literature review on domestic violence perpetrators

• Skip to navigation
• Skip to main content

Ending gender-based violence

Literature Review on Domestic Violence Perpetrators

Attachments.

• Listen to PDF

Date:  1 September 2013

The National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children (2010-2022) recognises the need to strengthen the evidence base for perpetrator intervention responses by conducting research and developing national standards. This literature review has particular relevance for Outcome 6 of the National Plan that perpetrators stop their violence and are held to account, which focuses on developing strategies and implementing actions to hold perpetrators accountable and reduce the risk of recidivism, and early intervention.

The literature review on domestic violence perpetrators:

• provides an overview of the estimated incidence and prevalence of domestic violence and sexual assault in Australia, and the socio-demographic characteristics of perpetrators;
• identifies evaluations of domestic and sexual violence perpetrator intervention programs that have been undertaken nationally and internationally to describe the evidence regarding program effectiveness; and
• analyses the nature and extent of current research on intervention programs, and identifies research gaps, needs and priorities for future research.

The Select Council on Women’s Issues agreed to the release of this Literature Review, which will support national consultations on perpetrator intervention standards and research priorities.

Last updated: 24 September 2013 - 9:17am

Domestic Abuse and Intimate Partner Violence: A Review of Police-Led and Multi-agency Interventions

• First Online: 02 September 2021

Cite this chapter

• James McGuire 5 ,
• Emily Evans 6 &
• Eddie Kane 7  

Part of the book series: Advances in Preventing and Treating Violence and Aggression ((APTVA))

1872 Accesses

1 Citations

This chapter focuses on intimate partner violence (IPV) and addresses the question: what approaches and specific methods can be applied in work with those who have committed violence against their partners to reduce the likelihood of the behaviour recurring? We searched nine electronic databases from 2000 to 2020. An initial set of 3832 records was reduced to 145 papers including 29 reviews. The remaining reports formed 4 categories: studies of the use of arrest (17); other collaborative interventions, some police-led (24); the introduction of women’s police stations (6); and evaluations of IPV treatment programmes (69). There was little convincing evidence that arrest alone was effective in deterring IPV perpetrators. There was tentative evidence that (a) reporting to police may be effective if subsequent processes increase victims’ confidence in police and empowers them in making contacts and (b) the arrest of some suspected IPV perpetrators may reduce repeat offending as a function of risk levels and previous IPV patterns. There was stronger evidence supporting the use of specialized police domestic violence units that include a mixture of personnel, employ more intensive investigation, provide victim support, include second responder interventions and prepare case material to improve the likelihood of successful prosecution. Results from the review of treatment interventions presents a mixed pattern with some positive effects, but the largest come from less well-designed studies, with some changes fragile and short-lived. There is provisional evidence of long-term developmental prevention of IPV through the introduction of awareness sessions in schools.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abramsky, T., Watts, C. H., Garcia-Moreno, C., Devries, K., Kiss, L., Ellsberg, M., Henrica, A. F. M., & Heise, L. (2011). What factors are associated with recent intimate partner violence? Findings from the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence. BMC Public Health, 11 , 109.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Addo-Lartey, A., Alangea, D. O., Sikweyiya, Y., Chirwa, E. D., Coker-Appiah, D., Jewkes, R., & Adanu, R. K. M. (2019). Rural response system to prevent violence against women: Methodology for a community randomised controlled trial in the central region of Ghana. Global Health Action, 12 , 1612604. https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2019.1612604

Akoensi, T. D., Koehler, J. A., Lösel, F. A., & Humphreys, D. K. (2012). Domestic violence perpetrator programs in Europe, Part II: A systematic review of the state of evidence. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57 , 1206–1225.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Aldarondo, E. (2010). Understanding the contribution of common interventions with men who batter to the reduction of re-assaults. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 61 , 87–101.

Article   Google Scholar  

Alexander, P. C., Morris, E., Tracy, A., & Frye, A. (2010). Stages of change and the group treatment of batterers: A randomized clinical trial. Violence and Victims, 25 , 571–587.

Alhabib, S., Nur, U., & Jones, R. (2010). Domestic violence against women: Systematic review of prevalence studies. Journal of Family Violence, 25 , 369–382.

Ali, P. A., & Naylor, P. B. (2013a). Intimate partner violence: A narrative review of the biological and psychological explanations for its causation. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18 , 373–382.

Ali, P. A., & Naylor, P. B. (2013b). Intimate partner violence: A narrative review of the feminist, social and ecological explanations for its causation. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18 , 611–619.

Ali, P. A., Dhingra, K., & McGarry, J. (2016). A literature review of intimate partner violence and its classifications. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 31 , 16–25.

Amaral, S., Bhalotra, S., & Prakash, N. (2019). Gender, crime and punishment: Evidence from women police stations in India . University of Essex: Research Report to the Economic and Social Research Council.

Google Scholar  

An, S., & Choi, Y. J. (2017). A review and assessment of intimate partner violence interventions and trainings for service providers and frontline staff. Violence and Victims, 31 (3), 379–404.

Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-based adult corrections: What works and what does not . Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Arce, R., Arias, E., Novo, M., & Fariña, F. (2020). Are interventions with batterers effective? A meta-analytical review. Psychosocial Intervention, 29 (3), 153–164.

Arias, E., Arce, R., & Vilariňo, M. (2013). Batterer intervention programmes: A meta-analytic review of effectiveness. Psychosocial Intervention, 22 , 153–160.

Armenti, N. A., & Babcock, J. C. (2016). Conjoint treatment for intimate partner violence: A systematic review and implications. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 5 (2), 109–123.

Ashburn, K., Kerner, B., Ojamuge, D., & Lundgren, R. (2017). Evaluation of the Responsible, Engaged, and Loving (REAL) fathers initiative on physical child punishment and intimate partner violence in Northern Uganda. Prevention Science, 18 , 854–864.

Babcock, J. C., Green, C. E., & Robie, C. (2004). Does batterers’ treatment work? A meta-analytic review of domestic violence treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 23 , 1023–1053.

Badenes-Ribera, L., Frias-Navarro, D., Bonilla-Campos, A., Pons-Salvador, G., & Monterde-i-Bort, H. (2015). Intimate partner violence in self-identified lesbians: A meta-analysis of its prevalence. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 12 , 47–59.

Barelds, D. P. H., & Dijkstra, P. (2005). Reactive, anxious and possessive forms of jealousy and their relation to relationship quality among heterosexuals and homosexuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 51 , 183–198.

Barner, J. R., & Carney, M. M. (2011). Interventions for intimate partner violence: A historical review. Journal of Family Violence, 26 , 235–244.

Bartholomew, K., Regan, K. V., Oran, D., & White, M. A. (2008). Correlates of partner abuse in male same-sex relationships. Violence and Victims, 23 , 344–360.

Bates, E. A., & Douglas, E. M. (2020). Services for domestic violence victims in the United Kingdom and United States: Where are we today? Partner Abuse, 11 (3), 350–382.

Beeble, M. L., Bybee, D., & Sullivan, C. M. (2007). Abusive men’s use of children to control their partners and ex-partners. European Psychologist, 12 , 54–61.

Belfrage, H., Strand, S., Storey, J. E., Gibas, A. L., Kropp, P. R., & Hart, S. D. (2012). Assessment and management of risk for intimate partner violence by police officers using the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide. Law and Human Behaviour, 36 , 60–67.

Bell, K. M., & Naugle, A. E. (2008). Intimate partner violence theoretical considerations: Moving towards a contextual framework. Clinical Psychology Review, 28 , 1096–1107.

Bennett, L. W., Stoops, C., Call, C., & Flett, H. (2007). Program completion and re-arrest in a batterer intervention system. Research on Social Work Practice, 17 , 42–54.

Beyer, K., Wallis, A. B., & Hamberger, L. K. (2015). Neighborhood environment and intimate partner violence: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 16 , 16–47.

Birkley, E. L., & Eckhardt, C. I. (2015). Anger, hostility, internalizing negative emotions, and intimate partner violence perpetration: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 37 , 40–56.

Bloomfield, S., & Dixon, L. (2015). An outcome evaluation of the Integrated Domestic Abuse Programme (IDAP) and Community Domestic Violence Programme (CDVP) . Analytic summary . London: National Offender Management Service.

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. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 16 , 1–13.

Bourey, C., Willliams, W., Bernstein, E. E., & Stephenson, R. (2015). Systematic review of structural interventions for intimate partner violence in low- and middle-income countries: Organizing evidence for prevention. BMC Public Health, 15 , 1165. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2460-4

Bowen, E. (2010). Therapeutic environment in a U.K. domestic violence perpetrator program. Small Group Research, 41 , 198–220.

Bowen, E. (2011a). An overview of partner violence risk assessment and the potential role of female victim risk appraisals. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16 , 214–226.

Bowen, E. (2011b). The rehabilitation of partner violent men . Wiley-Blackwell.

Book   Google Scholar  

Bowen, E., Gilchrist, E., & Beech, A. R. (2005). An examination of the impact of community-based rehabilitation on the offending behaviour of male domestic violence offenders and the characteristics associated with recidivism. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 10 , 189–209.

Bowen, E., Gilchrist, E., & Beech, A. R. (2008). Change in treatment has no relationship with subsequent re-offending in U.K. domestic violence sample. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52 , 598–614.

Boxall, H., Rosevear, L., & Payne, J. (2015). Domestic violence typologies: What value to practice? Trends and Issues , No. 494. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

Braithwaite, S. R., & Fincham, F. D. (2014). Computer-based prevention of intimate partner violence in marriage. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 54 , 12–21.

Broidy, L., Albright, D., & Denman, K. (2016). Deterring future incidents of intimate partner violence: Does type of formal intervention matter? Violence Against Women, 22 (9), 1113–1133.

Buttell, F. P. (2002). Levels of moral reasoning among female domestic violence offenders: Evaluating the impact of treatment. Research on Social Work Practice, 12 , 349–363.

Buttell, F. P., & Carney, M. M. (2004). A multidimensional assessment of a batterer treatment program: An alert to a problem? Research on Social Work Practice, 14 , 93–101.

Cantos, A. L., & O’Leary, K. D. (2014). One size does not fit all in the treatment of intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 5 , 204–236.

Capaldi, D. M., Knoble, N. B., Shortt, J. W., & Kim, H. K. (2012). A systematic review of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 3 , 231–280.

Carney, M. M., & Buttell, F. P. (2004). A multidimensional evaluation of a treatment program for female batterers: A pilot study. Research on Social Work Practice, 14 , 249–258.

Carrington, K. (2021). Women’s police stations: Unique innovations from the Global South. In T. P. de Ávila, A. Yamamoto, C. E. de Faria, J. McCulloch, & K. Carrington (Eds.), Reflections on Prevention policies for gender based violence against women and girls: Debates in Brazil and Australia (pp. 109–116). United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women) & Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Federal District of Brazil (MPDFT).

Carrington, K., Guala, N., Puyol, M. V., & Sozzo, M. (2020a). How women’s police stations empower women, widen access to justice and prevent gender violence. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 9 (1), 42–67.

Carrington, K., Sozzo, M., Guala, N., & Puyol, M. V. (2020b). How women’s police stations prevent gender violence . Queensland University of Technology, Centre for Justice Briefing Paper, Issue 2.

Carrington, K., Sozzo, M., & Ryan, V. (2020c). What Australia can learn from women’s police stations to prevent gender violence . Queensland University of Technology, Centre for Justice Briefing Paper, Issue 6.

Cattaneo, L. B., & Goodman, L. A. (2005). Risk factors for reabuse in intimate partner violence: A cross-disciplinary critical review. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 6 , 141–175.

Cavanaugh, M. M., & Gelles, R. J. (2005). The utility of male domestic violence offender typologies: New directions for research, policy, and practice. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20 , 155–166.

Cho, H., & Wilke, D. J. (2010). Gender differences in the nature of the intimate partner violence and effects of perpetrator arrest on revictimization. Journal of Family Violence, 25 , 393–400.

Christofides, N. J., Hatcher, A. M., Pino, A., Rebombo, D., McBride, R. S., Anderson, A., & Peacock, D. (2018). A cluster randomised controlled trial to determine the effect of community mobilisation and advocacy on men’s use of violence in Periurban South Africa: Study protocol. BMJ Open, 8 , e017579.

