sexual actions of IPV perpetrators impact victims,
families, communities, and society. A World Health Organization estimate of the cost of IPV
in the United States (in 2001 dollars) was $12.6 billion (Waters et al., 2004). Despite the
statistically equivalent rates of men’s and women’s non-physical and low-lethality
relationship aggression in the general population, the most negative impact of IPV is on
women (Breiding, Smith, Basile, Walters, Chen, & Merrick, 2014).
IPV adds considerable burden to victims and the health-care system alike. This is true
whether the IPV is physical or nonphysical. For example, 53% of women receiving services
from family practitioners screen positive for physical or nonphysical IPV (Coker, Smith,
McKeown, & King, 2000). Of the proportion screening IPV positive, about a fourth (13.6%)
report psychological IPV only. For women experiencing only psychological IPV, the odds for
a physical disorder are increased by 69% and the odds of a mental disorder are increased
by 74% compared to women who do not report psychological IPV. Psychological IPV is as
strongly associated with the majority of adverse health outcomes as physical IPV (Coker et
al., 2000).
The effects of IPV are not limited to the adult victim. A meta-analysis of 41 studies of
children found significant effects of IPV perpetration on emotional and behavioral problems
(Wolfe, Crooks, Lee, McIntyre-Smith, & Jaffe, 2003). In a study of 2,544 first-time mothers,
IPV within the first six months of childbirth tripled the odds of a finding confirmed physical
child abuse within five years and doubled the odds of finding both psychological child
abuse and child neglect (McGuigan & Pratt, 2001). In addition to direct effects on children,
families are also impacted by IPV’s effect on a parent’s ability to work, which is often
mediated by increased levels of depression (Crowne, Juon, Ensminger, Burrell, McFarlane,
& Duggan, 2011).

Typologies
All people who perpetrate IPV are not the same. If we could reliably identify characteristics
that differentiate people who use IPV from people who do not use IPV, we might be able to
develop prevention programs targeting those risk factors. It is important to note that while
such risk factors increase the odds that an individual will be an IPV perpetrator, most
people with those risk factors will be neither victim nor perpetrator. In fact, there are no
specific indicators other than prior IPV which represent a smoking gun that can be used to
identify a person who perpetrates IPV. Likewise, for any individual IPV perpetrator, there
are no variables that can be reliably identified as the cause of the perpetrator’s IPV.
To a careful observer, people who use IPV often appear as different from one other as from
those who do not use IPV. Variations observed between IPV perpetrators have led to
attempts to classify or type perpetrators. With successful classification, we may gain
additional knowledge about the dynamics of battering and subsequently develop improved
interventions. Studies on IPV perpetrator types often look at differences along dimensions
such as severity of the violence (severe vs. moderate violence), generality of the violence
(violent outside the family in addition to violence within the family), and the presence of
co-occurring behavior disorders, particularly substance use and personality disorders. Most
studies have found three somewhat similar types of IPV perpetrators. (Dutton, 1988A;
Gondolf, 1998; Hamberger, Lohr, Bonge, & Tolin, 1996; Saunders, 1992). The most widely cited
of the typologies characterizes three types of IPV perpetrators as family-only, borderline/
dysphoric, and antisocial/generally violent (Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994), although
these three types may also be described as low-, medium-, and high-risk offenders
respectively (Cavanaugh & Gelles, 2005).
The most common type of IPV perpetrator is the family-only perpetrator who may use
coercive behaviors in other aspects of his life but usually confines physical coercion to his
partner and children. The violence of the family-only perpetrator is usually on the lower
end of severity. The family-only perpetrator is also less likely to have substance use or
other mental health disorders than the other two types.
The second general type is the unstable (borderline/dysphoric) perpetrator, characterized
by higher levels of violence severity and a greater likelihood of violence outside the family
than the family-only perpetrator. The most relevant feature of this individual is the
instability of mood, which may range from anxiety, depression, and dependency issues to
entrenched personality problems characterized by emotional lability and other borderline
personality features. Not surprisingly, this individual is more likely to use alcohol or other
drugs to regulate their mood. Unlike the family-only and generally violent perpetrator, the
unstable perpetrator usually features high levels of anger and depression. Some scholars
believe that borderline personality organization and insecure attachment constitute an
abusive personality type (Dutton, 2007).

The third commonly characterized type of IPV perpetrator is considered generally violent.
Similar to the unstable perpetrator in severity of violence and substance abuse, the
generally violent perpetrator is not affectively unstable, but his violence against his
partner is often viewed as an extension of his violence against society. In some cases, this
perpetrator may have an antisocial personality orientation.
The various three-fold typologies and their empirical modifications are the most prominent
classification system for IPV perpetrators, but classification is not limited to these clusters.
While classifying perpetrators is one way to identify differences, another approach is to
classify the type of perpetration rather than the type of perpetrator. It is observed that IPV
in the general population differs in many ways from IPV used by those arrested and
mandated to intervention programs or those whose partners are seen in victim service
agencies or shelters (Johnson & Leone, 2005). Johnson distinguishes two primary types of
IPV, which he terms “intimate terrorism” and “situational couple violence.” In this scheme,
intimate terrorism is characterized as more severe, more chronic, more injurious, more
instrumental, more likely perpetrated by a man, and more likely to come to the attention
of authorities. There is considerable overlap between intimate terrorism, the abusive
personality, and the unstable or generally violent batterer.
Situational couple violence is a more controversial idea. Less violent and sporadic,
situational couple violence is characterized as mutual pushing and shoving between
intimate partners arising in stressful relationship situations. These situations are believed
to be less coercive in nature, result in fewer injuries, and most importantly leave neither
partner fearful of being abused again. In situational couple violence, the roles of
perpetrator and victim are seen as more fluid than in cases of intimate terrorism, and in
fact the relative status of victim and perpetrator are considered meaningless by some
critics. Importantly, due to less threat of injury and less fear, these cases are less likely
come to the attention of the criminal justice system. Although we have found the
differentiation of situational couple violence and intimate terrorism—or some version of
this difference—to be in common use in the courts, many advocates in the IPV field do not
accept the differentiation as legitimate. A study of factors characterizing intimate terrorism
and situational couple violence in a representative sample of 331 physically assaulted
women living in 11 cities found situational couple violence to be rare, and moderate to
high levels of controlling behaviors associated primarily with partner factors (Frye,
Manganello, Campbell, & Wilt, 2006). In particular, the idea that there is a significantly large
group of victims who do not experience coercive, controlling behaviors in stress-related IPV
episodes is considered inaccurate by IPV advocates.
Are typologies useful? Unfortunately, their use at the present time is confined to
researchers and they are not systematically used by many practitioners. Law enforcement
officers in IPV cases are often called upon to identify a primary aggressor since it is not
uncommon for an IPV victim to fight back. Research on the effectiveness of primary
aggressor policies is encouraging (Hirschel, Buzawa, Pattavina, Faggiani, & Reuland, 2007).

