A 15-page questionnaire, the North American Domestic Violence Intervention Program Survey, was sent to directors of 3,246 domestic violence perpetrator programs (also known as batterer intervention programs, or BIPs) in the United States and Canada. Respondent contact information was obtained from state Coalitions Against Domestic Violence and from various government agencies (e.g., Attorney General) available on the Internet. Two hundred thirty-eight programs completed and returned the questionnaire, a response rate of 20%. The survey yielded descriptive data on respondent characteristics; program philosophy, structure, content, and service; client characteristics; treatment approach and adjunct services; and group facilitator views on intervention approaches and domestic violence policy and treatment standards. The programs varied in the extent to which they adhere to treatment approaches suggested by the empirical research literature. In addition, chi-square analyses were conducted on the associations between several factors. Significant correlations were found between respondent low level of education and adherence to a feminist-gendered program philosophy; respondent low level of education and use of a shorter assessment protocol; feminist-gendered program philosophy and incorrect facilitator knowledge about domestic violence; and feminist-gendered program philosophy and a program focus on power and control as the primary cause of domestic violence.

In the United States, the judicial system response to violence between intimate partners, or intimate partner violence (IPV), typically mandates that adjudicated perpetrators complete a batterer intervention program (BIP). The social science data has found that these programs, on the whole, are only minimally effective in reducing rates of IPV. The authors examined the social science literature on the characteristics and efficacy of BIPs. More than 400 studies were considered, including a sweeping, recently conducted survey of BIP directors across the United States and Canada. Results of this review indicate that the limitations of BIPs are due, in large part, to the limitations of current state standards regulating these programs and, furthermore, that these standards are not grounded in the body of empirical research evidence or best practices. The authors, all of whom have considerable expertise in the area of domestic violence perpetrator treatment, conducted an exhaustive investigation of the following key intervention areas: overall effectiveness of BIPs; length of treatment/length of group sessions; number of group participants and number of facilitators; group format and curriculum; assessment protocol and instruments; victim contact; modality of treatment; differential treatment; working with female perpetrators; working with perpetrators in racial and ethnic minority groups; working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) perpetrators; perpetrator treatment and practitioner–client relationships; and required practitioner education and training. Recommendations for evidence-based national BIP standards were made based on findings from this review.

Research has attempted to elucidate men and women’s proximal motivations for perpetrating intimate partner violence (IPV). However, previous research has yet to clarify and resolve contention regarding whether motives for IPV are gender-neutral or gender-specific. Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare motives for physical IPV perpetration among a sample of men (n = 90) and women (n = 87) arrested for domestic violence and court referred to batterer intervention programs. Results demonstrated that the most frequently endorsed motives for IPV by both men and women were self-defense, expression of negative emotions, and communication difficulties. With the exception of expression of negative emotions and retaliation, with women endorsing these motives more often than men, there were no significant differences between men and women’s self-reported reasons for perpetrating physical aggression. The implications of these findings for future research and intervention programs are discussed.

Though usually framed in the context of ideological and political processes, the failure of domestic violence perpetrator programs to embrace research-supported practice may also be influenced by a widespread unwillingness to use public funds for that purpose. This policy analysis examines the links among federal policy, state implementation, organizational structure, and funding sources of perpetrator service-providing organizations. Those links reveal reciprocal relationships among conservative and ostensibly feminist views of domestic violence within an implied policy framework justifying public underfunding of perpetrator treatment programs. Placed within the current hyper-politicized context of US Federal governance and policy, this analysis identifies advancements in perpetrator treatment in several state governments as harbingers of potential movement toward research-supported practice.

There is a growing impetus within the field of aggression research to further elucidate the risk factors, predictors, and correlates of dating violence (DV), particularly among dating couples. Of particular importance is understanding the proximal motivations, or reasons, for DV and whether these motivations differ for men and women. Research examining the motivations for DV has focused almost entirely on physical violence, and findings regarding gender differences in DV motivations have been mixed (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, McCullars, & Misra, 2012). To our knowledge, limited research has examined the motivations for psychological aggression among dating college students, and no research has directly compared men and women’s motivations for psychological aggression. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the motivations for psychological aggression among dating college students (N = 216), and whether these motivations differed by gender. Results demonstrated that expression of negative emotions, jealousy, and communication difficulties were the most frequently endorsed motive categories for both men and women. Men and women did not differ on any motive category. Despite the preliminary nature of this study, several research and clinical implications are addressed.