Cissner, A. B., & Puffett, N. K. (2006). Do batter program length or approach affect completion or re-arrest rates? Center for Court Innovation.

Clark, C. J., Spencer, R. A., Shrestha, B., Ferguson, G., Oakes, J. M., & Gupta, J. (2017). Evaluating a multicomponent social behaviour change communication strategy to reduce intimate partner violence among married couples: Study protocol for a cluster randomized trial in Nepal. BMC Public Health, 17 , 75. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3909-9

Cluss, P., & Bodea, A. (2011). The effectiveness of batterer intervention programs: A literature review & recommendations for next steps (Abridged Version). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh and FISA Foundation.

Connors, A. D., Mills, J. F., & Gray, A. L. (2012). An evaluation of intimate partner violence intervention with incarcerated offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27 , 1176–1196.

Connors, A. D., Mills, J. F., & Gray, A. L. (2013). Intimate partner violence intervention for high-risk offenders. Psychological Services, 10 , 12–23.

Corcoran, J., Stephenson, M., Perryman, D., & Allen, S. (2001). Perceptions and utilization of a police-social work crisis intervention approach to domestic violence. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 82 , 393–398.

Corradi, C., & Stöckl, H. (2014). Intimate partner homicide in 10 European countries: Statistical data and policy development in a cross-national perspective. European Journal of Criminology, 11 , 601–618.

Coulter, M., & VandeWeerd, C. (2009). Reducing domestic violence and other criminal recidivism: Effectiveness of a multilevel batterers intervention program. Violence and Victims, 24 , 139–152.

Crane, C. A., & Eckhardt, C. I. (2013). Evaluation of a single-session brief motivational enhancement intervention for partner abusive men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60 , 180–187.

Crockett, E. E., Keneski, E., Yeager, K., & Loving, T. J. (2015). Breaking the mold: Evaluating a non-punitive domestic violence intervention program. Journal of Family Violence, 30 , 489–499.

Cunha, O. S., & Goncalves, R. A. (2015). Efficacy assessment of an intervention program with batterers. Small Group Research, 46 , 455–482.

Dalton, B. (2007). What’s going on out there? A survey of batterer intervention programs. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 15 , 59–74.

Davis, R. C., Smith, B. E., & Rabbitt, C. R. (2001). Increasing convictions in domestic violence cases: A field test in Milwaukee. Justice System Journal, 22 , 61–72.

Davis, R. C., Weisburd, D., & Hamilton, E. E. (2007). Preventing repeat incidents of family violence: A randomized field test of a second responder program in Redlands, CA . Document no. 219840. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Davis, R. C., Weisburd, D., & Taylor, B. (2008). Effects of second responder programs on repeat incidents of family abuse. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2008 , 15. https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2008.15

Davis, R. C., Weisburd, D., & Hamilton, E. E. (2010). Preventing repeat incidents of family violence: A randomized field test of a second responder program. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6 , 397–418.

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 , 203–212.

Day, A., Chung, D., O’Leary, P., Justo, D., Moore, S., Carson, E., & Gerace, A. (2010). Integrated responses to domestic violence: Legally mandated intervention programs for male batterers. Trends and Issues , No. 404. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

De Koker, P., Mathews, C., Zuch, M., Bastien, S., & Mason-Jones, A. J. (2014). A systematic review of interventions for preventing adolescent intimate partner violence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 54 , 3–13.

Devries, K., Watts, C., Yoshihama, M., Kiss, L., Schraiber, L. B., Deyessa, N., Heise, L., Durand, J., Mbwambo, J., Jansen, J., Berhane, Y., Ellsberg, M., Garcia-Moreno, C., & WHO Multi-Country Study Team. (2011). Violence against women is strongly associated with suicide attempts: Evidence from the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence against women. Social Science and Medicine, 73 , 79–86.

Dichter, M. E., & Gelles, R. J. (2012). Women’s perceptions of safety and risk following police intervention for intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 18 , 44–63.

Dixon, L., & Browne, K. (2003). The heterogeneity of spouse abuse: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 8 , 107–130.

Dixon, L., & Graham-Kevan, N. (2011). Understanding the nature and etiology of intimate partner violence and implications for practice and policy. Clinical Psychology Review, 31 , 1145–1155.

Dixon, L., Hamilton-Giachristis, C., & Browne, K. (2008). Classifying partner femicide. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23 , 74–93.

Dobash, R. E., Dobash, R. P., Cavanagh, K., & Medina-Ariza, J. (2007). Lethal and nonlethal violence against an intimate female partner: Comparing male murderers to nonlethal abusers. Violence Against Women, 13 , 329–353.

Dowling, C., Morgan, A., Boyd, C., & Voce, I. (2018). Policing domestic violence: A review of the evidence . AIC Research Report 13. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

Downes, J., Kelly, L., & Westmarland, N. (2019). “It’s a work in progress”: Men’s accounts of gender and change in their use of coercive control. Journal of Gender-Based Violence, 3 (3), 267–282.

Dunford, F. W. (2000). The San Diego navy experiment: An assessment of interventions for men who assault their wives. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68 , 468–476.

Dutton, D. G., & Corvo, K. (2006). Transforming a flawed policy: A call to revive psychology and science in domestic violence research and practice. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11 , 457–483.

Dutton, D. G., & Corvo, K. (2007). The Duluth model: A data-impervious paradigm and a failed strategy. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12 , 658–667.

Easton, C., Swan, S., & Sinha, R. (2000). Motivation to change substance use among offenders of domestic violence. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 19 , 1–5.

Easton, C. J., Mandel, D. L., Hunkele, K. A., Nich, C., Rounsaville, B. J., & Carroll, K. M. (2007). A cognitive behavioral therapy for alcohol-dependent domestic violence offenders: An integrated substance abuse-domestic violence treatment approach (SADV). American Journal on Addictions, 16 , 24–31.

Echauri, J. A., Fernández-Montalvo, J., Martínez, M., & Azkarate, J. M. (2013). Effectiveness of a treatment programme for immigrants who committed gender-based violence against their partners. Psicothema, 25 , 49–54.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Echeburúa, E., Fernández-Montalvo, J., & Amor, P. J. (2006). Psychological treatment of men convicted of gender violence: A pilot study in Spanish prisons. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50 , 57–70.

Eckhardt, C. I., Murphy, C. M., Black, D., & Suhr, L. (2006). Intervention programs for perpetrators of intimate partner violence: Conclusions from a clinical health perspective. Public Health Reports, 121 , 369–381.

Eckhardt, C. I., Samper, R. E., & Murphy, C. M. (2008). Anger disturbances among perpetrators of intimate partner violence: Clinical characteristics and outcomes of court-mandated treatment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23 , 1600–1617.

Eckhardt, C. I., Murphy, C. M., Whitaker, D. J., Sprunger, J., Dykstra, R., & Woodward, K. (2013). The effectiveness of intervention programs for perpetrators and victims of intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 4 , 196–231.

Esquivel-Santoveña, E. E., & Dixon, L. (2012). Investigating the true rate of physical intimate partner violence: A review of nationally representative surveys. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17 , 208–219.

Esquivel-Santoveña, E. E., Lambert, T. L., & Hamel, J. (2013). Partner abuse worldwide. Partner Abuse, 4 , 6–75.

Exum, M. L., Hartman, J. L., Friday, P. C., & Lord, V. B. (2014). Policing domestic violence in the Post-SARP era: The impact of a Domestic Violence Police Unit. Crime & Delinquency, 60 , 999–1032.

Feder, L., & Dugan, L. (2002). A test of the efficacy of court-mandated counselling for domestic violence offenders: The broward experiment. Justice Quarterly, 19 , 343–375.

Feder, L., & Forde, D. R. (2000). Test of the efficacy of court-mandated counselling for domestic violence offenders: The Broward experiment, Executive Summary . Document No. 184631. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Feder, L., & Wilson, D. B. (2005). A meta-analytic review of court-mandated batterer intervention programs: Can courts affect abusers’ behaviour? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1 , 239–262.

Feder, L., Wilson, D. B., & Austin. (2008). Court-mandated interventions for individuals convicted of domestic violence. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2008 , 12. https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2008.12

Felson, R. B., & Lane, K. J. (2010). Does violence involving women and intimate partners have a special etiology? Criminology, 48 , 321–338.

Felson, R. B., Ackerman, J. M., & Gallagher, C. A. (2005). Police intervention and the repeat of domestic assault. Criminology, 43 , 563–588.

Fernández-Montalvo, J., Echuari, J. A., Azcarate, J. M., & Lopez-Goñi, J. J. (2015). Impact of a court-referred psychological treatment program for intimate partner batterer men with suspended sentences. Violence and Victims, 30 , 3–15.

Foran, H. M., & O’Leary, K. D. (2008). Alcohol and intimate partner violence: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 28 , 1222–1234.

FRA (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights). (2014). Violence against women: An EU-wide survey: Main results . Publications Office of the European Union.

Friday, P. C., Lord, V. B., Exul, M. L., & Hartman, J. L. (2006). Evaluating the impact of a specialized Domestic Violence Police Unit . Document No. 215916. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

García-Moreno, C., Pallitto, C., Devries, K., Stöckl, H., Watts, C., & Abrahams, N. (2013). Global and regional estimate of violence against women: Prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence . World Health Organization.

García-Moreno, C., Zimmerman, C., Morris-Gehring, A., Heise, L., Amin, A., Abrahams, N., Montoya, O., Bhate-Doesthali, P., Kilonzo, N., & Watts, C. (2015). Addressing violence against women: A call to action. The Lancet, 385 , 1685–1695.

Garner, J. H., & Maxwell, C. D. (2000). What are the lessons of the police arrest studies? Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 4 , 83–114.

Garner, J. H., & Maxwell, C. D. (2011). The crime control effects of criminal sanctions for intimate partner violence . Document no. 236959. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice.

Garner, J., Fagan, J., & Maxwell, C. (1995). Published findings from the spouse assault replication program: A critical review. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 11 , 3–28.

Garside, R. (2006). Right for the wrong reasons: Making sense of criminal justice failure. In R. Garside & W. McMahon (Eds.), Does criminal justice work? The ‘right for the wrong reasons’ debate (pp. 9–39). Crime and Society Foundation.

Gerstenberger, C. B., & Williams, K. R. (2012). Gender and intimate partner violence: Does dual arrest reveal gender symmetry or asymmetry? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20 , 1–18.

Gondolf, E. W. (2000). A 30-month follow-up of court-referred batterers in four cities. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44 , 111–128.

Gondolf, E. W. (2007a). Culturally-focused batterer counselling for African-American men. Criminology & Public Policy, 6 , 341–366.

Gondolf, E. W. (2007b). Theoretical and research support for the Duluth model: A reply to Dutton and Corvo. Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 12 , 644–657.

Gondolf, E. W., & Jones, A. S. (2001). The program effect of batterer programs in three cities. Violence and Victims, 16 , 693–704.

Goosey, J., Sherman, L., & Neyroud, P. (2017). Integrated case management of repeated intimate partner violence: A randomized, controlled trial. Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing, 1 , 174–189.

Gordon, J. A., & Moriarty, L. J. (2003). The effects of domestic violence batterer treatment on domestic violence recidivism: The Chesterfield County experience. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30 , 118–134.

Gracia, E., Lila, M., & Santirso, F. A. (2020). Attitudes toward intimate partner violence against women in the European Union. European Psychologist, 25 (2), 104–121.

Groves, N., & Thomas, T. (2014). Domestic violence and criminal justice . Routledge.

Hamilton, L., Koehler, J. A., & Lösel, F. A. (2012). Domestic violence perpetrator programs in Europe, Part I: A survey of current practice. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57 , 1189–1205.

Hatcher, A. M., McBride, R.-S., Rebombo, D., Munshi, S., Khumalo, M., & Christofides, N. (2020). Process evaluation of a community mobilization intervention for preventing men’s partner violence use in peri-urban South Africa. Evaluation and Program Planning, 78 , 101727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2019.101727

Heise, L. L. (1998). Violence against women: An integrated, ecological framework. Violence Against Women, 4 , 262–290.

