1

How Domestic Violence Is Defined And Intervened Within The Criminal

Justice System: The Duluth Batterer Intervention Model

Shayla Hunsaker

PSY 410: Domestic Violence Intervention Systems

Dr. Eric Mankowski

March 14, 2023

 2

How Domestic Violence Is Defined And Intervened On Within The Criminal Justice

System: The Duluth Batterer Intervention Model

This paper will examine how the criminal justice system defines and intervenes in

domestic violence, reviewing the literature and research on the Duluth model of batterer

intervention programs, and how they aim to reduce domestic violence. First, to understand the

goal of this paper, one needs to understand what a batterer intervention program is defined as and

the historical context as it is relevant. Batterer intervention programs can be defined as programs

that are either mandatory (court-mandated) or voluntary, and consist of educational classes or

group therapy which are meant to address and change the underlying beliefs of power and

control that batterers hold toward women, and to change their abusive behaviors. The batterers in

these groups are to learn alternative ways of handling their emotions instead of defaulting to

abuse, and take accountability for the harm they have done. Batterer intervention programs

(BIPs) modeled after the Duluth curriculum are meant to hold the batterer accountable, and

educate them about how their patriarchal beliefs of gender and sex have influenced their abusive

behavior against women. The Duluth model in response to domestic violence is among the most

commonly used intervention methods and is used often in the criminal justice system’s handling

of domestic violence cases.

Along with educational courses through the Duluth program, there are other ways the

criminal justice system intervenes with domestic violence, including mandatory and pro-arrest

policies, child welfare, probation, policing policies, and coordinated community responses with

the health care, education, employer, and social service systems. A court-mandated BIP that
 3

follows the Duluth model usually lasts six months but can differ in length from state to state

depending on domestic violence laws. Usually, a batterer who is convicted of physical assault

will be ordered to attend educational classes in which they will replace their pro-abuse beliefs

with those of equality towards their partner through lessons taught weekly, each lesson having a

different theme. “The themes include nonviolence, nonthreatening behavior, respect, trust and

support, honesty and accountability, sexual respect, partnership, and negotiation and fairness.”

(Mankowski, Haaken & Silvergleid 2002) The Duluth model sees domestic violence as a cause

of the patriarch directly, that men develop their pro-abuse belief systems based upon their need to

have power and control over women. The Duluth model takes into account the different ways

men take power and control over women through using coercion and threats, emotional abuse,

economic abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, male privilege, intimidation, isolation,

minimizing, denying, blaming, and children. This is modeled on the “power and control wheel”

that was created in accordance with the Duluth model. Domestic violence is seen as a conscious

choice rather than an angry outburst or“loss of control” and should face punitive consequences

for their abusive behavior, which is why the Duluth model is used in the criminal justice system.

These educational groups are run by both men and women together in which the group leaders

confront the harmful ideas men have about women, and do not allow men to victimize

themselves or share their traumas with the group, rather, leaders direct the topic and subject of

the conversations held within the group. The effectiveness is debated as there are so many factors

that determine the definition of what effective means from case to case, but it is generally

recognized that the Duluth model has its own set of strengths and weaknesses and should be

utilized for its strengths.

 4

The first literature to be reviewed in this paper is titled, “Domestic Violence Treatment

Response and Recidivism: A Review and Implications For The Study of Family Violence”. It

goes over what domestic violence is, and domestic violence prevalence, and analyzes different

intervention methods comparing the studies and literature on domestic violence treatment

response, recidivism, and perpetration. Here, domestic violence is defined as “...physical

violence toward an intimate partner.” (Sartin, Hansen & Huss, 2006) since much of the research

focuses on physical assault and not other forms of domestic violence. They claim that the causes

of domestic violence are linked to personality characteristics, and take a stance on the side of

psychologically based theories to explain domestic violence perpetration. Although they note the

role that personality plays in domestic violence perpetration, they also make sure to point out that

life experiences and environmental factors also contribute to the cause of domestic violence. The

article argues that clinicians and advocates alike need to “...recognize the complicated and

multifaceted nature of domestic violence” to reduce the likelihood that the batterer reoffends. To

do that we need to educate people so that it is common knowledge of what domestic violence is

and how to intervene with it. They argue for a coordinated community response that is much

deeper than the one we have now, stating “Increasing knowledge of factors related to domestic

violence and improvements in batterer typologies along with advances in risk prediction

instruments and improved coordination with the legal system have led to substantial gains in the

understanding of domestic violence.” (Sartin, Hansen & Huss, 2006), subsequently they argue

more work is to be done this way to reduce domestic violence through the improvement of the

Duluth model and its role in the criminal justice system.

