Domestic Violence Against Women in Lithuania and Poland: Seeking Adequate Protection of Victims

Abstract

Victims of domestic violence—the majority of whom are women—require specific treatment and assistance from several institutions and professionals. The key duty of such institutions and professionals is to provide adequate support by meeting the individual needs of a particular victim. At the same time, the need for correction of the violent behaviour of aggressors is emphasised in many countries.The main objective of the national programmes targeting domestic violence in Poland and Lithuania is to reduce the overall scale of domestic violence in the country. Considerable attention is also given to victim protection. However, according to the results of recent empirical research, Lithuania lacks a unified institutional approach and multi-agency cooperation, especially with regard to institutions providing specialised assistance to victims of violence. Poland faces similar challenges. This issue is of particular importance in light of the EU’s potential accession to the Istanbul Convention. Taking this into account, this chapter discusses the need for adequate protection of victims in line with a coordinated multi-agency approach to domestic violence. Moreover, a comparative analysis will be presented not only by comparing the mechanisms of protection for women victims of domestic violence in Lithuania and Poland, but also by identifying examples of good practice in both countries.KeywordsDomestic violenceViolence against womenSpecialised legislationInstitutional protectionMulti-agency cooperation

Full text

Vol.:(0123456789)
1 3
Journal of Family Violence
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-022-00467-6
REVIEW ARTICLE
Challenges toanIndividualized Approach Toward Batterers
Intervention Programs intheContext ofCoordinated Community
Response totheIntimate Partner Violence inLithuania
IlonaMichailovič1· RūtaVaičiūnienė1 · SvetlanaJustickaja1· VaidasViršilas1
Accepted: 2 November 2022
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2022
Abstract
Purpose Although batterers’ intervention programs (BIPs) constitute an important part of the coordinated response to
intimate partner violence (IPV) and contribute to increasing the perpetrators’ accountability and keeping victims safe, the
effectiveness of these programs is still debated. Only recently has the focus of these debates shifted away from researching
outcomes by measuring overall program effectiveness toward specific qualities of interventions across program models that
may be effective for the distinct client (Babcock etal., Clinical Psychology Review, 23(8), 1023–1053, 2004; Zarling etal.,
Psychology of Violence, 9(3), 257–266, 2019). The discussion on the practical implementation of BIPs was supplemented by
various significant concepts emerging from new empirical findings, such as differential treatment, motivational interview-
ing, and effective facilitator–client alliances (Hamel etal., Partner Abuse, 11(4), 387–414, 2020; Holtrop etal., Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 32(8), 1267–1290, 2017). This paper aimed to address some of the abovementioned concepts by
identifying challenges that arise during the implementation of BIPs in Lithuania.
Methods Using qualitative data from semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions with BIPs facilitators, BIPs
attendees, and various stakeholders, the paper discusses how to contribute to more effective BIPs outcomes.
Results According to this study, the process of implementing BIPs in Lithuania should be systematized by incorporating
existing instruments, such as motivational interviewing, risk-based assessment, and differential treatment, evidence-based
programs focused on different theoretical approaches, and forms of implementation.
Conclusion The study found that the consistency and integrity of the entire BIP implementation process should be prioritized,
and institutional cooperation in Lithuania needs to be improved to achieve a successful coordinated response to intimate
partner violence.
Keywords Batterers intervention programs· Intimate partner violence· Coordinated community response· Individualized
approach· Differential treatment
Introduction
Today, both the scientific literature (Babcock etal., 2016;
Pallatino etal., 2019; Shepard, 2005) and international docu-
ments and recommendations (CEDAW General Recommen-
dation No. 19: Violence against Women, 1992; Council of
Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence
against Women and Domestic Violence, 2011) agree that
Batterers Intervention Programmes (hereinafter, BIPs) con-
stitute an important part of the coordinated response to inti-
mate partner violence (hereinafter, IPV). BIPs also contrib-
ute to increased accountability for those who use violence
and the safety of those who have received violence (Shep-
ard, 2005). This issue appears to be of particular importance
considering the European Union’s potential accession to the
Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combat-
ing violence against women and domestic violence, which
states in article 16 that parties shall take the necessary leg-
islative or other measures to establish or support programs
aimed at teaching perpetrators of domestic violence to adopt
* Rūta Vaičiūnienė
ruta.vaiciuniene@teise.org
Ilona Michailovič
ilona.michailovic@tf.vu.lt
1 Law Institute, Lithuanian Centre forSocial Sciences,
Ankštoji g. 1A, LT-01109Vilnius, Lithuania
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Journal of Family Violence
1 3
nonviolent behavior in interpersonal relationships to prevent
further violence. Although the significance of BIPs’ devel-
opment is undeniable, the effectiveness of the programs is
still the subject of debate, highlighting the fact that numer-
ous questions regarding the BIPs and their operation remain
unanswered (Babcock etal., 2016). The current study dis-
cusses research regarding issues in BIP effectiveness in gen-
eral and presents practical challenges that arise during BIP
implementation in Lithuania from the perspectives of BIP
attendees, facilitators, and associated organizations.
The Dilemma ofBIP Effectiveness
The conducted studies concluded that there was a lack of
empirical evidence to support the effectiveness of programs
in the United States, Canada (Babcock etal., 2004, 2016;
Cannon etal., 2016; Eckhardt etal., 2013; Gondolf, 2004),
and Europe (Akoensi etal., 2012; Arias etal., 2013; Fer-
rer-Perez & Bosch-Fiol, 2018; Ginés Canales etal., 2015;
Hamilton etal., 2012; Wojnicka, 2015), however, there is
evidence that some approaches are more effective than oth-
ers (Eckhardt etal., 2013). Therefore, the question about
what, how, and when to evaluate; what elements comprise
effectiveness; and finally, what are the standards or reference
points for those who need to measure it is constantly raised
(Gondolf, 2004; Eckhardt etal., 2013).
One of the most common reasons cited in effectiveness
studies for the recurrence of violent incidents is the forced
participation of people who use violence in programs and
their lack of motivation, which complicates accepting respon-
sibility for their actions. According to various studies, forced,
usually court-ordered, participation in programs results in
high drop-out rates ranging from 40 to 85% (Babcock etal.,
2016). These high attrition rates have been attributed, in part,
to a failure to consider the perpetrators’ readiness and motiva-
tion for change (Lila etal. 2018). As a result, engaging offend-
ers in behavioral correction through motivational interviewing
has already become an early component of the correctional
process (Stinson & Clark, 2017). Recent studies indicate that
motivational strategies improve working alliance and pro-
therapeutic behaviors (Santirso etal., 2020), and conclude
that the use of various motivational strategies can significantly
contribute to BIP effectiveness (Babcock etal., 2016; Crane
& Eckhardt, 2013; Kistenmacher & Weiss, 2008; Lila etal.,
2018; Silva etal., 2022).
Qualitative research has also been conducted to exam-
ine how the court-mandated nature of a BIP can influence
people’s motivation to change (Holtrop etal., 2017). The
qualitative analysis results show that aspects of the thera-
peutic context may play an important role in the adhe-
sion of offenders to treatment, increasing their motiva-
tion and improving outcomes (Boira etal., 2013; Santirso
etal., 2020). A substantial body of qualitative research
emphasizes the working alliance and the role of the facili-
tator and the importance of an effective group environment
for client engagement in the therapeutic process and moti-
vation to change (Gray etal., 2014; Morrison etal., 2019;
Silvergleid & Mankowski, 2006). Furthermore, qualitative
research has revealed that change occurs through a recip-
rocal process in which change in the group context facili-
tates change within participants and vice versa (Holtrop
etal., 2017). Recent research has put more focus on the
quality of the working relationship between the client, and
the group facilitator. For example, the Group Engagement
Measure identifies what factors might encourage engage-
ment in the group process and suggests that clients feel
more engaged when group leaders show certain leadership
skills (Hamel etal., 2021).
Considering the mixed evidence on BIP effectiveness and
the gaps in current interventions, recently conducted studies
propose a paradigm shift in batterer intervention program-
ming to a care model employing trauma principles with men
(Voith etal., 2020). and ensuring individualized care, treat-
ment integrity, and qualified mental health professionals’
engagement (LeBlanc & Mong, 2021).
Looking foraNew Approach
Another issue concerning BIP effectiveness is the domi-
nance of a specific approach used when working with BIP
attendees. Today, several main approaches are underpin-
ning BIPs, with fundamentally different starting points.
The Duluth model (Domestic Abuse Intervention Project
[DAIP], launched in 1980 in Duluth, Minnesota) repre-
sents one of the primary and most widely used pro-feminist
approaches aimed at power-and-control and the deconstruc-
tion of patriarchy. According to various studies, this is the
most widely applied approach; for example, in the United
States and Canada, more than half of all programs are
based on this perspective (Cannon etal., 2016). However,
the pro-feminist model is mainly criticized for its “one-
size-fits-all” approach, and thus this non-individualized
application of the program is seen as one of the reasons
for the low program effectiveness. While studies indicate
that IPV offenders come from a variety of backgrounds,
many of them are forced to participate in “one-size-fits-
all” programs that do not cater to their specific needs and
do not outline how programs should be adapted or modi-
fied to address specific populations (Hamel etal., 2020).
Those who engage in abusive behavior are automatically
labelled as batterers, but no actual diagnosis is identified
because the perpetrators are fitted to the treatment rather
than the treatment being tailored to the perpetrator (LeB-
lanc & Mong, 2021).
As it is widely acknowledged that the combination of
psychoeducation on power and control dynamics (i.e., the
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Journal of Family Violence
1 3
Duluth Model) and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT)
techniques, which are widely used in BIPs, has limited
effects on reducing or preventing violent perpetration, new
techniques that show more promising results are being
developed. In the Acceptance and Commitment Therapy
(ACT)-based program, for example, significantly fewer par-
ticipants received new charges, domestic assault charges,
or violent charges than in the Duluth/CBT program. The
primary difference between Duluth/CBT and the ACT-based
ACTV program (Achieving Change Through Values-Based
Behavior) philosophies is that the ACTV model does not
teach or require that the content of participants’ thoughts
change for behavior to change, only the way they respond to
their thoughts (Zarling etal., 2019). The Mind-Body Bridg-
ing (MBB) program results also show that MBB participants
had better outcomes than the comparison group, with 9%
of MBB participants failing to complete treatment com-
pared to 29% of the comparison group. Recidivism rates for
the MBB group were also lower (4% vs. 9%) at follow-up
(Tollefson & Phillips, 2015). Such strategies as motivational
tools (Boira etal., 2013; Santirso etal., 2020) and evidence-
based assessment (Gover, 2011)., which are used in addition
to BIP, are also among the most promising approaches to
improving BIP effectiveness. In addition to recidivism rates,
BIP can lead to a number of positive outcomes for male per-
petrators and their families, in addition to recidivism rates.
According to recent research that examined a wide range
of success indicators using innovative research methods,
men demonstrated their ability to acknowledge and respect
women’s views by being more approachable, leaving space
and time for her to speak, listening to her so she felt heard,
and actively seeking her opinion (Kelly & Westmarland,
2015). BIP also improves the ability to understand, cope
with, and express emotions in nonviolent ways (Arvidsson
& Caman, 2022).
Despite new approaches and promising results, many
countries, particularly those in Eastern Europe influenced
by the Soviet Union for nearly half a century, have not sys-
tematically implemented intervention for domestic violence
perpetrators. The most difficult issues associated with work-
ing with people who use violence in this region are the insuf-
ficient number of programs and organizations working in the
field and, second, the lack of a coordinated system of working
with perpetrators (Wojnicka, 2015). According to empirical
research conducted in this region, a one-size-fits-all approach
is prevalent, with poorly coordinated inter-institutional alli-
ances. One-quarter of the BIPs surveyed do not participate
in inter-institutional networks for a coordinated response to
IPV, and one out of every three programs does not collabo-
rate with victim support and counseling services and has no
contact with the abusers’ current or ex-partners. As a result,
victims are not informed about or otherwise involved in BIP
implementation, which unquestionably affects not only the
evaluation of the program’s effectiveness but also compli-
cates the coordination and monitoring of the entire process
of ensuring victim safety (Ginés Canales etal., 2015).
The current paper seeks to shed light on the situation
in Lithuania by identifying recent challenges to BIP imple-
mentation that may be replicated in other Eastern European
countries or in different non-European contexts. It also aims
to reflect on ongoing debates on BIPs’ implementation,
which include various elements of the correctional process,
such as risk assessment, participants’ motivation, application
of differential treatment, overall process coordination, and
cooperation among inter-institutional alliances.
Present Study
Overview
According to the Lithuanian Department of Statistics, in
2020, there were a total of 58,553 reports of domestic vio-
lence registered with the police, of which only 7132 quali-
fied as offenses, implying that pre-trial investigations were
initiated in only 12.2% of cases (the absolute majority of
which, 6732) were related to causing minor health disorders
(Lithuanian Department of Statistics, 2020). Given the grav-
ity of the offenses, the vast majority of people convicted of
domestic violence (or released from criminal liability by
imposing another criminal measure) are listed in the data
register of the Lithuanian Probation Service’s regional
offices. In 2020, there were a total of 5820 people on the
above-mentioned register. Of those, 2219 were required to
take part in the BIP and 1888 finished it (Prison Department
under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania,
2020).
The regional offices of the Probation Service in Lithuania
organize and run programs for changing violent behavior.
These programs are also carried out by certain men’s crisis
centers, non-governmental organizations, and volunteers
with whom the Probation Service has collaboration agree-
ments. In Lithuania, either the feminist-psychoeducational
or CBT models, which are currently dominant globally
(Saunders, 2008), are used; alternatively, a combination
of the two approaches is used in practice. Individuals who
have used domestic violence may be eligible to participate in
the group program “Intervention Programme for Domestic
Violence Offenders,“ which is based on the Duluth model,
and, in some cases, in the cognitive behavioral correctional
program “One-to-One,“ which is based on CBT. These pro-
grams are supplemented by interventions based on moti-
vational interviewing; depending on the person’s level of
motivation, the probation officer may refer the perpetrator to
the motivational program “Behavior–Conversation–Change”
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Journal of Family Violence
1 3
(hereinafter, BCC, which was introduced for application in
the Lithuanian penitentiary system in 2005).
In 2020, a total of 446 people participated in the Lithu-
anian Probation Service’s “Intervention Programme for
Domestic Violence Perpetrators” based on the Duluth
model, with 357 completing the program (Prison Depart-
ment under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithu-
ania, 2020). As a result, only 7.66% of the total number of
people on the register (446 out of 5820) took part in the
Duluth program. This low rate of participation is due to
various factors, including a lack of program facilitators and
limitations imposed on contact work due to the coronavirus
pandemic. However, the most important reasons are related
to the court-imposed obligations to participate in BIP. Thus,
in 2020, only 2219 out of 5820 domestic violence perpetra-
tors were ordered to participate in the BIP, accounting for
38.12%. In comparison, according to various studies, in the
United States, this figure is around 80–90% (Price & Rosen-
baum, 2009). In contrast, the court orders assign a too short
timeframe for participation, preventing the majority of peo-
ple who use violence from participating in the Duluth pro-
gram. Even though the program usually lasts for 6 months in
Lithuania, the court may only order participants to take part
for a few months. If this happens, only short motivational
programs or unapproved BIPs run by the non-government
sector can be used as alternatives.
