TY  - BOOK
AU  - Paymar, Michael
AU  - Barnes,Graham
TI  - Countering confusion about the Duluth Model
PY  - 2007///]
PB  - Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs
KW  - FVC
KW  - DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
KW  - OFFENDERS
KW  - TREATMENT
KW  - INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE
N1  - Date supplied by publisher
N2  - This article was written by researchers who have worked with the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project in Duluth, Minnesota in response to criticism of the Duluth model. The authors respond specifically to several research publications and to a number of more general criticisms of the Duluth model. The authors argue that a 2003 National Institute of Justice report ("Batter intervention programs: where do we go from here?") was flawed research that is contradicted by other better designed and more comprehensive studies. The authors also critically review Babcock, Green and Robie's 2002 meta analytic review of domestic violence treatment models,  and argue that Dutton and Corvo's 2006 article ("Transforming a flawed policy: a call to revive psychology and science in domestic violence research and practice") misrepresents the Duluth curriculum. