I work in community corrections and the research suggests the Duluth model is innefective at best whjen compared to CBT-type treatments. The question is, are we increasing the risk of DV offending if the perpetrators are mandated to offend?
I assume you meant, in the last line, "mandated to attend" rather than "offend". The answer would seem to be yes -- since the research indicates that the Duluth intervention may actually be increasing recidivism, see, Arce, Ramón, Esther Arias, Mercedes Novo, and Francisca Fariña. "Are interventions with batterers effective? A meta-analytical review." Psychosocial Intervention 29, no. 3 (2020): 153-164.
https://journals.copmadrid.org/pi/art/pi2020a11
I would agree with Michael, based on current research and my own experience as a provider/curriculum developer, that effectiveness to reduce recidivism is hindered when using the Duluth model or any confrontational/ non-evidence informed curriculum. However, models which use interventions found useful for changing thoughts, feelings and behaviors (i.e., CBT/DBT/Solution-Focused/MI, trauma-informed, et al) DO seem to increase retention and lower recidivism. I have found that if these interventions are used effectively, it won't matter if the participant is either voluntary or court-mandated, the outcomes are anticipated to be much more positive.
Yes as Michael and Nada indicate there has been a paradigm shift away from the Duluth model of intervention as the literature has been clear that a CBT or solution focused intervention has rendered more positive outcomes for perpetrators.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Asia
- India