The risk–need–responsivity model (RNR) predominates in
the Lithuanian offenders’ resocialization system (Žilinskienė
& Tumilaitė, 2011), so risk assessments can be initiated
for those probationers admitted to BIP. Only adapted and
approved methodologies (set by the Order No V-211 of the
Director of the Prisons Department under the Ministry of
Justice of the Republic of Lithuania) are used in Lithuania
to assess adult criminal behavior. The risk assessment data is
used to develop a sentencing plan that considers the perpetra-
tor’s needs, behavioral correction measures, motivation to
change, and so on. However, it should be noted that the risk
assessment is only applied to probationers, that is, those on
conditional release from prison or sentence suspension. The
vast majority of people who use violence, in contrast, are not
subject to probation or risk assessments for their criminal
behavior. In 2020, the risk of criminal behavior was assessed
for 856 people out of 5,820 domestic perpetrators under the
supervision of the Probation Service, representing only
14.7% of the total number of domestic perpetrators (Prison
Department under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of
Lithuania, 2020). Therefore, most domestic abusers’ assess-
ment of the risk of criminal behavior is replaced by the first
interview with a probation officer, during which, among other
things, the person’s motivation to participate in a program
to change his or her violent behavior is evaluated. Thus, the
statistics show that only a small proportion of people who
use violence in Lithuania participate in behavioral correction
programs. Hence, it is necessary to consider a balanced, coor-
dinated, and evidence-based approach toward working with
perpetrators to change their violent behavior, also identify the
challenges and effectiveness of the use of BIP, and combine
different BIP approaches or elements.
This study does not intend to present generalized data but
rather to research participants’ perceptions, interpretations,
and beliefs, obtaining a detailed and comprehensive picture
of the specific topic from their perspective. Hence, the study
aimed to explore the challenges of BIP implementation from
the different perspectives of the BIP facilitators, the program
participants themselves, and other institutions working in the
field of IPV. The goal of this paper is to identify the factors that
can contribute to more successful program implementation and
to highlight the main challenges encountered during program
implementation by drawing on the unique perspectives of key
stakeholders (attendees, facilitators, and associated organiza-
tions) to make this paper unique.
Methods
The paper is based on a qualitative study in which 50 semi-
structured interviews and three focus group discussions were
conducted. The majority of the empirical data was gathered
from the interviews with BIP facilitators (22 interviews) and
with people who had perpetrated IPV and who took part in
a BIP (24 interviews). Furthermore, representatives of the
child protection service, IPV victims’ advocates, and other
non-governmental organization (NGO) representatives,
county policy makers, and municipal officials, as well as
police officers and prosecutors, took part in the focus-group
discussions. The research was carried out in 2020 and 2021
in two regions, Vilnius and Klaipėda, where BIPs are imple-
mented most intensively.
The sample of professionals from various stakeholder
institutions working in the field was formed by selecting
the most experienced and active experts and using snowball
sampling (when research participants recommended other
respondents). The interview guidelines for BIP facilitators
covered six thematic blocks: (1) information about BIP
(nature of programs); (2) access to programs and the entire
process of BIP implementation; (3) specificities of work-
ing with different groups of perpetrators; (4) difficulties and
challenges in running BIP; (5) opportunities for collabora-
tion with other institutions; and (6) training and professional
development. Interviews with BIP facilitators took an aver-
age of 46min.
In the case of BIPs attendees, the sample was formed
with the assistance of BIP facilitators, to whom researchers
provided specific guidelines for selecting research partici-
pants. The guidelines included particular features such as
the length of time since completing the BIP, the type of
violence, and the number of violence episodes (including
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Journal of Family Violence
1 3
first-time domestic violence perpetrators and repeated per-
petrators). These guidelines aided researchers in ensuring a
diverse group of participants. Individuals interviewed were
people who were enrolled in or had completed BIP at the
time of the interview (up to two years before). Our research
participants were convicted of crimes ranging from minor
bodily harm to homicide. The interview guidelines for the
qualitative study with BIPs attendees included three blocks
of questions: (1) knowledge about BIP before entering pro-
bation (and the program) and the situation of a domestic
violence episode; (2) the person’s experience participating
in BIP (evaluation of BIP goals, facilitators, benefits of the
program, etc.), and (3) the evaluation of life after comple-
tion of the program (some changes experienced, changes in
relationship with intimate partner, continuity of behavior
correction, etc.). Interviews with BIPs attendees took an
average of 33min.
In the final phase of the research, three focus-group dis-
cussions were held with various stakeholders working in the
field to discuss cooperation and coordinated response to IPV.
In total, 18 different representatives from governmental and
non-governmental institutions took part in focus-group dis-
cussions, which lasted an average of 96min. All interviews
were conducted by experienced researchers, and before each
interview, verbal or written informed participant consent
was obtained. Each interview was recorded, transcribed, and
analyzed with MAXQDA software, following a qualitative
content analysis approach. All members of the research team
(authors of this paper) independently coded two interviews
from both groups (facilitators/focus group participants and
program participants) to begin the analysis. Each coder
went line by line through the text to assign thematic codes
and sub-codes. Following this phase, the researchers met to
review and discuss the coding; a unified system of codes and
subcodes was developed during these meetings. The remain-
ing interviews were coded using an established code system.
During the course of the coding process, some clarifications
and additional useful codes were added. The findings were
only used in a summarized manner, and participants’ ano-
nymity was guaranteed. This analysis seeks to focus on the
challenges and problems of implementing the approved BIPs
in Lithuania, with the goal of discussing and reflecting on
the prospects of effective, integrated, and individualized
application of evidence-based programs.
Research Findings: Challenges oftheBIP
Implementation inLithuania
External v. Internal Motivation
One of the most difficult challenges that many program facil-
itators face, regardless of the program’s content or focus, is
the motivation of the people who used violence against their
intimate partners:
It’s almost as if nothing is missing from the program.
Except that the same clients’ willingness and motiva-
tion are not present the next time. “What do I need
here?” you know, “What do I need here?” Well,
you know, you have to work hard with the person…
because, you know, there are still people in their for-
ties coming in …. (Facilitator of program #12)
The fact that people who use violence are brought into the
programs through external motivation, such as.
a court order, is regarded as one of the most critical fac-
tors determining the attrition rate and the program’s overall
impact. The experts who participated in focus group discus-
sions emphasized that programs are facilitated at the very
last stage, making it difficult to motivate people and achieve
quick results with very advanced levels of violent behavior:
The issue is not so much with the programs themselves
as it is with the fact that help arrives too late, when
relationships have practically broken down and the
person as a person has already degraded, particularly
in the probation service. We know that a significant
proportion of them, we are dealing with the third or
fought stage of cancer You cannot, of course, expect
very high results when working with such people. (Psy-
chologist, non-governmental organization representa-
tive, focus group discussion #2)
Furthermore, as evidenced by the interviews, there is still
a very formalistic approach to programs, with the belief that
neither participation nor active engagement is required:
As usual, 99% of the people arrive with a negative
attitude, treating us as enemies. Either they believe:
“Well, we’ll come and sign, that’s all”. That is, after
all, the mindset. They think I agreed to everything, so
they sentenced me, and they gave me some kind of pro-
gram here, but it’s like school – “if I want to go, I will,
if I don’t, I won’t”. (Facilitator of program #11)
Therefore, BIP facilitators that took part in our research
also stressed the critical importance of motivating people
before engaging them in the program:
Of course, we also sometimes use the BCC’s moti-
vational program, which in the reality is not desig-
nated for perpetrators, but we adapt it in a way that,
for example, when talking mainly about the violence
itself. If we see that the person needs to be motivated.
Because in the program, of course, when he goes to
the program, it is very important that he admits that
he has used violence, that he does not deny it. The
BCC with its motivational nature helps the person a
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Journal of Family Violence
1 3
lot, motivates him a little bit to go through it. (Facilita-
tor of program #14)
Although the program facilitators who participated in the
research did not doubt the importance of motivational inter-
ventions, the assignment of a motivational BCC program in
Lithuania is not mandatory, and it usually depends on the
decision of the probation officer who supervises the perpe-
trator and his or her judgment on whether a motivational
program is necessary. The data on the frequency with which
the motivational program is assigned to the people who per-
petrate domestic violence are not collected; consequently, it
is not possible to speak about the extent to which it is used
in the work with perpetrators of violence. As the program
is nonobligatory in nature, usually its assignment remains
at the discretion of the probation officer and may depend
on a variety of factors, such as the officer’s own interest in
conducting the program in addition to his or her existing
workload, and so forth. As the result, it can be argued that,
although a tool to motivate people who use violence is avail-
able in Lithuania, its effectiveness and the extent to which it
is used in general is not yet clear.