The next article titled, “Twenty Years of Progress in Addressing Domestic Violence: An

Agenda For The Next Ten”, stated that the cause of domestic violence is rooted in “patriarchal
 5

social structures”, and to put a stop to domestic violence the social structures in which men abuse

their power to control women need to be deconstructed. It is argued that one of the most

promising intervention methods is the Duluth model which as we know is used commonly in the

criminal justice response to domestic violence. The article also argues that implementing a

coordinated community response within the criminal justice system to protect victims while

holding the batterer accountable is what will make a difference. The social institutions need to be

changed in order to reduce the rate of domestic violence and that can be accomplished through

more appropriate responses to domestic violence from these institutions. While we know that a

coordinated community response can have a positive impact, it is important to note that keeping

the victim safe does not necessarily stop the abuser from abusing. There is a need for

rehabilitation and treatment of these batterers along with punitive measures if that is the route

that is taken in response to domestic violence cases. It is also important to note that there can be

unintended consequences for the victim of abuse when the criminal justice system intervenes

through punitive measures. For example, the victim could be re-traumatized because of an

inappropriate intervention method such as mandatory arrest policies. Furthermore, it is

appropriate to consider if an officer can accurately make an arrest decision because of the lack of

training they receive about domestic violence and how a traumatized victim exhibits certain

behavior. Utilizing the Duluth model along with the coordinated community response can be

very beneficial in certain cases, but should not be generalized to work for every person.

In the third article titled, “Programs For Men Who Perpetrate Domestic Violence: An

Examination of The Issues Underlying The Effectiveness Of Intervention Programs”, different

intervention methods are compared and contrasted, dissecting the reasons why domestic violence

intervention seems to be more effective for certain groups. Domestic violence is seen as a
 6

gendered issue because the majority of offenders are men, and the article states “Approaches that

rely heavily on an individual deficit model (such as anger management) are typically regarded as

lacking sufficient psycho-educational content on gendered power and stereo-typed gender

socialization to be effective with domestically violent men.” (Day, Chung, O’Leary & Carson

2009). Although it is claimed there is a lack of effectiveness in the responses to domestic

violence that we see now, it is also acknowledged that the Duluth model in response to domestic

violence is ahead of other models because of the advocacy that victims receive, especially in the

criminal justice system. It’s argued that the coercive, shameful, and punitive nature of

court-ordered interventions such as the Duluth program can have an adverse effect on the

batterer and his willingness to change. In order to address this issue, there needs to be greater

consistency of how this program is used across the board within jurisdictions, and clarity about

batterers' referrals to domestic violence programs from the criminal justice system to ensure

there is the opportunity for intervention with the batterer as well as consistent consequences for

those who choose not to attend court-ordered programs and for re-offending. Domestic violence

needs to be better understood along with what type of intervention the batterer needs so that the

appropriate intervention method is used. While punitive responses for domestic violence are not

very effective in getting the batterer to change, this article still recognizes the importance of the

Duluth model and states that the Duluth model can be further developed to increase its

effectiveness in reducing domestic violence.

The fourth article titled, “Intimate Partner Violence And The Duluth Model: An

Examination Of The Model And Recommendations For Future Research And Practice”, defined

intimate partner violence as “...the self reported experience of physical and/or sexual violence by

a current or former partner since the age of 15 years old” (Bohall, Bautista & Musson 2016). It’s
 7

claimed that several factors constitute intimate partner violence (IPV) stating that “Upon reviews

of hundreds of studies touching on risk issues, perpetrator risk factors for IPV include: past

antisocial behavior/attitudes, attitudes supportive of violence, history of violence in intimate

relationships, personality disorders, substance abuse, prior threatening or stalking behavior,

homicidal or suicidal ideation, sexual proprietariness, recent employment or financial struggles,

recent relationship problems, and the minimization or denial of violent acts.” (Bohall, Bautista &

Musson 2016). All of these factors can be linked to being causes of intimate partner violence

perpetration. It’s argued that because intimate partner violence is a complex issue, patriarchal

power and control cannot be the sole cause addressed in the intervention and that there needs to

be more consideration of the cultural background of the batterer along with a qualified

professional running the intervention program rather than an advocate with little or no higher

education.