Hendricks, B., Werner, T., Shipway, L., & Turinetti, G. J. (2006). Recidivism among spousal abusers: Predictions and program evaluation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21 , 703–716.

Henwood, K. S., Chou, S., & Browne, K. D. (2015). A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of CBT informed anger management. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 25 , 280–292.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary. (2015). Increasingly everyone’s business: A progress report on the police response to domestic abuse . HMIC.

Herman, K., Rotunda, R., Williamson, G., & Vodanovich, S. (2014). Outcomes from a Duluth Model batterer intervention program at completion and long term follow-up. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 53 , 1–18.

Herrero, J., Torres, A., Fernández-Suárez, A., & Rodríguez-Díaz, F. J. (2016). Generalists versus specialists: Toward a typology of batterers in prison. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 8 , 19–26.

Hester, M. (2013). Who does what to whom? Gender and domestic violence perpetrators in English police records. European Journal of Criminology, 10 , 623–637.

Hester, M., Eisenstadt, N., Ortega-Avila, A., Morgan, K., Walker, S., & Bell, J. (2019). Evaluation of the drive project: A three-year pilot to address high-risk, high-harm perpetrators of domestic abuse . Unpublished Report. University of Bristol.

Hilton, N. Z., & Harris, G. T. (2005). Predicting wife assault: A critical review and implications for policy and practice. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 6 , 3–23.

Hilton, N. Z., Harris, G. T., & Rice, M. E. (2007). The effect of arrest on wife assault recidivism: Controlling for pre-arrest risk. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34 , 1334–1344.

Hirschel, D. (2008). Domestic violence cases: What research shows about arrest and dual arrest rates . U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Hungerford, A., Wait, S. K., Fritz, A. M., & Clements, C. M. (2012). Exposure to intimate partner violence and children’s psychological adjustment, cognitive functioning, and social competence: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17 , 373–382.

Huss, M. T., & Ralston, A. (2008). Do batterer subtypes actually matter? Treatment completion, treatment response, and recidivism across a batterer typology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35 , 710–724.

Jassal, N. (2020). Gender, law enforcement, and access to justice: Evidence from all-women police stations in India. American Political Science Review, 114 (4), 1035–1054.

Jewell, L. M., & Wormith, J. S. (2010). Variables associated with attrition from domestic violence treatment programs targeting male batterers: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37 , 1086–1113.

Johnson, M. P. (2008). A typology of domestic violence: Intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence . Northeastern University Press.

Johnson, R. R. (2011). Predicting officer physical assaults at domestic assault calls. Journal of Family Violence, 26 , 163–169.

Johnson, R. R., & Goodlin-Fahncke, W. (2015). Exploring the effect of arrest across a domestic batterer typology. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 66 , 15–30.

Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2007 ). A systematic review of the national and international evidence on the effectiveness of interventions with violent offenders . Ministry of Justice Research Series 16/07. London: Ministry of Justice, Research Development Statistics.

Jones, A. S., & Gondolf, E. W. (2002). Assessing the effect of batterer program completion on reassault: An instrumental variables analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 18 , 71–98.

Kalaga, H., & Kingston, P. (2007). A review of literature on effective interventions that prevent and respond to harm against adults . Scottish Government Social Research.

Kavanaugh, G. E., Sviatschi, M. M., & Trako, I. (2017). Inter-generational benefits of improving access to justice for women: Evidence from Peru . Working paper, SSRN Electronic Journal. http://conference.iza.org/conference_files/Gender_2018/sviatschi_m23512.pdf

Kelly, L., & Westmarland, N. (2015). Domestic violence perpetrator programmes: Steps towards change. Project Mirabal final report . London Metropolitan University and Durham University.

Kiss, L., Schraiber, L. B., Heise, L., Zimmerman, C., Gouveia, N., & Watts, C. (2012). Gender-based violence and socioeconomic inequalities: Does living in deprived neighbourhoods increase women’s risk of intimate partner violence? Social Science and Medicine, 74 , 1172–1179.

Kistenmacher, B. R., & Weiss, R. L. (2008). Motivational interviewing as a mechanism for change in men who batter: A randomized controlled trial. Violence and Victims, 23 , 558–570.

Klein, A. R., & Tobin, T. (2008). A longitudinal study of arrested batterers, 1995–2005. Violence Against Women, 14 , 136–157.

Labriola, M., Rempel, M., & Davis, R. C. (2005). Testing the effectiveness of batterer programs and judicial monitoring: Results from a randomized trial at the Bronx Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Court . Center for Court Innovation.

Labriola, M., Rempel, M., O’Sullivan, C. S., & Frank, P. B. (2010). Court responses to batterer program noncompliance: A national perspective . Center for Court Innovation.

Langenderfer, L. (2013). Alcohol use among partner violent adults: Reviewing recent literature to inform intervention. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18 , 152–158.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Misra, T. A., Selwyn, C., & Rohling, M. L. (2012). Rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional intimate partner violence across samples, sexual orientations, and race/ethnicities: A comprehensive review. Partner Abuse, 3 , 199–230.

Larsen, S. E., & Hamberger, L. K. (2015). Men’s and women’s experience of IPV part II: A review of new developments in comparative studies of clinical populations. Journal of Family Violence, 30 , 1007–1030.

Lawson, D. M. (2010). Comparing cognitive behavioural therapy and integrated cognitive behavioural therapy/psychodynamic therapy in group treatment for partner violent men. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 47 , 122–133.

Lee, M. Y., Uken, A., & Sebold, J. (2004). Accountability for change: Solution-focused treatment with domestic violence offenders. Families in Society, 85 , 463–476.

Levesque, D. A., Ciavatta, M. M., Castle, P. H., Prochaska, J. M., & Prochaska, J. O. (2012). Evaluation of a stage-based, computer-tailored adjunct to usual care for domestic violence offenders. Psychology of Violence, 2 , 368–384.

Lila, M., Oliver, A., Galiana, L., & Gracia, E. (2013). Predicting success indicators of an intervention programme for convicted intimate-partner violence offenders: The Contexto programme. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 5 , 73–95.

Lilley-Walker, S.-J., Hester, M., & Turner, W. (2018). Evaluation of European domestic violence perpetrator programmes: Toward a model for designing and reporting evaluations related to perpetrator treatment intervention. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62 (4), 868–884.

Lin, S.-C., Su, C.-Y., Chou, F. H.-C., Chen, S.-P., Huang, J.-J., Wu, G. T.-E., Chao, S.-S., & Chen, C.-C. (2009). Domestic violence recidivism in high-risk Taiwanese offenders after the completion of violence treatment programs. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 20 , 458–472.

Lyon, E. (2005). Impact evaluation of special session domestic violence: Enhanced advocacy and interventions (Final Report Summary) . National Institute of Justice.

MacLeod, D., Pi, R., Smith, D., & Rose-Goodwin, L. (2010). Batterer intervention systems in California: An evaluation . Judicial Council of California.

MacMillan, H. L., & Wathen, C. N. with the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (2001). Prevention and treatment of violence against women: Systematic review & recommendations . CTFPHC Technical Report #01-4. London, ON: Canadian Task Force.

Mamun, M. A., Parvin, K., Yu, M., Wan, J., Willan, S., Gibbs, A., Jewkes, R., & Naved, R. T. (2018). The HERrespect intervention to address violence against female garment workers in Bangladesh: Study protocol for a quasi-experimental trial. BMC Public Health, 18 , 512. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5442-5

Maxwell, C. D., & Garner, J. H. (2012). The crime control effects of criminal sanctions for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 3 , 469–500.

Maxwell, C. D., Garner, J. H., & Fagan, J. A. (2002). The preventive effects of arrest on intimate partner violence: Research, policy and theory. Criminology & Public Policy, 2 , 51–80.

Maxwell, C. D., Davis, R. C., & Taylor, B. G. (2010). The impact of length of domestic violence treatment on the patterns of subsequent intimate partner violence. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6 , 475–497.

McCollum, E. E., & Stith, S. M. (2008). Couples treatment for interpersonal violence: A review of outcome research literature and current clinical practices. Violence and Victims, 23 , 187–201.

McGuire, J. (2008). A review of effective interventions for reducing aggression and violence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 363 , 2577–2597.

McGuire, J., & Duff, S. (2018). Forensic psychology: Routes through the system . Palgrave Macmillan.

McMurran, M., & Gilchrist, E. (2008). Anger control and alcohol use: Appropriate interventions for domestic violence? Psychology, Crime, and Law, 14 , 107–116.

Mears, D. P., Carlson, M. J., Holden, G. W., & Harris, S. D. (2001). Reducing domestic violence revictimization: The effects of individual and contextual factors and type of legal intervention. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16 , 1260–1283.

Mennicke, A. M., & Ropes, K. (2016). Estimating the rate of domestic violence perpetrated by law enforcement officers: A review of methods and estimates. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 31 , 157–164.

Mennicke, A. M., Tripodi, S. J., Veh, C. A., Wilke, D. J., & Kennedy, S. C. (2015). Assessing attitude and reincarceration outcomes associated with in-prison domestic violence treatment program completion. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 54 , 465–485.

Messing, J. T., Campbell, J. C., Ward-Lasher, A., Brown, S., Patchell, B., & Wilson, J. S. (2016). The lethality assessment program: Which survivors of intimate partner violence are most likely to participate? Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 39 (1), 64–77.

Millbank, S., Riches, M., & Prior, B. (2000). Reducing repeat victimisation of domestic violence: The NDV Project . Paper presented at the conference reducing “Criminality: Partnerships and Best Practice”. Ministry of Justice, Western Australia.

Miller, J. (2003). An arresting experiment: Domestic violence victim experience and perceptions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18 , 695–716.

Miller, A. R., & Segal, C. (2019). Do female officers improve law enforcement quality? Effects on crime reporting and domestic violence. Review of Economic Studies, 86 , 2220–2247.

Miller, M., Drake, E., & Nafziger, M. (2013a). What works to reduce recidivism by domestic violence offenders? (Document No. 13-01-1201). Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Miller, E., Tancredi, D. J., McCauley, H. L., Decker, M. R., Virata, M. C. D., Anderson, H. A., O’Connor, B., & Silverman, J. G. (2013b). One-year follow-up of a coach-delivered dating violence prevention program: A cluster randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 45 (1), 108–112.

Mills, L. G., Barocas, B., & Ariel, B. (2013). The next generation of court-mandated domestic violence treatment: A comparison study of batterer intervention and restorative justice programs. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9 , 65–90.

Moore, T. M., Stuart, G. L., Meehan, J. C., Rhatigan, D. L., Hellmuth, J. C., & Keen, S. M. (2008). Drug abuse and aggression between intimate partners: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 28 , 247–274.

Morrel, T. M., Elliott, J. D., Murphy, C. M., & Taft, C. T. (2003). Cognitive behavioural and supportive group treatments for partner-violent men. Behavior Therapy, 34 , 77–95.

Morrow, W. J., Katz, C. M., & Choate, D. E. (2016). Assessing the impact of police body-worn cameras on arresting, prosecuting, and convicting suspects of intimate partner violence. Police Quarterly, 19 (3), 303–325.

Muftić, L. R., & Bouffard, J. A. (2007). An evaluation of gender differences in the implementation and impact of a comprehensive approach to domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 13 , 46–69.

Muñoz-Fernández, N., Ortega-Rivera, J., Nocentini, A., Menesini, E., & Sánchez-Jiménez, V. (2019). The efficacy of the “Dat-e Adolescence” prevention program in the reduction of dating violence and bullying. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16 , 408. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16030408

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Musser, P. H., Semiatin, J. N., Taft, C. T., & Murphy, C. M. (2008). Motivational interviewing as a pregroup intervention for partner-violent men. Violence and Victims, 23 , 539–557.

Natarajan, M. (2005). Women police stations as a dispute processing system: The Tamil Nadu experience in dealing with dowry-related domestic violence. Women and Criminal Justice, 16 (1/2), 87–106.

Natarajan, M. (2016). Police response to domestic violence: A case study of TecSOS mobile phone use in the London Metropolitan Police Service. Policing, 10 (4), 378–390.

Nesset, M. B., Lara-Cabrera, M. L., Dalsbø, T. K., Pederson, S. A., Bjørngaard, J. H., & Palmstiema, T. (2019). Cognitive behavioural group therapy for male perpetrators of intimate partner violence: A systematic review. BMC Psychiatry, 19 (11). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-019-2020-1

Niolon, P. H., Taylor, B. G., Latzman, N. E., Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Valle, L. A., & Tharp, A. T. (2016). Lessons learned in evaluating a multisite, comprehensive teen dating violence prevention strategy: Design and challenges of the evaluation of dating matters: Strategies to promote healthy teen relationships. Psychology of Violence, 6 , 452. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000043

Niolon, P. H., Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Tracy, A. J., Latzman, N. E., Little, T. D., DeGue, S., Lang, K. M., Estefan, L. F., Ghazarian, S. R., McIntosh, W. L. K., Taylor, B., Johnson, L. L., Kuoh, H., Burton, B., Fortson, B., Mumford, E. A., Nelson, S. C., Joseph, H., Valle, L. A., & Tharp, A. T. (2019). An RCT of dating matters: Effects on teen dating violence and relationship behaviors. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 57 (1), 13–23.

Norlander, B., & Eckhardt, C. (2005). Anger, hostility, and male perpetrators of intimate partner violence: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 25 , 119–152.

Novo, M., Fariña, F., Seijo, M. D., & Arce, R. (2012). Assessment of a community rehabilitation programme in convicted male intimate-partner violence offenders. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 12 , 219–234.

O’Farrell, T. J., Murphy, C. M., Stephan, S. H., Fals-Stewart, W., & Murphy, M. (2004). Partner violence before and after couples-based alcoholism treatment for male alcoholic patients: The role of treatment involvement and abstinence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72 , 202–217.

Oehme, K., Prost, S. G., & Saunders, D. G. (2016). Police responses to cases of officer-involved domestic violence: The effects of a brief web-based training. Policing, 10 (4), 391–407.

Office for National Statistics (ONS). (2016a). Chapter 4 – Intimate personal violence and partner abuse . Statistical Bulletin. London: Office for National Statistics.

Office for National Statistics (ONS). (2016b). Experimental Statistics 2: Domestic abuse offences recorded by the police, April to September 2015 . Statistical Bulletin. London: Office for National Statistics.

Okeke-Ihejirika, P., Salami, B., & Amodu, O. (2019). Exploring intimate partner violence from the perspective of African men: A meta-synthesis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 36 , 98–108.

Oram, S., Trevillion, K., Feder, G., & Howard, L. M. (2013). Prevalence of experiences of domestic violence among psychiatric patients: Systematic review. British Journal of Psychiatry, 202 , 94–99.

Orr, D. (2016). ‘Challenging the mindset of potential domestic abusers could save lives’. The Guardian , 17th February.

Pascual-Leone, A., Bierman, R., Arnold, R., & Stasiak, E. (2011). Emotion-focused therapy for incarcerated offenders of intimate partner violence: A 3-year outcome using a new whole-sample matching method. Psychotherapy Research, 21 , 331–347.

Peitzmeier, S. M., Malik, M., Kattari, S. K., Marrow, E., Stephenson, R., Agénor, M., & Reisner, S. L. (2020). Intimate partner violence in transgender populations: Systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence and correlates. American Journal of Public Health, 110 , e1–e14. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.305774

Perova, E., & Reynolds, S. A. (2017). Women’s police stations and intimate partner violence: Evidence from Brazil. Social Science & Medicine, 174 , 188–196.

Piquero, A. R., Brame, R. Fagan, J., & Moffitt, T. E. (2005). Assessing the offending activity of criminal domestic violence suspects: Offense specialization, escalation, and de-escalation evidence from the Spousal Assault Replication Program . Document No. 212298. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Piquero, A. R., Brame, R., Fagan, J. A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2006). Assessing the offending activity of criminal domestic violence suspects: Offense specialization, escalation, and de-escalation evidence from the Spouse Assault Replication Program. Public Health Reports, 121 , 409–418.

Piquero, A. R., Jennings, W. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2009). Effectiveness of programs designed to improve self-control . Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brå).

Pitts, W. J., Givens, E., & McNeeley, S. (2009). The need for a holistic approach to specialized domestic violence court programming: Evaluating offender rehabilitation needs and recidivism. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 60 , 1–21.

Post, L. A., Klevens, J., Maxwell, C. D., Shelley, G. A., & Ingram, E. (2009). An examination of whether coordinated community responses affect intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25 , 75–93.

Prenzler, T., & Sinclair, G. (2013). The status of women police officers: An international review. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 41 (2), 115–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2012.12.001

Rivas, C., Ramsay, J., Sadowski, L., Davidson, L. L., Dunne, D., Eldridge, S., Hegarty, K., Taft, A., & Feder, G. (2016). Advocacy interventions to reduce or eliminate violence and promote the physical and psychosocial well-being of women who experience intimate partner abuse. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2016 , 2. https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2016.2

Rosenbaum, A., Gearan, P. J., & Ondoci, C. (2001). Completion and recidivism among court- and self-referred batterers in a psychoeducational group treatment program. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 5 , 199–220.

Salazar, L. F., Emshoff, J. G., Baker, C. K., & Crowley, T. (2007). Examining the behaviour of a system: An outcome evaluation of a coordinated community response to domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 22 , 631–641.

Santirso, F. A., Gilchrist, G., Lila, M., & Gracia, E. (2020). Motivational strategies in interventions for intimate partner violence offenders: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Psychosocial Intervention, 29 (3), 175–190.

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 , 425–440.

Saunders, D. G. (2008). Group interventions for men who batter: A summary of program descriptions and research. Violence and Victims, 23 , 156–172.

Schucan-Bird, K., Vigurs, C., Gough, D., & Quy, K. (undated). Criminal justice interventions with perpetrators or victims of domestic violence: A systematic map of the empirical literature . What works: Crime reduction review series, no. 3. University of London, Institute of Education, Evidence for Policy and Practice, Information and Coordinating Centre.

Scott, M. C., & Easton, C. J. (2010). Racial differences in treatment effect among men in a substance abuse and domestic violence program. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 36 , 357–362.

Scott, K., Heslop, L., Kelly, T., & Wiggins, K. (2015). Intervening to prevent repeat offending among moderate- to high-risk domestic violence offenders: A second-responder program for men. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59 , 273–294.

Semahegn, A., Torpey, K., Manu, A., Assefa, N., & Ankomah, A. (2017). Community based intervention to prevent domestic violence against women in the reproductive age in Northwestern Ethiopia: A protocol for quasi-experimental study. Reproductive Health, 14 , 155. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-017-0414-2

Semahegn, A., Torpey, K., Manu, A., Assefa, N., Tesfaye, G., & Ankomah, A. (2019). Are interventions focused on gender-norms effective in preventing domestic violence against women in low and lower-middle income countries? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reproductive Health, 16 , 93. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-019-0726-5

Sharps, P. W., Bullock, L. F., Campbell, J. C., Alhusenm, J. L., Ghazarian, S. R., Bhandari, S. S., & Schminkey, D. L. (2016). Domestic violence enhanced perinatal home visits: The DOVE randomized clinical trial. Journal of Women’s Health, 25 (11), 1129–1138.

Sheehan, K. A., Thakor, S., & Stewart, D. E. (2012). Turning points for perpetrators of intimate partner violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 13 , 30–40.

Sherman, L. W., & Berk, R. A. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault. American Sociological Review, 49 , 261–272.

Sherman, L. W., & Harris, H. M. (2015). Increased death rates of domestic violence victims from arresting vs. warning suspects in the Milwaukee Domestic Violence Experiment (MilDVE). Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11 , 1–20.

Siddique, Z. (2013). Partially identified treatment effects under imperfect compliance: The case of domestic violence. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 108 , 504–513.

Slaght, E., & Hamilton, N. (2005). A coordinated response to intimate partner violence: Lessons from an exploratory study. Journal of Community Practice, 13 , 45–59.

Sloan, F. A., Platt, A. C., Chepke, L. M., & Blevins, C. E. (2013). Deterring domestic violence: Do criminal sanctions reduce repeat offenses? Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 46 , 51–80.

Smedslund, G., Dalsbø, T. K., Steiro, A., Winsvold, A., & Clench-Aas, J. (2011). Cognitive behavioural therapy for men who physical abuse their female partner. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews , (2), CD006048. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006048.pub2

Stare, B. G., & Fernando, D. M. (2014). Intimate partner violence typology and treatment: A brief literature review. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 22 , 298–303.

Stewart, L. A., Flight, J., & Slavin-Stewart, C. (2013). Applying effective corrections principles (RNR) to partner abuse interventions. Partner Abuse, 4 , 494–534.

Stewart, L. A., Gabora, N., Kropp, P. R., & Lee, Z. (2014). Effectiveness of risks-needs-responsibility-based family violence programs with male offenders. Journal of Family Violence, 29 , 151–164.

Stith, S. M., Rosen, K. H., & McCollum, E. E. (2003). Effectiveness of couples treatment for spouse abuse. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 29 , 407–426.

Stith, S. M., Rosen, K. H., McCollum, E. E., & Thomsen, C. J. (2004). Treating intimate partner violence within intact couple relationships: Outcomes of multi-couple versus individual couple therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 30 , 305–318.

Stöckl, H., Devries, K., Rotstein, A., Abrahams, N., Campbell, J., Watts, C., & García-Moreno, C. (2013). The global prevalence of intimate partner homicide: A systematic review. Lancet, 382 , 859–865.

Storey, J. E., Kropp, P. R., Hart, S. D., Belfrage, H., & Strand, S. (2013). Assessment and management of risk for intimate partner violence by police officers using the Brief Spousal Assault Form for the Evaluation of Risk. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41 , 256–271.

Stover, C. S. (2012). Police-advocacy partnerships in response to domestic violence. Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations, 12 , 183–198.

Stover, C. S., Rainey, A. M., Berkman, M., & Marans, S. (2008). Factors associated with engagement in a police-advocacy home-visit intervention to prevent domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 14 , 1430–1450.

Stover, C. S., Meadows, A. M., & Kaufman, J. (2009a). Interventions for intimate partner violence: Review and implications for evidence-based practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40 , 223–233.

Stover, C. S., Poole, G., & Marans, S. (2009b). The domestic violence home-visit intervention: Impact on police-reported incidents of repeat violence over 12 months. Violence and Victims, 24 , 591–606.

Stover, C. S., Berkman, M., Desai, R., & Marans, S. (2010). The efficacy of police-advocacy intervention for victims of domestic violence: 12 month follow-up data. Violence Against Women, 16 , 410–425.

Strang, H., Sherman, L., Ariel, B., Chilton, S., Braddock, R., Rowlinson, T., Cornelius, N., Jarman, R., & Weinborn, C. (2017). Reducing the harm of intimate partner violence: Randomized controlled trial of the Hampshire Constabulary CARA Experiment. Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing, 1 , 160–173.

Straus, M. A. (2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30 , 252–275.

Straus, M. A. (2010). Thirty years of denying the evidence on gender symmetry in partner violence: Implications for prevention and treatment. Partner Abuse, 1 , 332–362.

Straus, M. A. (2014). Addressing violence by female partners is vital to prevent or stop violence against women: Evidence from the Multisite Batterer Intervention Programme. Violence Against Women, 20 , 889–899.

Stuart, G. L., Temple, J. R., & Moore, T. M. (2007). Improving batterer intervention programs through theory-based research. Journal of the American Medical Association, 298 , 560–562.

Subirana-Malaret, M., Gahagan, J., & Parker, R. (2019). Intersectionality and sex and gender-based analyses as promising approaches in addressing intimate partner violence treatment programs among LGBT couples: A scoping review. Cogent Social Sciences, 5 , 1644982. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2019.1644982

Sugarman, D. B., & Boney-McCoy, S. (2000). Research synthesis in family violence: The art of reviewing research. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 4 , 55–82.

Svalin, K., & Levander, S. (2020). The predictive validity of intimate partner violence risk assessments conducted by practitioners in different settings—a review of the literature. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 35 , 115–130.

Taylor, B. G., & Maxwell, C. D. (2009). The effects of a short-term batterer treatment program for detained arrestees: A randomized experiment in the Sacramento County, California jail . Document No. 228275. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Taylor, B. G., Davis, R. C., & Maxwell, C. D. (2001). The effects of a group batterer treatment program: A randomized experiment in Brooklyn. Justice Quarterly, 18 , 171–201.

Tollefson, D. R., & Gross, E. R. (2006). Predicting recidivism following participation in a treatment program for batterers. Journal of Social Service Research, 32 , 39–62.

Trebow, E. A., Berkanovic, E., & Harada, P. U. (2015). The outcomes and process improvement project: Batterers’ intervention program evaluation comparing English-language and Spanish-language offenders. Partner Abuse, 6 , 273–297.

Tutty, L. M., & Babins-Wagner, R. (2019). Outcomes and recidivism in mandated batterer intervention before and after introducing a specialized domestic violence court. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34 (5), 1039–1062.

Tutty, L. M., Babins-Wagner, R., & Rothery, M. A. (2020). The responsible choices for men IPV offender program: Outcomes and a comparison of court-mandated to non-court-mandated men. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 29 (3), 292–313.

VanderEnde, K. E., Yount, K. M., Dynes, M. M., & Sibley, L. M. (2012). Community-level correlates of intimate partner violence against women globally: A systematic review. Social Science and Medicine, 75 , 1143–1155.

Ventura, L. A., & Davis, G. (2006). An exploratory study of court-referred batterer intervention programs in Ohio . Office of Criminal Justice Services.

Vigurs, C., Schucan-Bird, K., Quy, K. & Gough, D. (undated). The impact of domestic violence perpetrator programmes or victim and criminal justice outcomes . What works: Crime reduction review series, no. 5. University College London, Institute of Education, Evidence for Policy and Practice, Information and Coordinating Centre.

Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Niolon, P. H., Estefan, L. F., Le, V. D., Tracy, A. J., Latzman, N. E., Little, T. D., Lang, K. M., DeGue, S., & Tharp, A. T. (2020). Middle school effects of the Dating Matters® comprehensive teen dating violence prevention model on physical violence, bullying, and cyberbullying: A cluster-randomized controlled trial. Prevention Science . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-019-01071-9

Walker, K., Bowen, E., & Brown, S. (2013). Desistance from intimate partner violence: A critical review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18 , 271–280.

Wathen, C. N., MacMillan, H. L., & with the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. (2003). Prevention of violence against women: Recommendation statement from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 169 , 582–584.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Whetstone, T. S. (2001). Measuring the impact of a domestic violence coordinated response team. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 24 , 371–398.

Whitaker, D. J., Murphy, C. M., Eckhardt, C. I., Hodges, A. E., & Cowart, M. (2013). Effectiveness of primary prevention efforts for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 4 , 175–195.

Whittington, R., & McGuire, J. (2020). Violence rewired: Evidence and strategies for public health action . Cambridge University Press.

Wilkinson, D. L., & Hamerschlag, S. J. (2005). Situational determinants in intimate partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10 , 333–361.

Wistow, R., Kelly, L., & Westmarland, N. (2017). “Time Out”: A strategy for reducing men’s violence against women in relationships? Violence Against Women, 23 (6), 730–748.

World Health Organization (WHO). (2013). Global and regional estimates of violence against women: Prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence . WHO.

Wray, A. M., Hoyt, T., & Gerstle, M. (2013). Preliminary examination of a mutual intimate partner violence intervention among treatment-mandated couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 27 , 664–670.

Yakubovich, A. R., Stöckl, H., Murray, J., Melendex-Torres, G. J., Steinert, J. I., Glavin, C. E. Y., & Humphreys, D. K. (2018). Risk and protective factors for intimate partner violence against women: Systematic review and meta-analyses of prospective–longitudinal studies. American Journal of Public Health, 108 , e1–e11.

Yodanis, C. L. (2004). Gender inequality, violence against women, and fear: A cross-national test of the feminist theory of violence against women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19 , 655–675.

Yorke, N. J., Friedman, B. D., & Hurt, P. (2012). Implementing a batterer’s intervention program in a correctional setting: A tertiary prevention model. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49 , 456–478.

Zeoli, A. M., Malinski, R., & Turchan, B. (2016). Risks and targeted interventions: Firearms in intimate partner violence. Epidemiologic Reviews, 38 , 125–139.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

James McGuire

Institute for Global Innovation, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

Emily Evans

Centre for Health and Justice, University of Nottingham, Notttingham, UK

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

McGuire, J., Evans, E., Kane, E. (2021). Domestic Abuse and Intimate Partner Violence: A Review of Police-Led and Multi-agency Interventions. In: Evidence-Based Policing and Community Crime Prevention. Advances in Preventing and Treating Violence and Aggression . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76363-3_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76363-3_4

Published : 02 September 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-76362-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-76363-3

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Sage Choice

Gender Differences Between Domestic Violent Men and Women: Criminogenic Risk Factors and Their Association With Treatment Dropout

Anne m. e. bijlsma.

1 Research Institute Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Claudia E. van der Put

Annemiek vial, joan van horn.

2 Center for Outpatient Forensic Treatment, de Waag, Utrecht, Netherlands

Geertjan Overbeek

Mark assink.

Although many studies have concluded that men and women engage in domestic violence at equal levels, existing studies have hardly focused on gender specific risk factors for domestic violence perpetration. Therefore, this study aimed to examine gender differences in criminogenic risk factors between Dutch male and female forensic outpatients who were referred to forensic treatment for domestic violence. Clinical structured assessments of criminogenic risk factors were retrieved for 366 male and 87 female outpatients. Gender differences were not only found in the prevalence and interrelatedness of criminogenic risk factors, but also in associations between criminogenic risk factors and treatment dropout. In men, risk factors related to the criminal history, substance abuse, and criminal attitudes were more prevalent than in women, whereas risk factors related to education/work, finances, and the living environment were more prevalent in women. Further, having criminal friends, having a criminal history, and drug abuse were associated with treatment dropout in men, whereas a problematic relationship with family members, housing instability, a lack of personal support, and unemployment were associated with treatment dropout in women. Finally, network analyses revealed gender differences in risk factor interrelatedness. The results provide important insights into gender specific differences in criminogenic risk factors for domestic violence, which support clinical professionals in tailoring treatment to the specific needs of male and female perpetrators of domestic violence.

Domestic violence (defined as physical, sexual, emotional, economic, or psychological abuse against an intimate partner, child, or other relative) affects many men, women, and children ( Carlson, 2000 ; Moylan et al., 2010 ; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000 ; United Nations, 2020 ; Wolfe et al., 2003 ; World Health Organization, 2013 ). The devastating consequences of domestic violence ask for treatment programs with minimal dropout of perpetrators to reduce (recurring) family violence. Although women are more often portrayed as victims than perpetrators of domestic violence, recent studies report equal domestic violence victimization prevalence in men and women ( de Vogel et al., 2016 ; Lysova et al., 2019 ). It is striking that even though a large part of the domestic violence perpetrators is female, not much is known about how female criminogenic risks differ from those of males, or which different criminogenic risk factors are associated with treatment dropout in females compared to males ( de Vogel et al., 2014 ). Therefore, the aim of this study was to provide further insights into gender differences in forensic outpatients who were referred to forensic treatment for domestic violence, by studying gender differences in the prevalence of criminogenic risk factors, their interrelatedness using an innovative statistical technique for network modeling, and their association with treatment dropout.

Studies show that women experiencing intimate partner violence are at increased risk of experiencing physical and mental health problems, such as depression, trauma, and stress (e.g., Campbell & Lewandowski, 1997 ; Gorde et al., 2004 ). Since there is a general view in the literature that men are more often perpetrator than victim of domestic violence, there is also much less research on the consequences of domestic violence victimization for men ( Archer, 2000 ; De Vogel & Uzieblo, 2020 ). However, there are studies available showing that a poor health, depressive symptoms, substance abuse, and injury, may follow domestic violence victimization of men ( Coker et al., 2000 ; Randle & Graham, 2011 ). Besides the effects of domestic violence on the well-being of men and women alike, exposure to domestic violence is associated with externalizing and internalizing problems in children, such as increased aggressive behavior, trauma, and depression (e.g., Huth-Bocks et al., 2001 ; Evans et al., 2008 ; Jouriles et al., 2008 ). To reduce these consequences of family violence, effective treatment programs with minimal dropout of perpetrators are urgently needed.

Unfortunately, there is a lack of evaluation studies on the effects of intervention programs in female perpetrators ( Carney et al., 2007 ). What we do know is that for male perpetrators, treatment effects for reducing domestic violence are small (e.g., d = 0.34, Babcock et al., 2002 ). A main cause of this disappointing finding can be found in high treatment dropout rates, as more than 40% of male perpetrators of domestic violence fail to complete treatment ( Babcock et al., 2002 ; Buttell & Pike, 2002 ; Sartin et al., 2006 ). These high dropout rates are a major problem because treatment completion is necessary to sufficiently reduce the risk factors contributing to the likelihood of recidivism of perpetrators of domestic violence ( Babcock & Steiner, 1999 ; Bennett et al., 2007 ; Rosenbaum et al., 2001 ; Jones et al., 2004 ). An important question is why these treatment attrition rates in interventions aimed at reducing domestic violence are so high.

Several studies addressed this question by identifying differences between dropouts and completers of domestic violence treatments. Results show that variables predictive of domestic violence treatment dropout correspond to variables that are predictive of criminal recidivism ( Jewell & Wormith, 2010 ; Wormith & Olver, 2002 ). As Jewell and Wormith (2010) argue, many of the identified risk factors for treatment dropout reflect criminogenic needs from the Risk, Need, and Responsivity Model by Andrews and colleagues (1990 ). Criminogenic needs are dynamic risk factors that are directly linked to criminal behavior, such as mental health problems or coping skills. These risk factors can potentially be changed and therefore provide opportunities for treatment aimed at reducing criminogenic needs and strengthening protective factors ( Babcock & Steiner, 1999 ; Bonta & Andrews, 2017 ; Olver et al., 2011 ; Tollefson et al., 2008 ). Daly and Pelowski (2000) also stressed that strategies for treatment retention include a thorough assessment of risk factors for treatment dropout, and close monitoring of perpetrators at higher risk for treatment attrition throughout their program participation.

Examples of dynamic criminogenic needs that reflect risk factors for treatment dropout in male perpetrators of domestic violence are psychological problems, unemployment, and substance abuse ( Bowen & Gilchrist, 2006 ; Daly & Pelowski, 2000 ; Grusznski & Carrillo, 1988 ; Jewell & Wormith, 2010 ; Lila et al., 2017 ; Stalans & Seng, 2007 ; Tollefson et al., 2008 ). Besides criminogenic needs, static risk factors (i.e., immutable risk factors), such as a criminal history, or a history of victimization as a child, are also associated with treatment dropout in perpetrators of domestic violence, although conflicting results have been found ( Daly & Pelowski, 2000 ; Grusznski & Carrillo, 1988 ; Jewell & Wormith, 2010 ; Rooney & Hanson, 2001 ; Scott, 2004 ). In the few studies on female perpetrators of domestic violence, quite similar risk factors for treatment dropout were found. For example, criminogenic needs (e.g., drug and alcohol use, unemployment, and low educational level) and static risks (e.g., criminal history) are associated with treatment attrition in both men and women ( Buttell et al., 2012 ; Carney & Buttell, 2004 ).

Still, studies on criminogenic needs of perpetrators of domestic violence are primarily focused on men, and there are a limited number of studies on similarities and differences between male and female domestic violence perpetrators. One of those studies by Henning and colleagues (2003 ) showed that women arrested for domestic violence are more likely than men to have previously attempted suicide, and that they are more often previously treated with psychotropic medication (e.g., antipsychotics). On the contrary, male perpetrators are more often treated for substance abuse ( Henning et al., 2003 ). Both male and female perpetrators show minimization, denial, and external attributions related to their domestic violent offense, but female perpetrators tend to attribute their violent offenses more often to characteristics of their partner, such as lack of commitment and unfaithfulness ( Henning et al., 2005 ). Results from a study examining clinical and personality disorders diagnosed in male and female perpetrators of domestic violence showed that women demonstrated more histrionic, narcissistic, and compulsive personality traits compared to men ( Simmons et al., 2005 ). This study also showed that men demonstrated higher dependent personality traits than women. Carney and colleagues (2007 ) argue that female perpetrators of domestic violence share similar motives and psycho-social characteristics (e.g., prior aggression or personality disturbance) as male perpetrators. Carney et al., (2007) , also suggested that professionals would do well to consider common risk factors for general violence when evaluating possible intervention needs of male and female abusers. To date, no studies used comprehensive measures of criminogenic risk factors for criminal behavior and recidivism, such as risk factors forming the Central Eight ( Bonta & Andrews, 2017 ; Eisenberg et al., 2019 ), in examining gender differences and similarities in male and female perpetrators of domestic violence.

Furthermore, while the risk for treatment dropout may increase by criminogenic risk factor interactions ( Olver et al., 2011 ), no attention has been paid to risk factor interrelatedness in perpetrators of domestic violence. Advances in methodology and statistics have made it possible to study the complexity of the relations between risk factors, for example network analysis ( Borsboom & Cramer, 2013 ). Using network analysis, partial correlations between risk factors can be examined, and the most central risk factor (i.e., the risk factor that is most likely to cause the development of other risks) can be determined ( Borsboom & Cramer, 2013 ). This analysis provides important information for treatment directions, as it can be expected that targeting central risk factors in interventions helps reducing other risks.

Therefore, the aim of this study was to increase knowledge on gender specific criminogenic risk factors in forensic outpatients who were referred to forensic treatment for domestic violence by studying differences and interactions in risk factors between female and male forensic outpatients. More specifically, we examined gender differences in the prevalence of criminogenic risk factors, and examined the interrelatedness between the criminogenic risk factors in male and female outpatients using an innovative statistical technique for network modeling. Finally, we examined the association between the criminogenic risk factors and treatment dropout in both male and female outpatients. Because of a lack of substantial empirical attention to risk factors in female perpetrators of domestic violence, and inconsistencies in study results of risk factors for treatment dropout in male perpetrators of domestic violence, we were unable to develop specific hypotheses about differences in risk factors between these perpetrator groups. Yet, in light of the studies that are available, we did expect to find risk factors for treatment dropout that correspond to risk factors that are predictive of criminal recidivism (i.e., Central Eight criminogenic needs, Andrews et al., 1990 ) in both perpetrator groups ( Jewell & Wormith, 2010 ; Wormith & Olver, 2002 ).

The initial sample comprised 1272 adult forensic outpatients who were referred to forensic treatment for domestic violence between 2014 and 2015 at a forensic care facility in the Netherlands (de Waag). In this sample, 213 outpatients did not receive treatment because of various contraindications, such as acute psychosis and addiction. Data from another 204 outpatients were excluded, because of registration errors in the electronic files of these outpatients (e.g., information on the diagnostic phase was missing). Another 103 outpatients did not give permission for using their data for research purposes. Last, a complete risk assessment was not available for 752 outpatients implying that the final sample consisted of 453 outpatients (366 men and 87 women).

Demographics and treatment characteristics

Compared to the sampled women ( M = 34.80, SD = 9.92), men were older ( M = 38.58, SD = 11.18) ( t (451) = 2.89, p < .01), more often court mandated (36% and 9%, respectively) ( x 2 (1, N = 453) = 22.99, p < .001), and more often had a non-Dutch nationality (32% and 22%, respectively) ( x 2 (1, n = 363) = 4.33, p < .05). There was no significant difference in treatment duration in months between men ( M = 8.94, SD = 4.35) and women ( M = 9.68, SD = 4.42) ( t (351) = −1.21, p = .226).

Research Protocol

The data used in this study were collected as part of routine outcome monitoring (ROM) at the forensic care facility (de Waag). This facility is the largest forensic outpatient treatment center in the Netherlands with approximately 5000 outpatients entering treatment each year. The facility offers mainly cognitive-behavioral based interventions to juvenile and adult outpatients who, due to their offensive behavior, come into contact with police force or judicial authorities. Patients enter treatment on a voluntary or mandatory basis. Voluntary treatment indicates that the patient enters treatment on his own initiative, either on referral of a general practitioner or another mental health care institute. Mandatory treatment means that treatment is imposed by a judge, and that a probation officer acts as supervisor.

The routine outcome monitoring (ROM) data in this study were collected by the therapists at the forensic care facility as part of their daily job activities, and were provided anonymously to the researchers. The ROM data collection is part of ongoing research at the forensic care facility that is aimed at improving regular treatment. In the ROM procedure, all outpatients referred to the facility are routinely assessed with a number of internet-based instruments (e.g., the Risk Assessment for outpatient Forensic Mental Health-Adult [RAF-MH]) at baseline during intake, and if treatment is initiated, repeatedly every four months during treatment. At intake, patients were informed by the therapist about what data will be collected and how their data will be used for scientific purposes. Patients were asked to sign a general informed consent letter if they agreed on the use of their data for scientific research, and they could withdraw their consent at any time during and after treatment. This procedure was in line with the Dutch Data Protection Act (Dutch DPA) and Dutch healthcare law that prescribe how the privacy of personal information in the context of mental health services must be dealt with.

A premature ending of treatment by either the outpatient or the practitioner was referred to as dropout, which concerned 82 (22.4%) of the 366 male outpatients, and 21 (24.1%) of the 87 female outpatients in the sample ( x 2 (1, N = 453) = .120, p = .729). In the initial sample of outpatients for whom data of treatment completion were available, there was also no significant difference between the dropout rates of male (23.3%) and female outpatients (22.7%) ( x 2 (1, N = 544) = .015, p = .901). There were several reasons for dropping out of treatment, of which a persistent lack of motivation, frequent illicit absence from treatment sessions, or a lack of progress as assessed by the therapist, were the most common.

Instruments

The Risk Assessment for outpatient Forensic Mental Health-Adult version (RAF-MH) is a structured professional judgment risk assessment instrument for adults for whom forensic psychiatric health care is indicated ( van Horn et al., 2012 ). The RAF-MH consists of twelve so-called risk domains, each measuring at least of two or more criminogenic risk factors. The structure of the instrument is comparable to the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R), which is a risk and needs assessment tool developed by Andrews and Bonta (2000) . Similar to the LSI-R, the RAF-MH measures overall risk domain scores for criminal recidivism by assessing both static (e.g., age of onset for delinquent behavior) and dynamic (e.g., drug abuse) risk factors. Contrary to singular item scoring, this scoring structure offers the possibility of tracing the decision procedure that has resulted in overall risk domain scores. More specifically, this scoring structure enables a more explicit and clear risk assessment procedure than singular item scoring, particularly in retrieving the information that has led to the overall clinical judgment at the end of each risk domain. The risk assessment following the RAF-MH consists of two steps: (1) All risk domain items are scored by the therapist following the guidelines as described in the manual of the RAF-MH; (2) Each risk domain is given a structured clinical judgment on the overall functioning of the outpatient based on the underlying risk items. This judgment is expressed on a 6-point scale, with scores 0, 1, and 2 indicating a satisfactory level of functioning and with scores 3, 4, and 5 indicating a problematic level of functioning.

The 12 risk domains that can be assessed with the RAF-MH are: (1) “Previous and current offenses”: for example, previous criminal behavior and age at first antisocial behavior; (2) “School/(part-time) job”: for example, behavioral problems at school, or employment; (3) “Finances”: having debts and having an unemployment benefit; (4) “Living environment”: instability of living situation and living in a bad neighborhood; (5) “Family/partner”: for example, relationship instability and relationship with parents; (6) “Social network”: for example, social isolation and affiliation with deviant peers; (7) “Leisure activities”: individual- and group activities, (8) “Substances”: for example, substance abuse/dependency and its negative effect on several life domains; (9) “Emotional/personal”: for example, coping skills, impulsivity, and personality disorders; (10) “Attitudes”: for example, lack of empathy and crime supportive beliefs; (11) “Motivation for treatment”: for example, treatment attendance and insight in risky situations; Domain 12 “Sexual problems” only applies to sex offenders, and the scores in this domain were therefore excluded from the analyses.

The psychometric qualities of the adult version of the RAF-MH have not yet been examined, but the inter-rater reliability (Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) = 0.78) and predictive validity (Area Under the Curve (AUC) = 0.77) of the almost identical youth version of the RAF-MH are sufficient ( Van Horn et al., 2009 ). A total of 21 items of the RAF-MH were scored dichotomously (no/yes), whereas 34 items were scored on a 3-point scale (ranging from 1–2–3) with higher scores indicating higher levels of a risk factor. For these non-dichotomous items, dummy variables were created, with 1 (score 1 or 2) indicating the presence and 0 the absence of a risk factor. One item from the risk domain “criminal history and severity,”, and seven items from the risk domain “education/work” were excluded from analyses, because the scores on these items were missing for more than 50% of the participants. Data were missing, for instance, because items were not applicable to a participant’s circumstances (e.g., job performance in case of unemployment).

A phi coefficient was computed by performing a Chi-Square test of independence to determine gender differences in the prevalence of criminogenic risk factors that were measured with the RAF-MH. An independent samples t -test was performed to determine gender differences in RAF-MH risk domain scores.

To examine the interrelatedness of the risk factors for male and female outpatients, statistical networks were created to model the interactions between risk domains. Network analysis is a relatively new method for modeling interactions between variables that is increasingly applied to different disciplines, for example, to explore the interrelatedness of risk factors for child maltreatment ( Vial et al., 2020 ). A network characterizes structures in terms of nodes (the RAF-MH risk domains/factors) and edges (relationships or the partial correlations) that connect these nodes. We used the EBICglasso technique, which estimates partial correlations between all variables, and shrinks absolute weights to zero, addressing the multiplicity issue ( Barbalat et al., 2019 ; Van den Bergh, 2018 ). Before interpreting the obtained networks, correlation stability (CS) coefficients were calculated to make inferences about the accuracy and stability of the node strength centrality and edge weight coefficients. The centrality measures and the edge weights are considered stable when the corresponding CS-coefficient exceeds a value of .25 ( Epskamp et al., 2018 ). The network analyses were performed using R-package “bootnet” (version 1.2; Epskamp et al., 2018 ) in R-3.6.1). Correlation coefficients were interpreted using the guidelines by ( Gignac & Szodorai, 2016 ) (i.e., 0.10 = small, 0.20 = moderate, and 0.30 = large).

For men and women separately, a phi coefficient was computed by performing a Chi-Square test of independence to determine the associations between the dichotomously scored variables: risk factors (present/not present) and treatment dropout (treatment dropout/treatment completion). The results were interpreted using the guidelines of Cohen (1988) (i.e., small = 0.1, moderate = 0.3, and large = 0.5). For every risk factor item, a two-proportion z -test was performed to determine gender differences in risk prevalence in dropouts. For every domain, bivariate correlation analyses were conducted to determine the association between risk factor scores and dropout. The effect sizes were interpreted using the guidelines of Rice and Harris (2005) for point-biserial correlations (i.e., men: small = 0.081, moderate = 0.204, large = 0.316, women: small = 0.085, moderate = 0.209, large = 0.324). A comparison of correlations from independent samples ( z -test) was performed to determine significant gender differences in association strength between domain risk scores and treatment dropout ( Lenhard & Lenhard, 2014 ).

Risk Factor Prevalence and Risk Domain Scores

Table 1 provides an overview of the prevalence of criminogenic risk factors (in percentages) for male and female outpatients as measured by the RAF-MH. Fifteen risk factors were significantly more prevalent in male than in female outpatients, of which six were static (i.e., prior convictions, official offense records, unreported offenses, previous imprisonment, past alcohol abuse/dependence, and past drug abuse/dependence), and nine were dynamic (i.e., criminal friends, present alcohol abuse/dependence, present drug abuse/dependence, substance use disorder, interpersonal problems because of substance use, poor anger management, offense justification, offense denial, and lack of empathy). In female outpatients, one static risk factor (i.e., victim of child maltreatment) and four dynamic risk factors (i.e., currently unemployed, low job performance, unemployment benefit, and housing instability) were significantly more prevalent than in male outpatients. Table 2 provides the mean scores on the RAF-MH risk domains for male and female outpatients. Men scored significantly higher than women on criminal history, substance abuse, and criminal attitudes. Both male and female outpatients scored high on the personal/emotional risk domain.