Analyzing the participants’ own assessment of their ini-
tial readiness, willingness, and need to participate in a BIP
program, it can be observed that before entering the pro-
gram, many of them had little knowledge of such programs,
and even less of their aim or purpose:
Well, I didn’t. I hadn’t come across it before …. I mean,
that’s the punishment they gave me. It was the first time
the punishment had been like that, so it sounded inter-
esting. (Program participant #5)
Since all the participants were admitted to the program
by court order, some of them considered their participation
coercive:
I don’t know, maybe there are some people who like
it and who may say it’s good, that it’s a plus, but con-
sider it as a violence and it is the same violence but
from the other side. Roughly speaking. [Smiles] (Pro-
gram participant #13).
Some were also driven by a desire to complete the pro-
gram as soon as possible, seeing it as an element of punish-
ment to get over of as soon as possible:
… so that, you know, the whole situation moves for-
ward faster in a sense, so that nobody really blames
me for not doing anything here. Here in one word, I
wanted to do this and the program, to do everything
properly. So, that there were no such reproaches. (Pro-
gram participant #14)
Thus, as we can see from the interviews, the majority of
the people who entered the BIP program had never heard
of such programs before and were strongly influenced by
an external motivational factor, that is, the desire to avoid
imprisonment or to escape the officials’ attention. In other
words, the motivation to change harmful behavior comes
primarily from avoiding the harmful consequences to one-
self rather than to others.
For some participants, the motivation to change and adopt
the behavioral patterns suggested by the program has gradu-
ally increased:
It was really embarrassing in the first days to have to
confess something in front of everyone here. Well, it
was really uncourageous, but then, as time went on,
these were quite normal people, normal professionals.
So, I knew a lot of things myself, but they explained it
much better. Well, they were really nice. I don’t regret
having participated …. It really makes sense …. The
probation ended, but I went to finish it on purpose.
Well, really, I got that diploma, I don’t regret it …. I
gave up alcohol … she is happy …. You’ve changed,
you’ve started to think differently (a girlfriend says).
You can ask herself, I’ll bring her …. She’s waiting
downstairs now. (Program participant #2)
However, there were some participants whose negative
attitudes toward the need for the program did not change,
in other words, they did not get motivated to change their
behavior. For example, one participant felt that it was impos-
sible to change an older person because their worldview,
habits, and attitudes had already been formed.
Although, to be honest, I’ll tell you, when a person ….
You can change the worldview of a 17- to 20-year-old,
as they say, in some other way. Some input when you
raise children, yes? And by the age of 50, a person has
already formed …. He has already been raised, so to
speak, according to his culture, in his own way …. If
someone has been raised not very well, for example,
it’s unlikely that he’ll give anything to anyone. Hardly
anything. Well, for the young, that’s relevant. (Program
participant #15)
Another participant noted that he only attended the pro-
gram out of respect for the facilitators:
I listened, I gave my opinion and that’s it. I think
nobody can change a person. He can change himself.
Do you understand this? The facilitators were really
good, they did their job, I honored them, I listened to
them, I gave some kind of my opinion and that’s it. And
so … well, nobody can change anything if the person
doesn’t want to change himself. Do you know what I
mean? (Program participant #18)
It should be noted that the negative evaluations of the
program may be related in part to denial of the violent
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Journal of Family Violence
1 3
behavior or attempts to minimize the guilt (e.g., by stating
that it was a “coincidence,” “just a slander”), or criticism
of the content of the program. This could indicate that
some people were not motivated enough to participate in
the correctional process, or that they lost motivation dur-
ing the process.
For me personally, it [the program—author’s note] has
given nothing. Well, I’m saying, I’ve seen more stress-
ful situations in my life than I’ve been shown in those
programs. Sometimes there are funny situations there
[starts laughing]. Well, just funny ones …. [laughs]
I’m a psychologist myself. I don’t really need the help
of a psychologist for 100 years. I can work with myself.
Well, just. Well, hold on to something if I need to, to
calm down somehow …. I simply don’t see a problem
here, at least for myself …. For these people, maybe
this program would be more valuable than for me.
Cause I say that this is just a coincident case. There is
a fight, but I didn’t fight. There was a situation which
I didn’t like, when a kid acted somehow mean to his
mother …. Well, and I was maybe somewhat at that
time, drunk, so to speak, so that too. That’s all. What’s
the Russian word for that? I gave a slap, that’s what it
means. (Program participant #7)
Both program leaders and participants emphasized that
participant motivation, engagement, and overall program
effectiveness are highly determined by the program leaders’
competence and professionalism:
I would say that the facilitators should be flexible and
talk to the person because, you know, just like in psy-
chotherapy, there are many schools and directions, but
the effectiveness is more or less the same and depends
on the personality of the therapist at the core. Any pro-
gram will work if the personality is strong. It works if
you stand where you need to stand. Yes, I would say
that the facilitators play a significant role. (Facilitator
of program #10)
It is heavily dependent on the facilitators. The pro-
fessionals… and they, how can I put it, advise and
prompt us, and they, you know, they demand that you
do something on your own. (Program participant #8)
As the statements by the BIP facilitators and participants
show, motivation is therefore one of the indispensable ele-
ments for successful participation in the program. While
the facilitators’ professionalism and preparedness are criti-
cal in motivating court-mandated individuals to participate
as actively as possible in the program, the facilitators also
emphasize the importance and need for interventions based
on motivational interviewing. As it has already been noted,
although there is a BCC motivational program in Lithu-
ania, the assignment of the program to the particular person
remains at the discretion of the probation officers and often
depends on the officers’ capacity and interest to conduct the
program as an additional workload.
One‑Size‑Does‑Not Fit All, andtheNecessity
ofDifferential Treatment
BIP participants’ motivation may depend not only on their
internal motivation, but also on such factors whether the
approach toward behavioral change is individualized and
whether the program is well matched to the participants.
Despite the lack of assessment or screening tools in Lithu-
ania that could contribute to the individualization of correc-
tional work with people who perpetrate domestic violence,
BIP facilitators and other experts stressed the importance of
analyzing the case and providing any additional assistance
that is required.
This occurs occasionally, for example, if a person has
other problems and needs, whether psychological or
physical, or if he is unable to come abstinent to the
group, for example, he is unable to come sober, and
sobriety is one of the basic criteria in this group, he
is unable to participate. As a result, it is necessary to
direct him first to solve the addiction problem, after
which he can participate with us if he has already
stopped drinking alcohol. It’s that kind of individual
work with a person. It’s more like, what’s the word? It
is not an assessment, but rather some kind of screen-
ing or selection, confirmation of whether a person is
suitable to participate in this group program, as we
need to confirm the people who are sent to us by the
probation. (Facilitator of program #13)
So, perhaps we should also consider the recipient
of our assistance: who they are, how we help them,
in what way, and what the intervention’s content is.
Because cognitive functions... low cognitive functions
exist. There are mostly addictions, and the addictions
are deeply ingrained. We have families, we no longer
use the term “families at risk,“ but we also have fami-
lies who have been at risk for 14 years. That means
there was addiction, violence, relationship issues, par-
enting skills issues, and everything else. It’s a difficult
thing to look at <...>. There have long been issues. So,
perhaps we should talk about two different groups of
people here? I mean, people who come with motiva-
tion, apply themselves, and have sufficient resources to
participate in the programs, so perhaps the program
content should be different there? And then there are
those who lack resources, lack cognitive skills, and
are unmotivated in any way; what programs should
be designed for them? What should the content be?
So, perhaps that should be discussed as well? (Psy-
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Journal of Family Violence
1 3
chologist, child protection service representative, focus
group discussion #2)
Futhermore participant selection is required because,
in some cases, participation in a group is not suitable for
everyone and can have serious consequences for the group
dynamics:
No, I would think that they should probably work
with them individually, because the person who is
already against the program and doesn’t recognize
that there had been violence, then he is already set-
ting all the others in the group against. For exam-
ple, we have even excluded a person from the group
because he was causing destruction (Facilitator of
program #4).
In Lithuania, as already mentioned, in addition to the
Duluth program, there is also an individual program based
on CBT called One-to-One. However, program facilita-
tors observed that this program could only be proposed to
a limited extent due to its peculiarities and the additional
resources required:
First and foremost, there are limited human resources,
time resources, and our basic functions... We are cur-
rently solving many problems in our district, such as
how to implement these programs, because, for exam-
ple, the program “One-to-One” is very specific, with
a very narrow selection of participants, and it is also
a cognitive program, similar to the therapy program.