Another criminal justice area where IPV typologies are used is in prosecuting offenders.
Behavioral criteria for differential prosecution often include prior IPV offenses where
intervention has failed, use of severe IPV (particularly strangulation or weapons), and
cases of non-compliance with court orders.
Beyond these criminal justice–informed types, typologies currently have limited practical
use. Moreover, the empirical typologies may not be stable over time (Holtzworth-Munroe &
Meehan, 2004). There is not a bright line of distinction between unstable and generally
violent batterers, and men may become less “pathological” over time. Despite two
decades of work on IPV perpetrator typologies, they remain more academic than practical.
In part this is a logistical issue. There are few criminal justice or community programs for
batterers that have the resources to match perpetrator characteristics with differential
programming, even if such differential programs were empirically demonstrated useful.
Most court and community programs do not have the diagnostic capacity to classify IPV
perpetrators into typologies for which the reliability of classification is yet to be
established.
Interventions
The earliest known effort to prevent IPV was in 202 BC when Romans, in granting women
property rights, also granted them the right to sue their husbands for beating them
(Lemon, 1996). In 1871 Alabama became the first US state to rescind the right of men to
beat their wives. Erin Prizzey wrote Scream Quietly or the Neighbors Will Hear in 1974, the
first dedicated book on IPV, with the title emphasizing the privacy element so necessary to
maintaining IPV “behind closed doors” (Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980). The first shelter
for battered women opened in London in 1970, and the first US shelter opened in 1973 in
St. Paul, Minnesota. EMERGE, the first intervention program for men who batter, began in
1977 in Boston and in 1980, California became the first state in the United States to
mandate intervention for men convicted of IPV. Although most US states had codified IPV,
intervention was greatly enhanced by the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994.
VAWA encourages pro-arrest policies, jail time for offenders, support and shelters for IPV
victims, and community/court interventions for IPV perpetrators.
Like other public health problems, prevention of IPV may be directed at the general
population (primary prevention), at individuals who have risk factors associated with IPV
(secondary prevention), or at perpetrators and victims of IPV (tertiary prevention).
Strategies for prevention can also be tailored to specific age groups. Wolfe and Jaffe (1999)
identified an array of primary, secondary, and tertiary IPV prevention programs for infants
and preschoolers, school-age children, adolescents, and adults. For example, tertiary
intervention services may include home visitation with children in families where IPV has
been identified, trauma-specific treatment services for school-aged children and

adolescents displaying emotional and behavioral problems, and police, court, and
community based interventions for perpetrators and victims (Wolfe & Jaffe, 1999).
Since our focus is on IPV perpetrators, the remainder of this section will be on criminal
justice and community based interventions for perpetrators. Before doing so, however, it
should be noted that the existence of IPV shelters and walk-in centers in the public square
may serve to prevent IPV by their very existence. Originally, as a matter of safety, victim
service agencies were hidden from the public to prevent IPV perpetrators from locating
their victims, a matter of victim safety. Over time, these agencies began a strategy of
public exposure, and today their locations are available in many phone books and on the
Internet. Although the preventative effects of publically visible agencies and
advertisements for such agencies are yet to be quantified, it is likely that the public
availability of low-cost services for victims of IPV serves as a deterrent to IPV.
Interventions designed to reduce IPV perpetration are located primarily in the criminal
justice system and in community-based agencies linked to the criminal justice system.
Before we discuss these interventions, we must note that the vast majority of IPV events in
society are undetected either by the criminal justice system or by community-based
agencies. In an early calculation, Dutton (1988B) estimated that only 14 out of every 1,000
IPV events result in arrest of the perpetrator, and of these arrested, less than one three
receive some sort of punishment for their crime. Assuming that the passage of the
Violence Against Women Act in 1994 and the developing emphasis on mandatory arrest for
IPV during the last thirty years may have doubled the rates of arrest, it would still mean
that 97% of IPV perpetrators are undetected by society. Since most IPV is undetected by
authorities, sanctions for it must be provided by the victim, the family, peers, or some
other element of the community.
Beyond these informal sanctions, most formal IPV interventions occur in the criminal
justice system and in community agencies designed to intervene with IPV victims or
perpetrators at the behest of the criminal justice system. IPV may also be identified
initially through screening procedures of community agencies such as addiction treatment
centers, although data suggest this does not happen often (Bennett, Prabhughate, &
Gallagher, 2016; Collins, Kroutil, Roland, & Moore-Gurrera, 1997; Klostermann, 2006; Smith,
2000). Secondary prevention of IPV, usually in the form of screening and referral, also occurs
in settings targeting other issues such as emergency departments (Kothari & Rhodes, 2006)
and family medicine settings (Coker, Smith, McKeown, & King, 2000). Without the stick and
carrot of the justice system, however, community agencies have a difficult time motivating
their clients to get help with an issue they did not seek help for. One way of bringing such
agencies and institutions to the same table where the referral of IPV perpetrators can be
worked out is the networking approach referred to as a coordinated community response
team.

