Nearly half of all women in the United States have experienced intimate partner violence (IPV) during their lifetime. Abuse intervention programs (AIPs)—also called abusive partner intervention programs and batterer intervention programs—are one of the most common court-mandated interventions for people charged with IPV. Research on their effectiveness in preventing IPV is mixed. But what is even less known is what components of these programs are the most promising for ending violent behavior from the viewpoint of those working in and attending them. This brief highlights perceptions of AIP staff and participants on what effective abuse intervention programming is and what is necessary for changing violent behavior.

Key Takeaways

High-level themes from interviews with 14 program staff and focus groups with 34 participants from AIPs in Colorado, Kansas, New Jersey, and Utah revealed the following:

• Staff reported that teaching participants to understand the dynamics of abuse and power is necessary for encouraging behavior change.
• Staff reported that encouraging participants to engage in self-dialogue and emotional regulation and ultimately take nonviolent actions changes violent behavior.
• Staff reported that encouraging participants to have empathy for the survivor and themselves was an important technique in changing violent behavior.
• Staff reported that trauma-informed programs and those that move away from shame help change violent behavior.
• Staff reported that providing group space, where participants can hear and learn from others while sharing their experiences, is a key element in changing violent behavior because the group aspect can serve as a “mirror” for participants. Participants also reported how the interventions’ group settings were beneficial.
• Staff reported that building rapport with participants is a way to change violent behavior. Participants also reported that relationships with and trust from facilitators were essential in their experiences with programming.
• Staff reported that successful interventions both reduce IPV and instill participants with prosocial thinking patterns.
• Participants reported on several topics that help them to not engage in IPV, such as learning about coping strategies and moving away from guilt and shame.
• Participants reported that the River of Cruelty teaching from the Family Peace Initiative curriculum helps them think about where violence stems from and how it can be passed on or stopped with them.

How We Did It

We conducted this case study analysis after concluding a survey we administered to 285 AIPs. We chose case study sites based on whether they met certain criteria, according to their responses to certain survey questions. These criteria included whether they used restorative justice principles, whether they used risk-need-responsivity principles, and whether they served IPV survivors, LGBTQ participants, or predominantly Black or Indigenous participants. We conducted case study site visits to the four programs in early 2025. We conducted one-hour interviews with staff and 90-minute focus groups with participants. To analyze responses, we uploaded interview and focus group notes into QSR NVivo, and applied our codebook to the notes. We then extracted themes from the codes and referenced transcripts to find supporting quotes.