Prevalence of Criminogenic Risk Factors in Domestic Violent Men and Women.

* p <.05.

** p <.01.

*** p <.001.

Gender Differences in Risk Domain Scores.

a An independent samples t -test was performed for each risk domain to test the difference in mean domain risk score between male and female domestic violence offenders. Gender was scored dichotomously (0 = men, 1 = women), meaning that a negative t value indicates a higher risk domain score in men.

Risk Domain Interrelatedness

Figures 1 and ​ and2 2 show the results of the network analyses that were performed to examine the interrelatedness of the risk domains in male and female outpatients. The network for male outpatients was sufficiently stable, as the CS-coefficients of the strength centrality and edge weight were .28 and .60. For female outpatients, the edge weights (i.e., partial correlation coefficients) were sufficiently stable (.29) according to the criteria of Epskamp et al. (2018) , but the overall strength centrality coefficient was below the preferred value of .25, meaning that the risk domain centrality could not be interpreted. For male outpatients, the risk domains “emotional/personal” and “education/work” play the most central role in the risk domain network ( Figure 2 ). In both networks, all risk domains were positively correlated. The strength of all correlations can be found in Figure 1 . For both male and female outpatients, the strongest relation in the network was found between the risk domains “family/spouse” and “emotional/personal” ( Figure 1 ). Further, moderate relations were found between the risk domains “social environment” and “leisure activities,” and between “finances” and “living environment.” There were also differences between male and female outpatients in risk domain interrelatedness. In female outpatients, the “education/work” domain was moderately associated with both “living environment” and “emotional/personal,” and the “substance abuse” domain was moderately associated with “criminal attitudes.” In male outpatients, a moderate relation was only found between “education/work” and “finances.”

Networks of risk domains for men and women. Note. The networks depict the interrelatedness of the risk domains in male and female domestic violent perpetrators. a Correlation between risk domains 1 and 5; b Correlation between risk domains 1 and 6.

Network centrality of risk domains for men and women. Note. Standardized strength centrality coefficients (z-Scores, x -axis). A higher z-score indicates that a node (risk domain) is more influential in the network, based on the strength of the connections with other risk domains. For men, the risk domains “emotional/personal” and “education/work” were the most central in the risk domain network. In both networks, all risk domains were positively correlated. The strength centrality in the risk domain network of women was not sufficiently stable, and could therefore not be interpreted.

Risk Factors and Treatment Dropout

Table 3 reveals how the criminogenic risk factors assessed with the RAF-MH are related to treatment dropout in male and female outpatients. For male outpatients, small positive significant effect sizes were found for 16 items, which could be designated as risk factors for treatment dropout (e.g., previous imprisonment, problematic employment history, debt, family members with police contacts, having criminal friends, drug/alcohol abuse/dependence, offense justification, lack of empathy, and insufficient treatment motivation). For female outpatients, a problematic relationship with family members (and in-laws) was identified as risk factor for treatment dropout with a significant moderate positive effect size. Furthermore, significant small positive effect sizes were found for three identified risk factors for treatment dropout in female outpatients: unemployment, housing instability, and lack of personal support. The factors criminal friends and substance use disorder were significantly stronger related to treatment dropout in male outpatients, whereas the factor problematic relationship with family members (and in-laws) was significantly stronger related to dropout in female outpatients.

Associations between Criminogenic Risk Factors and Treatment Dropout in Domestic Violent Men and Women.

a Strength of the association ( r φ ) between treatment dropout and risk item prevalence.

b Gender differences ( z ) in risk prevalence in dropouts.

The associations between risk domain scores and treatment dropout are shown in Table 4 . For male dropouts, small positive effect sizes were found for nine risk domains, of which six were significant and therefore designated as risk domains for treatment dropout: education/work, finances, living environment, social environment, substance abuse, and treatment engagement. The risk domain substance abuse was significantly stronger related to treatment dropout in male than in female outpatients.

Gender Differences in the Association between Risk Domain Scores and Treatment Dropout.

a Strength of the association ( r pb )between risk domain scores and treatment dropout.

b Gender difference ( z ) in correlation between domain risk score and treatment dropout.

The aim of this study was to increase knowledge on differences in criminogenic risk factors between female and male forensic outpatients who were referred to forensic treatment for domestic violence. The results revealed important gender similarities and differences with regard to the prevalence of criminogenic risk factors, the interrelatedness of criminogenic risks, and the extent to which those factors were associated with treatment dropout. The most important results are discussed below.

The risk factors with the highest prevalence in both male and female forensic outpatients were emotional and personal risk factors (e.g., lack of self-insight, stress factors, impulsivity, and anger management). These results are in line with previous findings of the presence of (negative) emotional factors, such as anger and hostility, in domestic violence of both male and female perpetrators ( Birkley & Eckhardt, 2015 ). An important gender difference emerged as well: socioeconomic risk factors (e.g., unemployment and housing instability) were more prevalent among female outpatients than male outpatients. These results support previous findings of female perpetrators being disproportionately affected by poverty and related social policies ( Holtfreter & Wattanaporn, 2014 ). Alcohol and drug abuse were more prevalent in men than in women, which is consistent with the finding that male perpetrators of domestic violence are more often treated for substance abuse than female perpetrators ( Henning et al., 2003 ). Also, in accordance with previous findings, our study showed that male outpatients more often had a criminal history (e.g., official offense records and previous imprisonment) and showed more criminal attitudes (e.g., offense justification, offense denial, and lack of empathy) than female outpatients ( Rebecca Block et al., 2010 ; De Vogel & de Spa, 2019 ; Henning et al., 2003 ).

In a next set of network analyses, we showed that contrary to the network of male outpatients, substance abuse was strongly related to criminal attitudes in the network of female outpatients. Since risk factor interaction can cause an increased risk for treatment attrition, targeting criminogenic risk factors that are closely related to other risks may be an important strategy in increasing treatment retention ( Olver et al., 2011 ). Network analysis in this study revealed a central position of the emotional/personal risk domain in the interrelatedness to other risk domains in both male and female outpatients. This means that targeting this domain in treatment could reduce other factors that are related to emotional/personal criminogenic risk factors ( Barbalat et al., 2019 ). For example, risk factors belonging to the family/spouse risk domain, to which the emotional/personal risk domain was related in the networks of male and female outpatients. The overall strength centrality coefficient in the network for female outpatients was not sufficiently stable, and could therefore not be interpreted. Future, larger scale studies on risk factor interaction are recommended to provide further insights into prioritizing treatment goals in female perpetrators of domestic violence.

Third, we determined the associations between criminogenic risk factors and treatment dropout in both male and female forensic outpatients. Consistent with previous findings, alcohol and drug abuse and having a criminal history and criminal friends were positively associated with treatment dropout in male perpetrators of domestic violence (e.g., Bowen & Gilchrist, 2006 ; Henning et al., 2003 ; Jewell & Wormith, 2010 ). In female outpatients, unemployment, housing instability, having an unstable relationship with family members (and in-laws), and a lack of personal support were identified as treatment dropout risk factors. These results are in line with findings by Buttell and colleagues (2012 ), indicating that treatment attrition or completion in female perpetrators of domestic violence basically depends on socioeconomic risks and supports during program participation.

Strengths and Limitations

To our knowledge, no studies used comprehensive measures of criminogenic risk factors for criminal behavior and recidivism in examining gender differences and similarities in domestic violence perpetrators. This study was the first to address this gap by identifying risk factors for treatment dropout and risk factor interrelatedness specifically in samples of male and female forensic outpatients who were referred to forensic treatment for domestic violence. Further, this study used an innovative statistical technique for network modeling. However, it is important to acknowledge some limitations.

First, the psychometric qualities of the adult version of the RAF-MH have not yet been examined, and therefore, predictive performance of the instrument on treatment dropout should be addressed in further research. However, the instrument includes the Central Eight criminogenic needs ( Bonta & Andrews, 2017 ), that reflect well-established risk factors for criminal recidivism corresponding to risk factors for treatment dropout ( Jewell & Wormith, 2010 ). Second, the relatively small number of females in our sample have negatively affected the statistical power in the analyses. However, even for the relatively small sample of female forensic outpatients ( n = 87), the statistical power to detect a significant medium sized effect is 83%, which can be considered sufficient. Although many risk factors were significantly associated with treatment dropout, most effect sizes were small, meaning that the external validity of the findings should still be interpreted with caution. Third, reasons for treatment attrition, such as a lack of motivation, or a lack of progress, were not specifically registered for each outpatient. This information could be useful in analyzing more specific associations between risk factors and reasons for treatment dropout in further research. Fourth, there were significant differences in demographics between the sampled male and female outpatients (i.e., age, ethnicity, and the likelihood of being court mandated to treatment). These variables may have affected the results in this study, for example because the severity and impact of dynamic risk factors may vary across age groups ( Spruit et al., 2017 ). Further research should be undertaken to examine possible interactions between such demographic variables. Fifth, the data used in this study concerned retrospective file data that were collected as part of a ROM procedure at the forensic care facility, meaning that the instrument (i.e., RAF-MH) used has not been preselected by the researchers. However, this generic structured professional judgment instrument has been based on well-known risk factors for recidivism, and fits the circumstances of clients referred to Dutch forensic outpatient treatment specifically ( Wilpert et al., 2018 ). It was therefore considered as an appropriate measure to meet the aims of this study. Last, factors that predict general recidivism may not be the same for men and women, and there is an ongoing debate on whether risk assessment tools are sufficiently gender responsive ( de Vogel et al., 2019 ; Henning et al., 2009 ). Broadening risk assessment by measuring unique needs of female perpetrators, such as abuse and trauma, self-esteem and assertiveness, and parenting and child care, in risk assessment instruments for perpetrators of domestic violence may contribute to further insights into gender differences in risk factors for criminal recidivism ( Hollin & Palmer, 2006 ).

Clinical Implications

An important strategy in reducing high treatment attrition rates among male and female perpetrators of domestic violence is identifying those clients who are at risk of dropping out through risk factor assessment ( Daly & Pelowski, 2000 ). The results in this study indicated that a detailed, structured risk assessment designed for predicting criminal recidivism can support care providers in identifying risk factors for treatment dropout in an early treatment stage. At the same time, the results showed that highly prevalent criminogenic risk factors in perpetrators are not necessarily associated with treatment dropout. Thus, just because a criminogenic factor is highly prevalent in a risk population, this does not necessarily make it the most relevant target for boosting participation and intervention uptake. It should be noted that an attrition profile for perpetrators should be avoided, as this could undermine their chances for success in treatment ( Olver et al., 2011 ). Rather, awareness of the presence of factors that contribute to the risk of treatment dropout should lead to increasing efforts to retain those clients who are most likely to drop out of treatment.

Despite much evidence that undermines the gendered perspective of domestic violence (i.e., the belief that men are more often perpetrators than women), this approach is often reflected in the aims of many organizations to date ( Dixon & Graham-Kevan, 2011 ; Dutton, 2007 ). In addition, women convicted of domestic violence offenses are still often mandated into batterer intervention programs designed to intervene with male perpetrators ( Carney et al., 2007 ). Gender inclusive policy is necessary to encourage professionals to be open to the idea that men and women can be both perpetrators and/or victims of domestic violence ( Dixon & Graham-Kevan, 2011 ). Many of the identified risk factors for treatment dropout in this study reflect dynamic criminogenic needs and responsivity factors (e.g., criminal attitudes, criminal friends, alcohol abuse, housing instability, and lack of personal support) ( Bonta & Andrews, 2017 ). By providing gender sensitive interventions that are tailored to those criminogenic needs, the risk of dropping out may be reduced.

Specifically, this study emphasizes the importance of providing socioeconomic support and resources to female perpetrators of domestic violence, which may increase treatment completion and thereby treatment effectiveness in reducing domestic violence perpetrated by women ( Buttell et al., 2012 ). For example, providing state-sponsored resources to address short-term needs (e.g., housing stability), may substantially reduce the odds of recidivism in women perpetrators ( Holtfreter & Wattanaporn, 2014 ). Further, in preventing reoffending, providing vocational and educational training to female perpetrators is essential for obtaining jobs that provide a living wage when they re-enter society ( Shearer, 2003 ).