Coordinated community response. Although arrest for assault of an intimate partner
has always been a possibility, beliefs about family privacy made arrest unlikely until the
1980s. That changed following the widespread dissemination of the results of the
Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment (MDVE) comparing on-scene counseling,
temporary separation of perpetrator and victim, and arrest of the perpetrator (Sherman &
Berk, 1984). The MCDE and its replications in five cities found that arrest was the most
effective intervention preventing subsequent IPV (Maxwell, Garner, & Fagan, 2001). Along
with sheltering victims, arrest and prosecution for IPV continues to be the IPV policy of
choice in the United States, despite concerns that criminal justice interventions are
inequitably distributed among the poor and among racial minorities, and that evidence-
based prosecution may disempower IPV victims (Guzik, 2009). Issues related to coordinating
the interests of victim safety, perpetrator accountability, and community resources led to
the institutionalization of coordinated community responses to IPV.
Coordinated community response (CCR) programs gained prominence in the 1980s at the
Domestic Abuse Intervention Project in Duluth Minnesota and are now widespread in the
U.S. CCR reflect a systematic community-based big-tent effort to bring key players to the
table to influence policy and practice, enhance victim safety, and hold perpetrators of IPV
accountable for their behavior (Shepard & Pence, 1999). CCRs emerged because the causes
and effects of IPV are complicated, because there are unintended consequences of these
policies, and because “it takes a village” to be effective. CCRs usually include
representatives from victim service agencies, partner abuse intervention programs, the
civil and criminal justice system, health care agencies, child protection, and other
interested community partners meeting on a regular basis. CCRs are widely available
across the U.S., although they may vary in how they are formed and utilized. According to
Shepard and Pence (1999) the key goals of a CCR are insuring safety for victims through
adequate crisis intervention services, accountability for the abuser, follow-up services for
victims, proper training of personnel in all systems, coordination and monitoring of
interventions (including court watch, data collection, reporting, and accountability
systems), and active involvement from other sectors of the community.
The effectiveness of CCR in preventing future IPV is not yet established due to
methodological complexities, although CCR participants and proponents rarely doubt their
value. Early CCR studies tended to support their value, with positive outcomes for
increased arrest, prosecution, and sentencing for IPV offenses (Gamache, Edleson, &
Schock, 1988; Murphy, Musser, & Maton, 1998; Orchowsky, 1999, cited in Garner & Maxwell,
2008; Tolman & Weisz, 1995) and reduced IPV recidivism (Babcock & Steiner, 1999; Murphy,
Musser, & Maton, 1998; Steinman, 1991; Shepard, Falk, & Elliott, 2002; Syers & Edleson, 1992;
Tolman & Weisz, 1995). More recent studies have questioned whether early optimism about
CCR is justified (Post, Klevans, Maxwell, Shelley, & Ingram, 2010; Visher, Harrell, Newmark,
& Yahner, 2008), although methodological limitations with these newer studies limit their
conclusions and have yet to dampen enthusiasm for the CCR approach.

Partner abuse intervention programs. Partner abuse intervention programs (PAIP) are
group-based community programs designed to prevent the recurrence of IPV. While a
person who uses IPV could self-refer to a PAIP, the vast majority of people who participate
in PAIP are referred by the criminal justice system following arrest, prosecution, or
sentencing for an IPV offense, including violation of an order of protection. Whether a PAIP
regards their work as providing accountability, anti-violence education, or treatment for
people who use IPV, the “big tent” of the CCR provides a level of accountability for the
PAIP. In fact, PAIP are best characterized as a local node in a community anti-violence
network (Shepard & Pence, 1999).
In addition to PAIP, other modes of community-based intervention for people who use IPV
include couples groups (Stith, McCollum, & Rosen, 2011) and individual counseling (Murphy
& Eckhardt, 2005). Couples groups and individual counseling are less often utilized due to
concerns about victim safety and victim blaming in couples treatment, and concerns about
reinforcing the batterer’s code of secrecy in individual counseling. Nevertheless, both
couples groups and individual treatment are viable interventions for other populations, and
their application to people who use IPV, with proper selection criteria and monitoring,
increases the intervention options for a very diverse group.
PAIP are intended for people arrested for domestic violence, for people who would be
arrested if their actions were public, or for people who believe their coercive behavior
toward partners or ex-partners is troubling. Men from the latter category of self-referred
perpetrators are often dubbed “wife referrals” by advocates and practitioners who doubt
the true motivation behind a self-referral to a PAIP. One of several unintended
consequences of PAIP is that a man’s participation may support his belief that he is
changing his behavior, but his partner is not changing hers, therefore increasing his risk for
future use of IPV. Contrary to common beliefs that motivation always enhances outcomes,
research suggests that perpetrators self-referred to PAIP are more likely to drop out of the
PAIP and to re-offend than court-referred perpetrators. (Gondolf, 2002). On the other hand,
recent studies of motivational enhancement in PAIP have found positive results (Crane &
Eckhardt, 2013; Scott, King, McGinn, & Hosseini, 2011).
PAIP typically consist of a short evaluation followed by anywhere from three to twelve
months of weekly groups. These groups may be educational, treatment-oriented, or
focused on personal growth, but there are usually elements of all three in varying
combinations. PAIP may also include other intervention elements such as personal
counseling, case management, addiction treatment, parent education, mentoring, or
programming drawn from cultural and ethnic traditions. PAIP may focus on partner
violence by men or by women, by heterosexuals or by people in same-sex relationships,
but for safety reasons, groups are usually not mixed by gender or sexual orientation. PAIP
are often housed in nonprofit or private agencies and less frequently in the criminal justice
system or other public institutions. The details of conducting PAIP programs are readily
available (see Aldarando & Mederos, 2002; Gondolf, 2012). Most states and provinces require