It’s also quite long, with 12 sessions, one every week
or two... (Facilitator of program #16).
During the interviews, participants were also asked
whether the group program was the right form of participa-
tion or whether they felt comfortable, and those who par-
ticipated in the individual program were asked about their
needs for participation in the group program. Some program
participants pointed out that the program they had attended
was not suitable for everyone:
The program itself may be fine. But I’m saying, who
is it for? For what person? Is it for the person who is
totally irrelevant, or is it for the person who behaves
like this often, or constantly? Is this probation helpful
for him, I do not know. For me, personally, probation
has neither helped nor hindered me. For me, as I say,
it is interesting. (Program participant #21)
The analysis of the interviews, on the other hand, revealed
that the majority of participants were satisfied with the for-
mat of the program they were directed to. Those who took
part in the individual program reported that they could not
imagine how it would be possible to learn something in a
group, and vice versa: those who took part in the group
program said that it would have been “difficult” and “not
interesting” in an individual program. In terms of the form
of participation in a particular program, both the individual
program and the group program participants gave similar
positive evaluations:
It’s even better in a group. There, you don’t have to …
yourself and all the time. One person speaks, then the
other one, and so somehow the time passes faster. And
you get to hear the different people’s experiences ….
(Program participant #22)
I have no idea how it’s supposed to work. I … for
example, my head can’t take it. Group. I have no idea
what should be done there. How do people prepare the
program there. In general, what do they do there …
because such a program, in my opinion, is to be only
individual. (Program participant #21)
In conclusion, it is worth noting that the implementation
of a differential treatment toward working with people who
perpetrate partner violence in Lithuania is indeed possible to
some extent, as the Probation Service has at its disposal some
of the resources necessary for such implementation, that is,
group and individual programs, a motivational interviewing
program, approved and scientifically based methodologies for
assessing the risk of offending behavior. However, the current
process lacks systematicity, human resources, and more effec-
tive management of existing measures.
Implementation ofBIP Programs: Inter‑Institutional
Cooperation andCoordinated Response
Inter-institutional cooperation and coordinated action are
essential to ensure that the resources available to all rel-
evant institutions working on domestic violence are used
in a purposeful and effective manner. The importance of
a coordinated approach, inter alia the involvement of all
relevant institutions and a joined and coordinated response
to IPV, was also highlighted by the program facilitators and
other experts who participated in the research:
Well, basically, I think the first thing here is a conver-
sation between all the institutions interested in imple-
menting this and helping people, and it depends on
the approach of the municipality itself <…> Without
that approach, then it is difficult, because for the Pro-
bation Service themselves, without that cooperation,
without that support, it is very difficult to overcome
these challenges and to take on that responsibility
alone, because we …first and foremost, there are lim-
ited human resources, time resources, and our core
functions. (Facilitator of program #16)
Begin with a question or a case.“ It would be even
better to discuss the case because it involves many pro-
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Journal of Family Violence
1 3
cesses that are inconvenient, unworkable, repetitive,
and inefficient across all institutions, and we would
like our institution, the Welfare Centre or the Centre
of IPV victims’ advocates, to initiate the case. Then, as
the public prosecutor suggested, we can discuss who
can do what, to the greatest extent possible, and to
do more than is possible. The action then begins. At
this point, I’d like to say. (Senior specialist, municipal
social service department, focus group discussion #1)
Various stakeholders and program facilitators emphasized
a number of issues that arise during the cooperation process
that should be addressed in order to make the cooperation
more effective. One of them very formalistic and biurocratic
approach:
But the institutions all operate differently and within
the confines of the law, and there is a nasty phrase. I
hate that phrase “in accordance with the law.“<...>
Everyone is working within the framework of the law,
but the person is left behind, and those critical cases,
the examples show that programs are programs, ideas
are ideas, but when everyone is working for them-
selves, there is no common communication, and that
is where the trouble usually occurs. Those programs
lose their meaning, their, shall we say, attractiveness,
and the, shall we say, human aspect, that there is a
person behind it all. (Legal councellor, private sector,
focus group discussion #3)
Shorten that path because these women are really
shocked, and then you have to go and get the certifi-
cates, then you have to go and ask the investigator,
who doesn’t always give out orders, then you have to
go to the municipality, and now it’s even more com-
plicated because of the quarantine. They don’t have
computers, no place to scan and sign, no documents to
submit to the municipality, and what should that per-
son do? (Public attorney, focus group discussion #3)
The joined work of varous stakeholders is also often
hampered insituations where authorities act in a chaotic
manner, offering a range of different interventions simul-
taneously. In this case, in addition to the BIP, people who
use violence participate in other programs (e.g., take part
in parenting skills training, visit psychologists, or addiction
recovery counselors) organized by municipal social services
or other institutions. The institutions, fearing that they may
be accused of being passive toward a family with problems
and not ensuring a variety of measures, decide to hedge their
bets and offer, sometimes unreasonably, a number of differ-
ent measures or programs to the individual at the same time:
I see the fear among the case managers themselves,
the social workers, that God forbid something hap-
pens again in that family, … it’s not the family and
their relationship here, … because those people… will
happen, but the worker, that he didn’t offer something
to them. And from that fear, the situation is that the
process is, let’s say, chaotic, exaggerated, and so on.
Instead, of being, let’s say, coherent. And people are
often so lost when they come: “Today I have to go to a
mediator, to an addiction counselor, to a psychologist
… and, you know, I don’t know, it’s going to make my
head spin.” It would indeed make me dizzy. [Laughs]
This is supposed to be such a flexible, individual, step-
by-step job. Then it would really work. (Facilitator of
the program #16)
According to the program facilitators who took part in
the research, one of the most important elements of a coor-
dinated response is close collaboration with victim support
organizations. However, both the research and the interviews
with program managers highlighted that such cooperation
is often complicated. The negative and hostile attitude
demonstrated by the victim support organizations was also
highlighted by the BIP facilitators who participated in the
research:
I don’t know. Actually, sometimes that understanding
is probably needed, because the organizations that
take care of victims are often hostile to perpetrators
[smiles], aren’t they? And the people who run the
program for perpetrators say that: “There is no fire
without smoke” [laughs]. And that’s a bit of a contra-
position, actually …. How to improve it? Well, simply
probably through some kind of cooperation. (Facilita-
tor of program #17)
In contrast, negative attitudes tend to change, and profes-
sionals from victim support institutions who participated in
the focus groups highlighted the benefits of cooperation with
program facilitators:
We have some cases where we even simply organize the
case-study discussion groups with probation, because
they have a man who comes to this batterers’ interven-
tion program, we have a woman who comes as a vic-
tim. We see a greater impact … on both, on their rela-
tionship, specifically on their awareness, to understand
the problem of violence itself, to integrate some, well,
let’s say, changes into their relationship, into their
behavior, into their awareness, into their thoughts,
into their attitude, into the future. (Specialist, Centre
of IPV victims’ advocates, focus group discussion #1)
Cooperation becomes particularly relevant when the
victim of violence and the person who uses violence
remain living together after the offense. In such cases,
the involvement of the victim of violence into the behav-
ior change process plays an important role in changing
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Journal of Family Violence
1 3
the behavior of the partner and in the further develop-
ment of a nonviolent partnership, as the abuser’s behavior
change takes place in interaction with the victim, who has
to learn how to recognize and assess the changes in the
aforementioned abuser’s behavior. The research reveals
the importance that participants themselves attach to the
involvement of their spouse or partner in the process of
changing violent behavior. In terms of the content of the
program and its shortcomings, some participants noted
that addressing intimate partner’s violence would require
understanding and support from both sides, which was
lacking in the program itself:
Well, I think the program is a bit underdeveloped.
Why? Because, in principle, in these things there
need to be two parties. Although maybe at least
if not all together, then separately, so to speak ….
Because one party—he understands that, but there
has to be a second party that wants this, you under-
stand? That’s why I think that if something like this
is done, it needs both parties. So that there is a full
understanding. Program participant #15)
Furthermore, program participants expressed concern
that the benefits of participating in the program are one-
sided, “only for me maybe,” which is not enough to change
the relationship.