Further, this study emphasizes the importance of providing substance-abuse treatment as a component of an overall intervention for specifically male perpetrators of domestic violence ( Fals-Stewart & Kennedy, 2005 ; Hirschel et al., 2010 ). Although treating alcohol use is proven to be an effective approach for reducing domestic violence, this is not a common strategy yet ( Klostermann, 2006 ). In addition, substance abuse treatment programs should address domestic violence in terms of strengthening referral to other care providers, or developing expertise among their own program staff ( Klostermann, 2006 ). This dual treatment may be an expensive investment, but the social and psychological costs of continued domestic violence are likely to be far higher ( Hirschel et al., 2010 ).

Author Biographies

Anne Bijlsma , MSc, is a PhD candidate at the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Her research focuses on strengthening the prevention of child abuse, by examining how treatment can best be personalized to the specific needs and characteristics of at-risk families and children.

Claudia van der Put , PhD, is an assistant professor at the Research Institute of Child Development and Education at the University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Her research interest is risk assessment and prevention of adverse developmental outcomes such as juvenile delinquency and problematic child-rearing situations

Annemiek Vial , PhD, is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the University of Amsterdam. Her research focuses on the assessment of child maltreatment in an attempt to improve assessments performed in practice and to improve our knowledge on the etiology of child maltreatment.

Joan van Horn , PhD, is head of the Research Department of de Waag, a Dutch forensic psychiatric outpatient treatment center. She initiates, conducts, and supervises research projects aimed at enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of diagnostics and treatment through which community safety and relapse prevention are targeted

Geertjan Overbeek , PhD, is a full professor in Preventive Youth Care at the Research Institute Child Development and Education, at the University of Amsterdam (the Netherlands). His research focuses on parenting and peer influences on child and adolescent development, and on the effects of family, peer, and school based preventive interventions aimed at supporting a prosocial, healthy development in youths

Mark Assink , PhD, is an assistant professor at the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. His research is focused on developing and validating instruments for risk and needs assessment, examining risk factors for (juvenile) delinquency and the different forms of child abuse, and examining the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions. Mark has substantial expertise in meta-analytic research

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by ZonMw, The Hague, The Netherlands, grant number: 741100002.

Ethics Approval Statement: The data collection in this study is approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Amsterdam (Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences).

Anne M. E. Bijlsma https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1694-3412

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Australian Trends in Academic Literature Concerned With Family and Domestic Violence Perpetrators: A Bibliometric Literature Review

Affiliation.

• 1 Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
• PMID: 35962579
• DOI: 10.1177/15248380221113786

In this article, we used a novel hybrid approach to review literature concerned with family and domestic violence (FADV) perpetrators. Our intention was to chart the research and publication activity of authors with Australian affiliation to identify homegrown evidence related to stopping the perpetration of violence. This involved systematic searching of literature from the Scopus electronic database, utilization of VOSviewer to sort keyword co-occurrences and authorship linking for 1,494 publication records over a 30-year period, and the review of 21 articles with perpetrator focus, identified from the 50 most cited publications. We found that Australians' authoring interests in FADV, over the last three decades, with perpetrator focus were predominantly concentrated on gender, rape and sexual assault, coercive control, and child abuse. In the most cited literature, six major themes were identified: perpetrator motivations, perpetrator interventions, patterns of violence, pandemic duet, perception of blame, and cyberstalking and violence. An upward curve in Australian authoring activity in the period under review aligns with societal shifts in which FADV was once considered a private issue and has now become ubiquitous in the public domain. Our findings revealed that research into perpetrators is insufficient to promote a zero-tolerance approach to FADV. Our corresponding in-depth literature review provides valuable insights surrounding perpetrator intervention programs with the goal of more effectively addressing the emerging challenge of technology-facilitated coercive control.

Keywords: Australia; bibliometrics; domestic violence; perpetrator.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Bibliometric and Density Visualisation Mapping Analysis of Domestic Violence in Australia Research Output 1984-2019. Charlton C, Mani RR, Chinnappan S, Balaraman AK, Muthusamy T, Paranjothy C, Suresh D, Krishnan S, Lokhotiya K, Kodiveri Muthukaliannan G, Baxi S, Jayaraj R. Charlton C, et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Apr 15;19(8):4837. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19084837. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022. PMID: 35457702 Free PMC article. Review.
• Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence victimization--national intimate partner and sexual violence survey, United States, 2011. Breiding MJ, Smith SG, Basile KC, Walters ML, Chen J, Merrick MT. Breiding MJ, et al. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2014 Sep 5;63(8):1-18. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2014. PMID: 25188037 Free PMC article.
• Exploring the relationships between sexual violence, mental health and perpetrator identity: a cross-sectional Australian primary care study. Tarzia L, Thuraisingam S, Novy K, Valpied J, Quake R, Hegarty K. Tarzia L, et al. BMC Public Health. 2018 Dec 27;18(1):1410. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-6303-y. BMC Public Health. 2018. PMID: 30591033 Free PMC article.
• Reversing the historical tide of iatrogenic harm: A therapeutic jurisprudence analysis of increases in arrests of domestic batterers and rapists. Simon LM, Ellwanger SJ, Haggerty J. Simon LM, et al. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2010 Nov-Dec;33(5-6):306-20. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2010.09.003. Epub 2010 Nov 9. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2010. PMID: 21062667
• Addressing intimate partner violence and sexual violence among adolescents: emerging evidence of effectiveness. Lundgren R, Amin A. Lundgren R, et al. J Adolesc Health. 2015 Jan;56(1 Suppl):S42-50. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.08.012. J Adolesc Health. 2015. PMID: 25528978 Review.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

Related information

Linkout - more resources, full text sources.

• MedlinePlus Health Information

Research Materials

• NCI CPTC Antibody Characterization Program

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

College of Social Work

Main navigation, treatment for perpetrators of domestic violence: a review of the literature.

Study Dates:   2016 – 2017

Study Description:  This review examines extant research on the impact of treatment in reducing criminal recidivism among adult male Interpersonal Violence (IPV) perpetrators. The review yielded a total of 95 articles, including: 28 studies on the efficacy of the primary modalities; 5 studies on coordinated criminal justice responses; 40 studies on promising practices; 14 meta-analyses, systematic reviews, literature reviews and book chapters; and 8 references that inform the discussion of state and federal legislation and standards for the treatment of IPV perpetrators.

Results are presented in two parts:

• Review of state and federal laws in relation to research on BIPs, and
• Synthesis of research on the effectiveness of BIP interventions, including primary modalities (i.e., psychoeducational and cognitive-behavioral approaches) and promising approaches

Download the report

CSW Research Reports

• Vogel-Ferguson (20)
• evaluation (33)
• SLC police (2)
• homeless (5)
• domestic violence (2)
• IPV perpetrators (1)
• recidivism (5)
• mental health (8)
• risk assessments (1)
• adult offenders (34)
• The Road Home (1)
• employment (7)
• Utah Justice Reinvestment Initiative (1)
• evidence-based practices (1)
• recommendations (1)
• corrections (14)
• criminal justice professionals (7)
• program improvement (1)
• 3rd district (1)
• timely processing (1)
• housing (5)
• homelessness (2)
• Housing First (1)
• collaboration (1)
• juvenile care (1)
• operant conditioning (1)
• parolee (1)
• probation (6)
• probationer (1)
• re-entry (7)
• firearms (1)
• assessment (1)
• Level of Services Inventory (1)
• parolees (2)
• prisoners (1)
• probationers (4)
• risk assessment tool (1)
• drug court 2 (2)
• Felony Drug Court (1)
• salt lake county (4)
• alternatives to incarceration (17)
• problem solving courts (6)
• substance abuse (8)
• Correctional Program Checklist (1)
• program evaluation (2)
• quality improvement (1)
• Criminal Justice Services (1)
• satisfaction (1)
• satisfaction survey (1)
• stakeholder (1)
• stakeholder survey (1)
• judicial (1)
• judicial performance (1)
• judicial retention (1)
• juvenile (6)
• provo gang project (1)
• juvenile offenders (30)
• school attendance (1)
• truancy (1)
• diversion (4)
• prevention (5)
• risk measurement (1)
• economic (1)
• sex offenders (4)
• disproportionate minority contact (4)
• juvenile court referral (1)
• law enforcement (2)
• minority (4)
• Oxbow Jail (1)
• Humanitarian Center (1)
• job skills training (1)
• Caregy Guides (1)
• detention (2)
• diversion 2 (1)
• juvenile court (4)
• female offenders 2 (1)
• male offenders (1)
• shakespeare (1)
• shifting gears with shakespeare (1)
• summit county (1)
• correctional staff (1)
• employee satisfaction (1)
• job satisfaction (1)
• sheriffs office (1)
• Unified Police Department (1)
• education (2)
• welfare (6)
• adult recidivism (1)
• delinquency (2)
• Juvenile Drug Court (1)
• juvenile recidivism (1)
• substance abuse treatment (1)
• sanction (1)
• state sup (1)
• state supervision (3)
• juvenile justice (8)
• outcomes (1)
• pretrial (2)
• stakeholder satisfaction (1)
• DUI offenders (2)
• cost effectiveness (1)
• meta analysis (1)
• prison privatization (1)
• privatization (1)
• pre-adjudicatory intervention (1)
• paternity (1)
• participation (1)
• customers (1)
• cash assistance (1)
• cost benefit (1)
• cost of crime (1)
• economic 2 (1)
• crime prevention 2 (2)
• gang model (1)
• west valley (1)
• gun crime (1)
• legislation (1)
• outreach (1)
• project safe neighborhoods firearms (1)
• prosecution (1)
• public awareness (1)
• training (1)
• female offenders (1)
• domestic violence 2 (1)
• salt lake (1)
• detention alternatives (2)
• national (1)
• bootstrapping (1)
• low income (1)
• over representation (1)
• socioeconomic (1)
• early intervention (1)
• graduated sanctions (1)
• sentencing guidelines (1)
• sentencing reform (1)
• overrepresentation (1)
• racial bias (1)
• chronic (1)
• sentence inflation (1)
• serious offender (1)
• serious youth offender law (1)
• violent offender (1)
• academic (1)
• alternative to detention (1)
• new mexico (1)
• electronic monitoring (1)
• alcohol use (1)
• drug use (1)
• juvenile probationers (1)

Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.

Domestic Violence Perpetrators

DOI link for Domestic Violence Perpetrators

Get Citation

Domestic violence is a serious, widespread public, social and health problem that affects the lives of many women, children and men. There is also evidence to suggest it has one of the highest rates of recidivism. This comprehensive book provides an overview of what the research tells us about the perpetrators of domestic violence and what works, and what doesn’t, in promoting positive change.

Collecting together the most up-to-date evidence from the international literature and bringing psychological, sociological, gendered and socio-political theoretical perspectives to bear on the issue, the authors explore:

- what domestic violence is, why it happens and how it can be measured

- who the perpetrators of domestic violence are, including discussion of non-stereotypical patterns such as male victims, female perpetrators, couples where the abuse is mutual, and couples with abusive relationships who want the abuse to end but the relationship to be sustained

- strategies for engaging perpetrators in interventions and for promoting behaviour change

- evidence-informed interventions, programmes and policies for working with perpetrators

- where robust evidence is lacking and more research needs to be undertaken.

Domestic violence is a significant problem for those individuals and families whose life is affected by this issue, the social, health and criminal justice agencies that respond to it, and wider society which must bear the costs and its devastating effects. This volume is an important reference for all those researching and working with the victims, survivors and perpetrators of domestic violence, including academics and students from fields such as social work, sociology, criminology, psychology and social policy.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter | 8  pages, introduction, chapter | 22  pages, defining and measuring domestic violence, chapter | 21  pages, explanations for domestic violence, chapter | 15  pages, typologies of domestic violence perpetrators, chapter | 14  pages, changing perpetrator behaviour, chapter | 31  pages, evidence informed interventions, chapter | 13  pages.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Taylor & Francis Online
• Taylor & Francis Group
• Students/Researchers
• Librarians/Institutions

Connect with us

Registered in England & Wales No. 3099067 5 Howick Place | London | SW1P 1WG © 2024 Informa UK Limited