that a PAIP meet specific organizational standards and that the staff of PAIP meet specific
educational and training requirements (Austin & Dankwort, 1999) although the value,
wisdom, and ethics of these requirements are debatable (Bennett & Piet, 1999; Maiuro &
Eberle, 2008).
Although there are many different theoretical approaches employed by PAIP, most fall into
two camps, commonly referred to as the psychoeducational approach and the cognitive-
behavioral approach. Psychoeducational programs for IPV perpetrators reflect their origin
in the women’s movement of the 1970s (Schechter, 1982) and the empirical success of
social cognitive theory in explaining mechanisms by which coercive behavior can be
learned by observation in the family of origin, peer groups, and media (Bandura, 2001).
Using the psychoeducational approach, PAIP have varying mixtures of psychoeducation,
cognitive-behavioral skill building, and social action. The most commonly cited
psychoeducational PAIP is the Domestic Abuse Intervention Program in Minnesota,
commonly referred to as the “Duluth Model,” although the actual Duluth Model consists of
far more than simply a PAIP and includes all relevant community systems organized and
coordinated to prevent IPV (Pence & Paymar, 1993). A PAIP using a feminist perspective
works to help men change their minds about male dominance through education and
community activism.
A common tool in psychoeducational groups for IPV perpetrators, as well as in many other
domains of IPV prevention is the ubiquitous Power and Control Wheel, which codifies
battered women’s experience of IPV as a pattern of behavior rather than isolated episodes
of violence (Pence & Paymar, 1993). The Power and Control Wheel, originally developed by
IPV victims, portrays the axle of a wheel as power and control, the tire as physical and
sexual violence, and the spokes as dominating tactics: economic abuse; male privilege;
use of children; minimizing, denying, and blaming; isolation; emotional abuse; intimidation;
coercion and threats.
The second perspective informing PAIP employs cognitive and behavioral interventions to
reshape thinking and action, with emphasis on learning new skills, identifying triggers for
violence, interrupting the escalation process, managing anger, and substituting pro-social
behaviors for coercive behaviors. Cognitive behavioral therapy enjoys considerable
empirical success in treating a variety of problems, including anger, so it was logical to use
it with IPV perpetrators. The mixture of cognitive-behavioral therapy and pro-feminist
attitude change is one of the ways of differentiating PAIP. In practice, however,
psychoeducational programs engage in cognitive-behavioral treatment (CBT) and CBT
practitioners are often feminists, so the distinction between CBT and the
psychoeducational approaches can be fuzzy. In fact, the thoughtful combination of these
approaches form a more complete explanation of IPV and IPV perpetrators. The typical PAIP
in the United States is best characterized as a pro-feminist cognitive-behavioral
psychoeducational program (Ganley, 1989).

Critics of PAIP interventions usually base their judgment partly on the results of clinical
trials (Dunford, 2000; Feder & Dugan, 2002; LaBriola, Rempel, & Davis, 2005; Palmer, Brown, &
Barrera, 1992; Taylor, Davis, & Maxwell, 2001) and meta-analyses of experimental and quasi-
experimental studies (Babcock, Green, & Robie, 2004; Feder & Wilson, 2005; Miller, Drake, &
Nafziger, 2013). These studies suggest to critics that PAIP do not have much of an effect on
IPV recidivism beyond that of chance alone (Corvo, Dutton, & Chen, 2008). On the other
hand, findings from a study of four large, well-established PAIP found a statistically
significant reduction in recidivism, but also found that 25% of the men in PAIP commit 70%
of post-PAIP episodes of IPV (Gondolf, 2002). At the present time, a definitive conclusion
about the effectiveness of PAIP is not justified, but everyone who comments on the issue
agrees that PAIP must continue to improve. Regardless of whether the intervention is
delivered to individuals or groups, the area most often cited for improvement is that of
cultural specificity.
Culturally informed approaches intervene with abusive behavior in the context of individual
psychological characteristics and gender, but also skin color, ethnicity, religion, sexual
orientation, and class (Almeida & Hudak, 2002). Although use of coercion is the common
denominator among IPV perpetrators, culturally specific beliefs, customs, practices, and
traditions may package coercion in ways not recognized or understood by those who do
not share the cultural background. Williams and his colleagues point out that in many parts
of Africa, for example, there is an expectation that men will use violence in marriages to
show authority in the household and maintain male roles, rights, and control (Williams,
Aymer, & Yirga, IN PRESS). In some countries there is no word for domestic violence and no
law against IPV. In some African, Middle Eastern and Eastern European countries, tradition
or laws allow polygamist marriages, and for men (and only men) to develop companion
relationships outside marriage. Such traditions are shocking to Western practitioners and
may not be easily understood. In a recent roundtable on IPV in Africa, women from 16
African countries reported that although many were unhappy about their marriage
circumstance, their partner having other wives may actually reduce the pressure on them
from their husband’s repeated hostility (African’s Women’s Round Table on Domestic
Violence, 2015). After immigrating to the United States, there is a reluctance by some of
these women to use IPV programs due to program staff’s lack of understanding about
these cultural values and traditions, lack of language access, and isolation in their
community.
Efforts are underway to make culture a centerpiece in intervention with IPV perpetrators.
Culturally informed and culturally based interventions are reported for Latino men
(Hernandez, 2002; Perilla & Perez, 2002), Maori men (Gregory, 2008); African American men
(Douglas, Nurriddin, & Perry, 2008; Williams, 2008), incarcerated African American men
(Donnelly, Smith, & Williams, 2002), Native American men (Durin, Durrin, Woodis, & Woodis,
2008), and Asian men (Tong, 2008; Wah, 2008). Empirical research supporting these
approaches is still lacking, although the lack of research has not dampened the
enthusiasm of proponents. The non-completion and re-arrest rates for African American
men, for example, are substantially higher than those of Caucasian men (Gondolf, 2012),
although this common finding may conflate issues of socioeconomic status, class and
cultural conflict, sentencing bias, and other forms of institutional racism (Guzik, 2009;

