ed on the research about batterers programs, which is extremely mixed. It is unclear whether these programs have any impact at all in deterring further violence.
Batterer treatment programs may take a variety of forms. Many offer group treatment with a focus on anger management. Others include individual assessments and individual counseling, and substance abuse and/or mental health treatment.
Unfortunately, few batterer treatment programs have undergone thorough evaluation, and those that have show a mix of positive and negative results. Court-mandated treatment is more likely to result in batterers completing programs, “but there is little evidence to support the effectiveness of one batterer program over another in reducing recidivism.”
The quality of the evaluations of batterer treatment programs have improved over time but continue to encounter both methodological and programmatic challenges as illustrated by two recent studies of batterer treatment programs, one in Broward County, Florida and the other in Brooklyn, New York. In both, offender treatment was based on the Duluth treatment model, which is the most commonly used.† The Broward evaluation found that treatment attendance did not reduce battering, but that offenders who were married, employed, or homeowners were less likely to batter again (that is, these offenders had a “stake in conformity”). Also, younger men, particularly those with no stable residence, were more likely to rebatter. In Brooklyn, the evaluation showed minor improvement for some of the batterers
† The Duluth model suggests that batterers seek to control their partners (or ex-partners) and this must change for batterers’ behavior to change (Pence and Paymar, 1993). The model “helps offenders to understand how their socialized beliefs about male dominance impede intimacy; that violence is intentional and a choice designed to control their intimate partner; that the effects of abusive behavior damage the family; and that everyone has the ability to change” (Minnesota Program Development, Inc.).
(that is, some reduction in the number of battering incidents for those attending a 26-week treatment program rather than the same program condensed into an eight-week schedule). In neither case were batterers’ attitudes toward domestic abuse changed. Even these evaluation results are not fully reliable because both studies experienced data collection challenges as a result of a high drop-out rate by offenders, difficulty finding relocated victims for follow-up interviews, and inadequate offender attitude assessment tools. In addition, judges sometimes overrode random assignment of batterers, thereby tainting the makeup of the different groups studied. Evaluations of other types of treatment programs, including cognitive-behavior therapy (another widely used approach), have also suffered from similar methodological flaws.
Several experts suggest that greater refinement in assigning batterers to appropriate programs could improve results. The most chronic batterers should receive the most intensive treatment. A “one-size fits-all” approach to batterer intervention cannot accommodate the diverse population of batterers entering the criminal justice system.” The different types of batterers—family-only, one who is generally violent even to others, dysphoric (mood-disordered)/borderline—may require tailored treatment.
Experts recommend that treatment programs be designed around explicit theories. In other words, each intervention proposed should have a specific underlying theory. Outcomes expected from each of the interventions should be clearly defined and then evaluated for short-and long-term impact. Designing treatment programs that fit this model requires close collaboration between service providers and researchers.  In addition, the timing of treatment may be an important element to success.
“Counseling ideally would begin almost immediately after a violent episode, when the offender feels most remorseful, most frightened of the criminal justice system, and most receptive to demands for change.”
† 