Yeah, they won’t do anything, these courses, to
improve our relationship, because the other party
is not involved and it’s only for my benefit, maybe.
In the future maybe. Well, I don’t know. (Program
participant #22)
The other group of participants, however, saw the vic-
tim’s involvement as a means of sharing responsibility
and punishment for their violent behavior. These partici-
pants frequently avoided admitting guilt by blaming the
victim and discussing specific causes of violence related
to the victim. Thus, on the one hand, victim involvement
can be viewed as an opportunity to strengthen the pro-
cess of change in violent behavior and its outcomes; on
the other hand, victim involvement can only be consid-
ered after assessing potential risks and ensuring victim
protection. It means that the question of whether victims
of violence should participate in the program should
not be approached mechanically, with one or the other
option, such as involving victims from the beginning or,
conversely, refusing to do so, being chosen. Instead, this
issue must be addressed on a case-by-case basis, depend-
ing on persons’ motivation and attitude, most notably by
acknowledging the violence and accepting responsibility.
There is a consensus among stakeholders’ institutions
that, in order to have response to domestic violence more
coordinated, the municipalities, which have information on
all the social services and measures currently available in
a given region, should take a more proactive role in the of
services to change violent behavior. The need for a stronger
coordinator’s role is also highlighted by the victims’ advo-
cates who participated in the study:
First of all, the municipalities themselves should take
the initiative here, and the municipalities should set up
some kind of inter-institutional cooperation working
groups or something, with the participation of special-
ized complex assistance centers, probation, the police
and children’s rights. Different institutions and then
we could probably solve those problems. (Specialist,
Centre of IPV victims’ advocates, focus group discus-
sion #2)
In Lithuania, BIP providers are somewhat marginalized,
whereas the organizations advocating for women against
violence call for a greater emphasis on enforcing criminal
liability for perpetrators. Seeing the problem of domestic
violence through the lens of a single institution complicates
the coordinated joint action of all stakeholders, which,
according to our findings, lacks coherence, integrity, and
systematic cooperation.
Discussion
While both academics and policy makers agree that a coor-
dinated community response to IPV is not possible without
BIP, the qualitative aspects of BIP implementation are still
at the margins of research and social policy discourse (Aaron
& Beaulaurier, 2016). The implementation of BIP faces
several challenges, including high attrition and an increase
in participants who are unmotivated to change, as well as
recidivism rates among those who have completed BIP
(Aaron & Beaulaurier, 2016; Cannon etal., 2016). On the
other hand, recent studies on BIPs using alternative models
for intervention have demonstrated more promising results
(Voith etal., 2020; Zarling etal., 2019; Gray etal., 2014;
Kelly & Westmarland, 2015). In recent decades, research-
ers have been delving deeper into the factors that influence
the quality and efficacy of BIP, and there is a growing need
for a thorough examination of the entire BIP implementa-
tion process. Promoting qualitative research to examine the
impact of BIPs constitutes a promising avenue for inform-
ing outcome research and ultimately enhancing the contin-
ued implementation and adaptation of BIPs (Holtrop etal.,
2017).
First, one of the major challenges identified in our
research by the BIP facilitators and representatives of stake-
holders for effective BIP implementation is the motivation
of BIP participants. In research and correctional work with
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Journal of Family Violence
1 3
BIPs attendees, it was observed that the use of interventions
based on motivational interviewing is inevitable when the
persons who use violence deny or minimize their violent
behavior and blame the victim or other circumstances. As
a result, motivation enhancement therapy and other moti-
vational interview-based interventions have become more
widely used in working with IPV offenders, implying that
the use of motivational interviews can significantly con-
tribute to BIP effectiveness (Babcock etal., 2016; Crane
& Eckhardt, 2013; Kistenmacher & Weiss, 2008;Murphy
& Eckhardt, 2005). In our research study, the motivational
interview was also considered as an essential element of
the BIP application process that could contribute to suc-
cessful program completion. Our findings indicate that some
persons denied their guilt, blamed the victim, or refused to
accept responsibility for their violent behavior after partici-
pating in the Duluth program. It is possible that these indi-
viduals were not motivated enough to participate in the BIP
or lost motivation during their participation in the BIP due
to inadvertent selection of the BIP, lack of competence of
the BIP facilitators, or other factors. According to experts
in the field who took part in focus group discussions, BIP
participants’ violent behavior is usually progressed and
led by a variety of other social problems, so motivating
them is the first step. Thus, while the need for motivational
interviews is undeniable, the extent and impact of its use
in Lithuania, as demonstrated by this research study, has
yet to be investigated. In accordance with previous research
(Bouchard & Wong, 2021; Morrison etal., 2019; Silvergleid
& Mankowski, 2006; Hamel etal., 2021), our research par-
ticipants, BIP facilitators and attendees, emphasized the sig-
nificance of working alliances and the role of the facilitator.
Some BIP participants stated that they were encouraged in
a positive way by the facilitators and other attendees, which
motivated them to complete the program.
As has already been mentioned, the one-size-fits-all
approach is widely used in Lithuania and throughout the
Eastern European region, as well as the lack of different
well-designed evidence-based programs and the poor use
of risk assessment tools. The difficulties associated with
the widespread use of a one-size-fits-all approach could be
addressed by systematically utilizing the resources available
within the Lithuanian probation system that are partially
suited to more individualized treatment. Both BIP stake-
holders/facilitators and participants brought up the issue of
BIP attendee heterogeneity and the need for program content
differentiation. Interviews with BIP participants revealed
that some of them were not willing to admit their violent
behavior, therefore specific correction approaches should be
selected in some cases. This logic is also described in empir-
ical research (Hamel etal., 2020), which explicitly warns
that the one-size-fits-all perspective used in the Duluth
model may not only lead to poor program effectiveness but
may also contribute to participant demotivation. In addition,
BIP facilitators emphasized that the incorporation of indi-
vidual and group versions of programs based on traditional
Duluth and CBT theoretical and methodological approaches,
as well as new alternative programs, would be reasonable
and greatly appreciated. However, the current implementa-
tion process of BIP lacks human resources and more effec-
tive management of existing measures by evaluating what
is already available in correctional treatment and what pro-
grams are lacking to make treatment more effective. Prom-
ising outcomes of alternative programs, such as the previ-
ously mentioned ACT-based ACTV program, demonstrate
that its flexibility is better suited to the heterogeneity of the
population of men who engage in IPV than the one-size-
fits-all model (Zarling etal., 2019). The inclusion of such
alternative programs could aid in supplementing existing
BIP practices and implementing an individualized approach.
Furthermore, in Lithuania, evidence-based methodolo-
gies for assessing the risk of criminal behavior are only
applied to probationers, whereas the vast majority of peo-
ple who perpetrate partner violence are not probationers; as
a result, the risk of criminal behavior is not assessed at all.
Recent research emphasizes the importance of risk-need-
responsivity assessments, which allow for the determination
of both the length and intensity of treatment in accordance
with the client’s risks and criminogenic needs (Gover, 2011;
LeBlanc & Mong, 2021).The importance of screening for
prior service utilization history, which can help identify cli-
ents with complex psychosocial health issues who require
higher levels of support in achieving behavioral change, is
also emphasized (Morrison etal., 2021a, b). As Voith etal.
(2020) suggest, further investigation into underlying path-
ways leading from childhood trauma to adulthood perpetra-
tion of IPV, including environmental factors (e.g., commu-
nity violence, gang involvement, and prosocial activities)
and health factors (e.g., substance use), could provide valu-
able insights for earlier intervention.
However, in Lithuania, the assessment of individual needs
and individualization of treatment is based on an initial con-
versation between the probation officer and the person who
uses violence, during which, as previously stated, the pro-
bation officer’s decisions may be influenced by the officer’s
will and various practical circumstances. BIP facilitators
stressed that if they see it necessary, they will try to analyze
some peculiarities of the case and provide any additional
assistance that is required. According to program facilitators,
many BIP participants have substance use issues that should
be addressed before entering the program, as well as other
long-term issues that should be addressed concurrently.