Hampton, Oliver, & Magarian, 2003; Mahoney, Williams, & West, 2001). Given such outcomes,
calls for culturally oriented programs for African American men who batter have been
prominent in the late 20th and early 21st centuries (Gondolf & Williams, 2001; Hampton,
Carrillo, & Kim, 1998; Williams, 1994, 1998). Although it is widely believed that use of ethnically
sensitive approaches may increase the involvement of African American men in treatment,
reduce dropout, and increase non-violent behavior with their partners (Williams, 1994),
empirical evidence to date remains mixed (Gondolf, 2012; Gondolf, 2007). However, future
approaches based on cultural tradition rather than PAIP tradition may yet detect a signal of
success that is, thus far, obscured by the noise of a dominant culture.
Conclusion
Like most categories of human behavior within a social environment, violence toward an
intimate partner presents us with a complex array of causes, explanations,
characterizations, and solutions. Making IPV even more complex in the early 21st century
are conflicts arising from the hegemony of certain genders, cultures, and sexual
orientations. An assertion that men’s historical and worldwide dominance of women are
the soil from which IPV grows is met with data “proving” that men are equally victims of
women’s violence. Similarly, a cry that “black lives matter” draws an immediate response
that “all lives matter,” suggesting that mattering is a zero sum game to some. And when
the US Supreme Court affirms the rights of men and women to marry other men and
women, or when the formerly dichotomous variable sex is finally acknowledged to be more
fluid than traditional male vs. female categories, a substantial swath of Americans raise a
holy book to define marriage and decree that one’s sex is defined by the appearance of
one’s sexual organs at birth.
Like the readers of this article, its authors are not beyond politics. Science and the
scientific method are also not beyond politics, although at time those who use science in
their work talk as if we were all beyond influence, as if there were a place where the
magnets of politics and philosophy could not reach the iron of our rigorous methods. This
article has attempted to present as many sides of the key issues as possible. Yes, men and
women alike are abused by their partners, but historically that burden has fallen on
women, and it still does. Whether it is patriarchy, social cognition, or hormones that deliver
that payload, it is delivered to greater effect on women and children. Ignoring the effect of
violence on boys and men, however, is as narrow-minded as pretending IPV is not about
gender at all.
This article has documented that IPV is a worldwide problem with a prevalence rate that
should shock people into action. The best explanations for this problem are ecological in
nature, looking through multiple lenses at multiple levels and across time. Single variable
explanations from cross-sectional research and personal belief that purport to explain all

IPV should be rejected outright, as should interventions based on those single variable
explanations. We suggest that perpetrators are as different from one another as they are
different from non-perpetrators, but so far, characterizing these differences has not
translated into making interventions better.
This article has reviewed criminal and community interventions and has suggested that
those interventions must continue to improve, not only increasing the size of their effects
but also decreasing the impact of their unintended consequences. Partner abuse
intervention programs still have a limited effect on future IPV. The typical complaint that
PAIPs offer only a “one size fits all” model is not without merit, and one can hope that IPV
interventions of the future will be more diverse and better matched to the characteristics
of perpetrators than is possible today. The relatively modest effects of criminal justice and
community programs for IPV perpetrators have less to do with the theoretical base and
specific interventions employed and more to do with the historically entrenched
biopsychosocial problem they seek to modify. IPV is woven into human history and
cultures. It is too big a problem for the relatively miniscule resources devoted to solving it,
a devotion that reflects the ambivalence many in our society still feel toward government
authority in matters deemed “family only.” Until as society takes a unified, non-ambivalent,
non-ambiguous position on violence in intimate and family relationships, IPV will continue
to devastate lives.
Further Reading
American Psychological Association. This is the APA’s official document on Intimate Partner
Abuse and Relationship Violence. See www.apa.org/about/division/activities/partner-
abuse.pdf.
Association of Domestic Violence Intervention Programs. In the highly politicized field of
IPV, the ADVIP consists of batterer intervention providers, mental health professionals, and
research scholars who believe “p-values not polemics” should govern practice. See http://
www.battererintervention.org/advisory-board/.
Batterer Intervention Services Coalition of Michigan. There is no national organization of
PAIPs, but BISCMI has taken on the task of assembling standards and providing national
leadership. This organization is the philosophically opposite of ADVIP. See http://
www.biscmi.org/.
Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American Community. The IDVAAC is an
organization focused on the unique circumstances of African Americans as they face issues
related to domestic violence, including intimate partner violence, child abuse, elder
maltreatment, and community violence. See http://www.idvaac.org/.
Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse. MINCAVA has one of the largest collection of
freely accessible articles and papers on child abuse, domestic violence, sexual violence,

stalking, trafficking, workplace violence, and youth violence. See
www.mincava.umn.edu/.
World Health Organization. This extensive report examines intervention with perpetrators
of intimate partner violence from a global perspective, including 56 programs for IPV
offenders. See http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/
violence/intervening/en/.
References
African’s Women Round Table on Domestic Violence. (2015, February). Institute on
domestic violence in the African American community. Retrieved from http://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz85ecIjk90.
Aldarando, E., & Mederos, F. (2002). Programs for men who batter. Kingston, NJ: Civic
Research Institute.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Almeida, R. V., & Hudak, J. (2002). The cultural context model. In E. Aldarando & F. Mederos
(Eds.), Programs for men who batter (pp. 10–11, 10–48). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research
Institute.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Austin, J., & Dankwort, J. (1999). Standards for batterer programs: A review and analysis.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 152–168.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
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, 1023–
1053.
•Google Preview