In the final article reviewed titled, “The Need For New Emphasis On Batterers

Intervention Programs” ways in which we can improve the existing batterer intervention

programs were discussed, including the Duluth model. Coordinated community response is

addressed as the article states “The systematic and coordinated involvement of key local

agencies and government units has been viewed as the most promising way to curb domestic

violence in the United States and has been reported to lower rates of recidivism among

offenders.” (Aaron & Beaulaurier 2016). The article calls for a coordinated community response

and notes its importance while pointing out how the Duluth model can be improved. The main

argument is that the Duluth model doesn't work for every batterer under every circumstance.

Each batterer will have a different outcome when it comes to the Duluth program because

treatment cannot be approached from a “one size fits all” standpoint. Batterer typology is
 8

referenced as being a potentially useful tool in the criminal justice system’s assessment of which

intervention method is appropriate for that specific batterer. It is made clear that the criminal

justice system is seen as a necessary site of domestic violence intervention, but that

court-ordering the Duluth program for all batterers is not always effective in reducing abusive

behaviors for everyone who attends the classes. It’s also recognized that environmental factors

need to be taken into account when determining the appropriate intervention method for

batterers. There is a call for more funding and research on the effectiveness of BIPs, which can

be useful, but one could argue that research into how to improve domestic violence interventions

that exist would be even more useful.

Although the articles reviewed had different key takeaways and points to be made, a

recurring theme of a need for better funding, a shift from the “one size fits all” Duluth model to a

more individualized treatment plan according to batterer typology, and the importance of a

coordinated community response was exemplified. These articles recognized that some batterers

had a better treatment outcome than others and theorized that certain types of batterers respond

better to certain types of BIPs, and that the criminal justice system needs to take that into account

before mandating a program that may not be effective for that individual batterer. The criminal

justice system needs to also consider the nature in which the Duluth model of intervention is

employed as it may have adverse effects on batterers' treatment. These unintended, nonetheless

negative impacts are exampled in the article “Collateral Damage: An Analysis of the

Achievements and Unintended Consequences of Batterer Intervention Programs and Discourse”

which states “Many of the same power and control dynamics that characterize abusive

relationships occur in batterer’s treatment programs, with the client’s beliefs being subjected to

repeated, intense, and direct confrontations.” (Mankowski, Haaken & Silvergleid 2002), and “In
 9

a confrontational environment, clients may be more likely to change their self-presentation

(which further reinforces others’ distrust of them), or to protect their self-esteem by making

downward social comparisons to others in the group (e.g., “I’m not as bad as those other guys;

it’s they who have the problem”), than to internalize any change in attitudes, beliefs or behavior.”

(Mankowski, Haaken & Silvergleid 2002). The criminal justice system is relied upon to

implement effective BIPs and punishment for domestic violence offenders through the Duluth

model of power and control, but the criminal justice system is also ironically a system of power

and control itself. Through the criminal justice system's eyes, the problem is the “bad” men who

need to be held accountable for their actions with punishment to change, and that is the only way

of intervention for them. It is naive and dangerous to believe that domestic violence can be

solved solely through the punishment and reeducation of “bad” men. The Duluth model is not to

be replaced or removed from the picture in the treatment of batterers, but rather a development of

the Duluth model alongside an expansion of the types of responses the criminal justice system

has to domestic violence is needed to reduce the rates of domestic violence and intimate partner

violence.
 10

References:

1. Day, A., Chung, D., O’Leary, P., & Carson, E. (2009). Programs for men who

perpetrate domestic violence: An examination of the issues underlying the

effectiveness of intervention programs. Journal of Family Violence, 24(3),

203–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-008-9221-4

2. Mankowski, E. S., Haaken, J., & Silvergleid, C. S. (2002). Collateral damage: An

analysis of the achievements and unintended consequences of batterer

intervention programs and discourse. Journal of family violence, 17, 167-184.

3. Shepard, M. (2005). Twenty Years of Progress in Addressing Domestic Violence:

An Agenda for the Next 10. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(4), 436–441.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260504267879

4. Sartin, R. M., Hansen, D. J., & Huss, M. T. (2006). Domestic violence treatment

response and recidivism: A review and implications for the study of family

violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11(5), 425-440.

5. Aaron, S. M., & Beaulaurier, R. L. (2017). The need for new emphasis on

batterers intervention programs. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 18(4), 425-432.

6. Bohall, G., Bautista, M.-J., & Musson, S. (2016). Intimate partner violence and

the Duluth Model: An Examination of the model and recommendations for future

research and Practice. Journal of Family Violence, 31(8), 1029–1033.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9888-x

7. Mankowski, E.S. (2023, January 31). Battering Intervention Programs For

Abusive Partners [PowerPoint Slides]. Canvas. https://canvas.pdx.edu/