The study also reveals that various procedural issues
arise at different stages of the BIP process. For exam-
ple, participation in the BIP is not mandatory for more
than half of the persons who use violence. Moreover, the
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Journal of Family Violence
1 3
ordered period of participation is frequently insufficient for
those required to participate. These and other factors, such
as a lack of BIP facilitators or other resources, contribute
to a very low participation rate in approved BIPs (e.g., up
to 8% of BIPs attendees in the Duluth program annually).
Although tools, as already been mentioned, for systematic
and consistent application of BIPs appear to be available in
Lithuania (evidence-based risk assessment, BIPs based on
two different approaches: feminist-psychoeducational and
CBT, and motivational programs), their use is complicated
by a lack of clearer and consistent regulation of the BIP
process and a unified approach. As demonstrated by the
Lithuanian example, the initial assessment of the offender
is critical because it allows not only for the identifica-
tion of the most appropriate interventions but also for the
direction of collaboration with other stakeholders, such
as victim advocates. It also assesses an offender’s motiva-
tion, responsiveness to change, and any areas that require
additional intervention from social services.
Finally, it is now recognized that the issue of all rel-
evant institutions’ involvement and cooperation must
be addressed first to improve the outcomes of BIPs and
strengthen perpetrator accountability (Pallatino etal.,
2019). Even though reducing perpetration is an essential
component of such approaches, BIPs are frequently over-
looked in coordinated community responses to IPV (Kelly
& Westmarland, 2015). As previously observed (Ginés
Canales etal., 2015), one-quarter of the BIPs surveyed in
the Eastern European region do not participate in inter-
institutional networks for a coordinated response to IPV,
and one out of every thre programs does not collaborate
with victim’s support and counseling services. Coopera-
tion between BIP and women’s victim advocates is also
complicated by the fact that most organizations advocat-
ing for victims and some Lithuanian scholars are skepti-
cal about the obligation of the person who uses violence
to participate in a program to change his behavior and
the safety of victims. The proponents also stress that the
effectiveness of BIPs is not approved by research (the data
varies), calling for a stronger focus on victim-centered pre-
vention programs, education and awareness-raising cam-
paigns, and early primary prevention, which involves all
men and boys (Vaigė, 2016). Victim support institutions
and male BIPs facilitators often tend not to collaborate but
to compete since they view domestic violence prevention
in a very narrow way, exclusively through the prism of
their own institution’s goals (Pallatino etal., 2019). The
negative and hostile attitude demonstrated by the victim
support organizations was also highlighted by the BIP
facilitators who participated in the research. Our research
also revealed tensions between BIPs and victim support
organizations based on a mistrust of BIP effectiveness. It
results in victims not being informed about or otherwise
involved in the BIP’s implementation. The importance of
victim involvement in the process of working with per-
sons who use violence was emphasized in our study by
both BIP facilitators and BIP participants. However, risk
assessment is required when determining whether victims
should be involved in the process. Our findings show that
BIPs attendees who blame victims for the violence are
very interested in involving victims in the process to share
guilt and punishment.
Furthermore, institutional collaboration in respond-
ing to domestic violence is complicated because institu-
tions view the phenomenon of violence only through the
lens of their institution and operate solely by replicating
their own institutional goals. Moreover, problems with
cooperation between the institutions are encountered at
various levels, and working with persons who use vio-
lence is not yet recognized as a priority in this system.
However, our research reveals the stakeholders’ urgent
need for coordination of the entire response to IPV, and
this alone could be considered a positive momentum
toward recognizing its importance. Thus, our research
supports the findings of other studies (Kelly & West-
marland, 2015; Pallatino etal., 2019), namely that the
effectiveness of BIPs (including perpetrator account-
ability) can be increased when all key stakeholders are
involved, acknowledging common goals and practices,
and coordinating the entire process.
Limitations oftheStudy
Several limitations to our study should be noted. To begin
with, while the research team provided guidelines to BIP
facilitators for selecting research participants, the sample of
participants was formed with the help of facilitators, which
may have had an impact on the research results. Second, not
all study participants enthusiastically agreed to participate
or showed a keen interest in our study. Third, since this study
is based on data drawn from two regions in the probation
office of Lithuania (out of five) that work with people who
perpetrate violence, it is not clear to what extent our find-
ings might be generalizable to other regions of the country.
Future studies should continue to explore the peculiarities
of BIP implementation in other regions as well. Another
limitation may be that interviews were conducted with BIP
facilitators and BIP attendees without interviewing survi-
vors. Therefore, it would be appropriate for future studies
to include reports from survivors regarding the behaviors
of their partners. This could enhance our knowledge about
the effectiveness of correctional work with people who use
violence. Despite the limitations of this research, the current
study provides relevant data, highlighting challenges to BIP
implementation practice in Lithuania that may be replicated
in other countries.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Journal of Family Violence
1 3
Conclusion
The current study presents the situation in Lithuania by iden-
tifying recent challenges to BIP implementation that may be
replicated in different contexts. The study also reflects ongo-
ing debates based on qualitative research on BIP implemen-
tation, which includes various elements of the correctional
process such as motivation of program attendees; the role
of engaging environment and facilitators; the application of
evidence-based assessment and individualized treatment;
and cooperation among inter-institutional alliances. Despite
its limitations, our study confirms the importance of using
various measures and standardizing their application with
the goal of strengthening the individualized approach while
implementing BIP. The consistency, integrity, and coordina-
tion of the entire BIP application process should remain a
priority. For more stakeholders to begin trusting and appre-
ciating the critical role of BIPs, and for those programs to
become more effective, it is vital to first envision the various
BIPs as an integral part of working with persons who use
violence.
Funding The paper was prepared under the scientific research project
“The Change of Domestic Violent Behavior: Perspectives of Develop-
ment of Work with Perpetrators at Institutional and Community Levels’
in accordance with the National Research Program ‘Welfare society.’”
This project has received funding from the Research Council of Lithu-
ania, agreement No S-GEV-20-4.
Declarations
Ethics Approval The research study was carried out in accordance with
the guidelines for Assessments of Conformity with Research Ethics
issued by the Ombudsperson for Academic Ethics and Procedures of
the Republic of Lithuania and approved by the Commission of Aca-
demics Ethics and Conformity with Research Ethics of the Law Insti-
tute of Lithuania.
Conflict of Interest The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
Aaron, S. M., & Beaulaurier, R. L. (2016). The need for new emphasis
on batterers intervention programs. Trauma, Violence & Abuse,
18(4), 425–432.
Akoensi, T. D., Koehler, J. A., Lösel, F., & Humphreys, D. K. (2012).
Domestic violence perpetrator programs in Europe, Part II: A system-
atic review of the state of evidence. International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57(10), 1206–1225.
Arias, E., Arce, R., & Vilariño, M. (2013). Batterer intervention pro-
grammes: A meta-analytic review of effectiveness. Psychosocial
Intervention, 22(2), 153–160.
Arvidsson, M., & Caman, S. (2022). Treatment experiences among
intimate partner violence perpetrators: A qualitative analysis.
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, 0(0).
Babcock, J., Armenti, N., Cannon, C., Lauve-Moon, K., Buttell, F., Fer-
reira, R., Cantos, A., Hamel, J., Kelly, D., Jordan, C., Lehmann,
P., Murphy, C., O’Leary, K. D., Bannon, S., Salis, K. L., Solano,
I., & Leisring, P. A. (2016). Domestic violence perpetrator pro-
grams: A proposal for evidence-based standards in the United
States. Partner Abuse, 7(4), 355–460.
Babcock, J., Green, C. E., & Robie, C. (2004). Does batterers’ treat-
ment work? A meta-analytic review of domestic violence treat-
ment. Clinical Psychology Review, 23(8), 1023–1053.
Boira, S., del Castillo, M. F., Carbajosa, P., & Marcuello, C. (2013).
Context of treatment and therapeutic alliance: Critical factors in
court-mandated batterer intervention programs. The Spanish Jour-
nal of Psychology, 16, E40.
Bouchard, J., & Wong, J. S. (2021). Pathways to engagement: An
exploratory qualitative analysis of factors that facilitate men’s
engagement in IPV intervention programs. Violence Against
Women, 27(14), 2642–2663.