•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Babcock, J. C., & Steiner, R. (1999). The relationship between treatment, incarceration, and
recidivism of battering: A program evaluation of Seattle’s coordinated response to
community response to domestic violence. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 46–59.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review
of Psychology, 52, 1–26.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Bennett, L. W., & Piet, M. (1999). Standards for batterer intervention programs: In whose
interest? Violence Against Women, 5, 6–24.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Bennett, L. W., Prabhughate, P., & Gallagher, J. R. (2016). Accounting for intimate
partner violence in substance abuse recovery: Staff and agency readiness for
screening and referral. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 34, 126–142.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary

Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M. K., Merrick, M. T., . . .
Stevens, M. R. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010
summary report. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/nisvs/.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Basile, K. C., Walters, M. L., Chen, J., Merrick, M. T. (2014).
Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence
victimization—National intimate partner and sexual violence survey, United States, 2011.
Center for Disease Control. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/
mmwrhtml/ss6308a1.htm?s_cid=ss6308a1_e.
Carbone-López, K., Kruttschnitt, C., & Macmillan, R. (2006). Patterns of intimate partner
violence and their associations with physical health, psychological distress, and substance
use. Public Health Reports, 121, 382–392.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Carlson, B. E. (1984). Causes and maintenance of domestic violence: An ecological
analysis. Social Service Review, 58, 569–587.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Cavanaugh, M. M. & Gelles, R. J. (2005). The utility of male domestic violence
offender typologies: New directions for research, policy, and practice. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 20, 155–166.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary

Coker, A. L., Smith, P. H., McKeown, R. E., & King, M. J. (2000). Frequency and correlates of
intimate partner violence by type: Physical, sexual, and psychological battering. American
Journal of Public Health, 90, 553–559.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Collins, J. J., Kroutil, L. A., Roland, E. J., & Moore-Gurrera, M. (1997). Issues in the linkages of
alcohol and domestic violence services. In M. Galanter (Ed.), Recent developments in
alcoholism, Vol. 13: Alcohol and violence: Epidemiology, neurobiology, psychology, family
issues (pp. 387–405). New York: Plenum.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Corvo, K., Dutton, D., & Chen, W. (2008). Toward evidence-based practice with domestic
violence perpetrators. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 16, 111–130.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Crane, C. A., & Eckhardt, C. I. (2013). Evaluation of a single-session brief motivational
enhancement intervention for partner abusive men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60,
180–187.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Crowne, S. S., Juon, H.S., Ensminger, M., Burrell, L., McFarlane, E., Duggan, A. (2011).
Concurrent and long-term impact of intimate partner violence on employment
stability. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 1282–1304.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat

•eDiscover
•ebrary
DeKeseredy, W. S., & Dragiewicz, M. (2007). Understanding the complexities of feminist
perspectives on woman abuse: A commentary on Donald G. Dutton’s rethinking domestic
violence. Violence Against Women, 13, 874–884.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Donnelly, D. A., Smith, L. G., & Williams, O. J. (2002). The batterer education program for
incarcerated African-American men 1997–2000. In E. Aldarando & F. Mederos (Eds.),
Programs for men who batter (pp. 13–1 to 13–18). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Douglas, U., Nurriddin, S., & Perry, P. A. (2008). African-American men who batter: A
community-centered approach to prevention and intervention. In R. Carrillo, & J. Tello
(Eds.), Family violence and men of color: Healing the wounded male spirit (pp. 117–142).
New York: Springer Publishing.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Durin, E., Durrin, B., Woodis, W., & Woodis, P. (2008). A post-colonial perspective on
domestic violence in Indian country. In R. Carrillo & J. Tello (Eds.), Family violence and men
of color: Healing the wounded male spirit (pp. 143–162). New York: Springer Publishing.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary

Dunford, F. W. (2000). The San Diego navy experiment: An assessment of interventions for
men who assault their wives. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 468–476.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Dutton, D. G. (1988a). Profiling of wife assaulters: Preliminary evidence for a trimodal
analysis. Violence and Victims, 3, 5–29.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Dutton, D. G. (1988b). The domestic assault of women: Psychological and criminal justice
perspectives. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Dutton, D. G. (1994). Patriarchy and wife assault: The ecological fallacy. Violence and
victims, 9, 167–182.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Dutton, D. G. (2007). The abusive personality: Violence and control in intimate
relationships. New York: Guilford.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary

Edleson, J. L., Lindhorst, T., & Kanuha, V. K. (2015, November). Ending gender-based
violence: A grand challenge for social work. American Academy of Social Work and Social
Welfare, Working Paper No. 15, available at http://aaswsw.org/publications/.
•Google Preview
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Feder, L., & Dugan, L. (2002). A test of the efficacy of court-mandated counseling for
domestic violence offenders: The Broward experiment. Justice Quarterly, 19, 343–375.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
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.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Frye, V., Manganello, J., Campbell, J. C., Wilt, S. (2006). The distribution of and factors
associated with intimate terrorism and situational couple violence among a population-
based sample of urban women in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21,
1286–1313.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Gamache, D. J., Edleson, J. L., & Schock, M. D. (1988). Coordinated police, judicial and
social service response to women battering: A multiple-baseline evaluation across three
communities. In G. T. Hotaling, D. Finklehor, J. T. Kirkpatrick, & M. A. Strauss (Eds.), Coping
with family violence: Research and policy perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat

•eDiscover
•ebrary
Ganley, A. L. (1989). Integrating feminist and social learning analyses of aggression:
Creating multiple models for intervention with men who batter. In P. L. Caesar & L. K.
Hamberger (Eds.), Treating men who batter: Theory, practice, and programs (pp. 196–235).
New York: Springer.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
García-Moreno, C., Jansen, H., Ellsberg, M., Heise, L., & Watt, C. (2005). WHO Multi-country
Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence against Women. http://
cdrwww.who.int/gender/violence/who_multicountry_study/Introduction-
Chapter1-Chapter2.pdf.
Garner, J. H., & Maxwell, C. D. (2008). Coordinated community responses to intimate
partner violence in the 20th and 21st centuries. Criminology & Public Policy, 7, 525–535.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Gondolf, E. W. (1998). Who are these guys? Toward a typology of batterers. Violence and
Victims, 3, 187–203.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Gondolf, E. W. (2002). Batterer intervention systems. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary

Gondolf, E. W. (2012). The future of batterer programs. Boston: Northeastern University
Press.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Gondolf, E. W. (2007). Culturally focused batterer counseling for African American men.
Criminology & Public Policy, 6, 341–366.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Gondolf, E. W., & Williams, O. J. (2001). Culturally focused batterer counseling for African
American men. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 2, 283–295.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Gregory, D. (2008). He waka tapu: Working together for the well-being of family. In R.
Carrillo & J. Tello (Eds.), Family violence and men of color: Healing the wounded male spirit
(pp. 163–180). New York: Springer Publishing.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Guzik, K. (2009). Arresting abuse: Mandatory legal interventions, power, and intimate
abusers. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary

Hamberger, L. K., Lohr, J. M., Bonge, D., & Tolin, D. F. (1996). A large sample empirical
typology of male spouse abusers and its relationship to dimensions of abuse. Violence and
Victims, 11, 277–292.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Hampton, R., Carrillo, R., & Kim, J. (1998). Violence in communities of color. In R. Carillo & J.
Tello (Eds.), Family violence and men of color: Healing the wounded male spirit (pp. 74–
94). New York: Springer.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Hampton, R., Oliver, W., & Magarian, L. (2003). Domestic violence in the African American
community: An analysis of social and structural factors. Violence Against Women, 9, 533–
557.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Heise, L. L. (1998). Violence against women an integrated, ecological framework. Violence
Against Women, 4, 262–290.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Hernandez, A. R. (2002) CECEVIM—Stopping male violence in the Latino home. In E.
Aldarando & F. Mederos (Eds.), Programs for men who batter (pp. 12–1 to 12–30). Kingston,
NJ: Civic Research Institute.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover

•ebrary
Hirschel, D., E. Buzawa, A. Pattavina, D. Faggiani, & M. Reuland. (2007). Explaining the
prevalence, context, and consequences of dual arrest in intimate partner cases. Final
report for National Institute of Justice, grant number 2001-WT-BX-0501. Washington, DC:
US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, April 2007, NCJ 218355. http://
www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=240055.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Meehan, J. C. (2004). Typologies of men who are martially
violent: Scientific and clinical implications. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19,
1369–1389.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Stuart, G. (1994). Typologies of male batterers: Three subtypes
and the differences among them. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 476–497.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Johnson, M. P., & Leone, J. M. (2005). The differential effects of intimate terrorism and
situational couple violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey.
Journal of Family Issues, 26, 322–349.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Kemp, S. P., Whittaker, J. K., & Tracy, E. M. (1997). Person-environment practice: The social
ecology of interpersonal helping. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
•Google Preview

•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Kimmel, M. S. (2002). Gender symmetry in domestic violence: A substantive and
methodological research review. Violence Against Women, 8, 1332–1363.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Klostermann, K. C. (2006). Substance abuse and inmate partner violence: Treatment
considerations. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 22, 1–24.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Kothari, C. L., & Rhodes, K. V. (2006). Missed opportunities: Emergency department visits
by police-identified victims of intimate partner violence. Annals of Emergency Medicine,
47, 190–199.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
LaBriola, M., Rempel, M., & Davis, R. (2005). Do batterer programs reduce recidivism?
Results from a randomized trial in the Bronx. Justice Quarterly, 25, 252–282.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Lemon, N. (1996). Domestic violence law: A comprehensive overview of cases and sources.
San Francisco, CA: Austin and Winfield.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat

•eDiscover
•ebrary
Levinson, D. (1989) Family violence in cross-cultural perspective. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Maiuro, R. & Eberle, J. (2008). State standards for domestic violence perpetrator treatment:
Current status, trends, and recommendations. Violence and Victims23, 133–155.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Machado, C., Martins, C., & Caridade, S. (2014). Violence in intimate relationships: A
comparison between married and dating couples. Journal of Criminology.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Mahoney, P., Williams, L. M., & West, C. M. (2001). Violence against women by intimate
partners. In C. M. Renzetti, J. L. Edleson, & R. K. Bergen (Eds.), Sourcebook on Violence
Against Women (pp. 143–178). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Maxwell, C. D., Garner, J. H., & Fagan, J. A. (2001, July). The effects of arrest on intimate
partner violence: New evidence from the spouse assault replication program. National
Institute of Justice Research in Brief, NCJ 188199, available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/
txtfiles1/nij/188199.txt.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover

•ebrary
McGuigan, W. M., & Pratt, C. C. (2001). The predictive impact of domestic violence on
three types of child maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25, 869–883.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Miller, M., Drake, E., & Nafziger, M. (2013). What works to reduce recidivism by domestic
violence offenders? (Document No. 13-01-1201). Olympia: Washington State Institute for
Public Policy. Available at http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1119/Wsipp_What-
Works-to-Reduce-Recidivism-by-Domestic-Violence-Offenders_Full-Report.pdf.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Murphy C. M., & Eckhardt C. I. (2005). Treating the abusive partner: An individualized
cognitive-behavioral approach. New York: Guilford Press.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Murphy, C. M., Musser, P. H., & Maton, K. I. (1998). Coordinated community intervention for
domestic abusers: Intervention system involvement and criminal recidivism. Journal of
Family Violence, 13, 263–284.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
O’Leary, K. D. (1993). Through a psychological lens: Personality traits, personality
disorders, and levels of violence. In R. J. Gelles & D. R. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies
in family violence. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat

•eDiscover
•ebrary
Orchowsky, S. J. (1999). Evaluation of a coordinated community response to domestic
violence: The Alexandria Domestic Violence Intervention Project—Final report (NCJ
179974). Richmond, VA: Applied Research Associates.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Palmer, S. E., Brown, R. A., & Barrera, M. E. (1992). Group treatment program for abusive
husbands: Long term evaluation. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 62, 276–283.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1993). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth Model.
New York: Springer Publishing.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Perilla, J. L., & Perez, F. (2002). A program for immigrant Latino men who batter within the
context of a comprehensive family intervention. In E. Aldarando & F. Mederos (Eds.),
Programs for men who batter (pp. 11–1 to 11–31). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Pleck, E., Pleck, J., Grossman, M., & Bart, P. (1978). The battered data syndrome: A
comment on Steinmetz’ article. Victimology: An International Journal, 2, 680–683.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover

•ebrary
Post, L. A., Klevens, J., Maxwell, C. D., Shelley, G., & Ingram, E. (2010). An examination of
whether coordinated community responses affect intimate partner violence. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 25, 75–93.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Saunders, D. G. (1992). A typology of men who batter women: Three types derived from
cluster analysis. American Orthopsychiatry, 62, 264–275.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Schechter, S. (1982). Women and male violence. Boston: South End.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Scott, K., King, C., McGinn, H., & Hosseini, N. (2011). Effects of motivational
enhancement on immediate outcomes of batterer intervention. Journal of Family
Violence, 26, 139–149.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Shepard, M. F., Falk, D. R., & Elliott, B. A. (2002). Enhancing coordinated community
responses to reduce recidivism in cases of domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 17, 551–569.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary

Shepard, M. F., & Pence, E. (Eds.). (1999). Coordinating community responses to domestic
violence: Lessons from Duluth and Beyond. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Sherman, L. W., & Berk, R. A. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic
assault. American Sociological Review, 49, 261–272.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Smith, J. W. (2000). Addiction medicine and domestic violence. Journal of Substance Abuse
Treatment, 19, 329–338.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Steinman, M. (1991). Coordinated criminal justice interventions and recidivism among
batterers. In Woman battering: Policy responses. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Steinmetz, S. (1978). The battered husband syndrome. Victimology: An International
Journal, 2, 499–509.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary

Stith, S.M., McCollum, E. E., & Rosen, K. H. (2011). Couples therapy for domestic violence:
Finding safe solutions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Stith, S. M., Smith, D. B., Penn, C. E., Ward, D. B., & Tritt, D. (2004). Intimate partner
physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: A meta-analytic review.
Aggression and Violent Behavior10, 65–98.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Straus, M. A. (1973). A general systems theory approach to a theory of violence between
family members. Social Science Information, 12(3), 105–125.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Straus, M. A. (2006). Future research on gender symmetry in physical assaults on
partners. Violence Against Women, 12, 1086–1097.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1990). Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and
adaptations to violence in 8,145 families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary

Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the
American family. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Syers, M., & Edleson, J. L. (1992). The combined effects of coordinated criminal justice
intervention in woman abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 490–502.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Taylor, B. G., Davis, R. C., & Maxwell, C. D. (2001). The effects of a group batterer
treatment program, Brooklyn. Justice Quarterly18, 170–201.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Tolman, R.M. & Weisz, A.N. (1995). Coordinated community intervention for domestic
violence: The effects of arrest and prosecution on recidivism of woman abuse perpetrators.
Crime and Delinquency, 41, 481–495.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Tong, B. R. (2008). Asian-American domestic violence: A critical psychohistorical
perspective. In R. Carrillo & J. Tello (Eds.), Family violence and men of color: Healing the
wounded male spirit (pp. 181–194). New York: Springer Publishing.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary

Visher, C. A., Harrell, A., Newmark, L., & Yahner, J. (2008). Reducing intimate partner
violence: An evaluation of a comprehensive justice system community collaboration.
Criminology and Public Policy, 7, 495–523.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Wah, L. M. (2008). Asian men and violence. In R. Carrillo & J. Tello (Eds.), Family violence
and men of color: Healing the wounded male spirit (pp. 195–214). New York: Springer
Publishing.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Waters, H., Hyder, A., & Rajkotia, Y. (Eds.). (2004). The economic dimensions of
interpersonal violence. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, Department of
Injuries and Violence Prevention.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Williams, O. (1994). Group work with African American men who batter: Toward more
ethnically-sensitive practice. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 25, 91–103.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Williams, O. (1998). Healing and confronting the African American male who batters. In R.
Carillo & J. Tello (Eds.), Family violence and men of color: Healing the wounded male spirit
(pp. 74–94). New York: Springer.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover

•ebrary
Williams, O. J. (2008) Healing and confronting the African-American male who batteres. In
R. Carrillo & J. Tello (Eds.), Family violence and men of color: Healing the wounded male
spirit (pp. 85–116). New York: Springer Publishing.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Williams, O., Aymer S., & Yirga, W. (in press). Causes, consequences and solutions to
domestic violence among younger and older Kenyan men in Nairobi Kenya. Journal of
Aggression Maltreatment and Trauma.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C. V., Lee, V., McIntyre-Smith, A., Jaffe, P., G. (2003). The effects of
children’s exposure to domestic violence: A meta-analysis and critique. Clinical Child and
Family Psychology Review, 6, 171–187.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Wolfe, D. A. & Jaffe, P. G. (1999). Emerging strategies in the prevention of domestic
violence. The Future of Children9(3), 133–144.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover
•ebrary
Yllo, K. & Bograd, M. (1988). Feminist perspectives on wife abuse. Newbury Park, CA:
SAGE.
•Google Preview
•JSTOR
•WorldCat
•eDiscover

•ebrary
Larry W. Bennett
Indiana University
Oliver J. Williams
University of Minnesota
•Oxford University Press
Copyright © 2017. All rights reserved.