Cannon, C., Hamel, J., Buttell, F., & Ferreira, R. (2016). A survey of
domestic violence perpetrator programs in the United States and
Canada: Findings and implications for policy and intervention.
Partner Abuse, 7(3), 226–276.
CEDAW General Recommendation No. 19: Violence Against Women.
(1992). UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against
Women (CEDAW). https:// www. refw o r ld. or g/ docid/ 52d92 0c54. html.
Accessed 10 Nov2021
Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Vio-
lence Against Women and Domestic Violence. (2011). Council
of Europe. https:// rm. coe. int/ 16800 8482e. Accessed 10 Nov2021
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(2), 180–187.
Eckhardt, C. I., Murphy, C. M., Whitaker, D. J., Sprunger, J., Dykstra,
R., & Woodard, K. (2013). The effectiveness of intervention pro-
grams for perpetrators and victims of intimate partner violence.
Partner Abuse, 4(2), 196–231.
Ferrer-Perez, V. A., & Bosch-Fiol, E. (2018). Batterer intervention
programs in Spain: An analysis of their effectiveness. Interna-
tional Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminol-
ogy, 62(4), 885–897.
Ginés Canales, O., Geldschläger, H., Nax, D., & Ponce, Á. (2015).
European perpetrator programmes: A survey on day-to-day out-
come measurement. Studia Humanistyczne AGH, 14(2), 33–52.
Gondolf, E. W. (2004). Evaluating batterer counseling programs: A dif-
ficult task showing some effects and implications. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 9(6), 605–631.
Gover, A. (2011). New directions for domestic violence offender treat-
ment standards: Colorado’s innovative approach to differentiated
treatment. Partner Abuse, 2, 95–120.
Gray, R., Lewis, P., Mokany, T., & O’Neill, B. (2014). Peer discussion
and client motivation in men’s domestic violence programs: An
Australian qualitative interview study. Australian Social Work,
67(3), 390–404.
Hamel, J., Buttell, F., Regardt, F., & Roy, V. (2021). IPV perpetrator
groups: Client engagement, and the role of facilitators. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 37(19–20), 17081–17108.
Hamel, J., Cannon, C., Buttell, F., & Ferreira, R. (2020). A survey of
IPV perpetrator treatment providers: Ready for evidence-based
practice? Partner Abuse, 11(4), 387–414.
Hamilton, L., Koehler, J. A., & Lösel, F. A. (2012). Domestic violence
perpetrator programs in Europe, Part I: A survey of current prac-
tice. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, 57(10), 1189–1205.
Holtrop, K., Scott, J. C., Parra-Cardona, J. R., McNeil Smith, S.,
Schmittel, E., & Larance, L. Y. (2017). Exploring factors that
contribute to positive change in a diverse, group-based male
batterer intervention program: Using qualitative data to inform
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Journal of Family Violence
1 3
implementation and adaptation efforts. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 32(8), 1267–1290.
Kelly, L., & Westmarland, N. (2015). Domestic violence perpetrator
programmes: Steps towards change. Project Mirabal Final Report
(p. 52). London Metropolitan University and Durham University.
Kistenmacher, B. R., & Weiss, R. L. (2008). Motivational interview-
ing as a mechanism for change in men who batter: A randomized
controlled trial. Violence and Vinctims, 23(5), 558–570.
LeBlanc, A. N., & Mong, M. D. (2021). The double standard of
accountability: A call for treatment integrity of IPV offender pro-
grams. Partner Abuse, 12(1), 94–107.
Lila, M., Gracia, E., & Catalá-Miñana, A. (2018). Individualized moti-
vational plans in batterer intervention programs: A randomized
clinical trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 86,
309–320.
Lithuanian Department of Statistics (2020). Data on criminal acts,
suspected (accused) persons registered in pre-trial investigation
institutions by committing criminal acts related to domestic vio-
lence in 2020. https:// osp. stat. gov. lt/ stati stiniu- rodik liu- anali ze?
indic ator= S3R00 77#/. Accessed 11 Nov2021
Morrison, P. K., Cluss, P. A., Hawker, L., Miller, E., George, D., Bice-
house, T., & Chang, J. C. (2019). Male IPV perpetrators’ perspec-
tives on facilitation of batterer intervention program: Results from
a 2-year study. Partner Abuse, 10(4), 483–505.
Morrison, P. K., Goodkind, S., Holland, C. L., Cluss, P. A., Miller, E.,
George, D., Fleming, R., & Chang, J. C. (2021a). Key components
of the batterer intervention program process: An analysis of obser-
vational data from two community-based BIPs. Violence Against
Women, 27(14), 2617–2641.
Morrison, P. K., Hawker, L., Cluss, P. A., Miller, E., Fleming, R.,
Bicehouse, T., George, D., Burke, J., Wright, K., & Chang, J.
C. (2021b). The challenges of working with men who perpetrate
partner violence: Perspectives and observations of experts who
work with batterer intervention programs. Journal of Interper-
sonal Violence, 36, 7–8.
Murphy, C. M., & Eckhardt, C. I. (2005). Treating the abusive partner
an individualized cognitive-behavioral approach. The Guilford
Press.
Pallatino, C. L., Morrison, P. K., Miller, E., Burke, J., Cluss, P. A.,
Fleming, R., Hawker, L., George, D., Bicehouse, T., & Chang,
J. C. (2019). The role of accountability in batterers intervention
programs and community response to intimate partner violence.
Journal of Family Violence, 34(7), 631–643.
Price, B. J., & Rosenbaum, A. (2009). Batterer intervention programs:
A report from the field. Violence and Victims, 24(6), 757–770.
Prison Department under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of
Lithuania (2020). Activity report on the work with persons under
the supervision of the Lithuanian Probation Service. http:// kaldep.
lt/ lt/ kalej imude parta mentas/ admin istra cine_ infor macija/ atask aitos/
metu. html. Accessed 11 Nov2021
Saunders, D. G. (2008). Group interventions for men who batter: A
summary of program descriptions and research. Violence and
Victims, 23(2), 156–172.
Shepard, M. (2005). Twenty years of progress in addressing domestic
violence an agenda for the next 10. Journal of Interpersonal Vio-
lence, 20(4), 436–441.
Silva, T. P., Cunha., O., & Caridade, S. (2022). Motivational interview
techniques and the effectiveness of intervention programs with
perpetrators of intimate partner violence: A systematic review.
Trauma Violence & Abuse, 0(0).
Silvergleid, C. S., & Mankowski, E. S. (2006). How batterer inter-
vention programs work: Participant and facilitator accounts of
processes of change. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(1),
139–159.
Santirso, F. A., Lila, M., & Gracia, E. (2020). Motivational strate-
gies, working alliance, and protherapeutic behaviors in batterer
intervention programs: A randomized controlled trial. European
Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 12(2), 77–84.
Stinson, J. D., & Clark, M. D. (2017). Applications of motivational
interviewing. Motivational interviewing with offenders: Engage-
ment, rehabilitation, and reentry. The Guilford Press.
Tollefson, D. R., & Phillips, I. (2015). A mind-body bridging treatment
program for domestic violence offenders: Program overview and
evaluation results. Journal of Family Violence, 30, 783–794.
Vaigė, L. (2016). Violence against women under international law.
Filling the gaps under international, regional and national levels.
Doctoral Thesis. Mykolas Riomeris University.
Voith, L. A., Logan-Greene, P., Strodthoff, T., & Bender, A. E. (2020).
A paradigm shift in batterer intervention programming: A need
to address unresolved trauma. Trauma Violence & Abuse, 21(4),
691–705.
Wojnicka, K. (2015). Work with perpetrators of domestic violence in
Eastern European and Baltic Countries. Gender Rovné Příležitosti
Výzkum, 16(1), 35–45.
Zarling, A., Bannon, S., & Berta, M. (2019). Evaluation of accept-
ance and commitment therapy for domestic violence offenders.
Psychology of Violence, 9(3), 257–266.
Žilinskienė, L., & Tumilaitė, R. (2011). Resocializacijos modeliai ir jų
taikymas. Sociologija Mintis Ir Veiksmas, 29(2), 285–313.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of
such publishing agreement and applicable law.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com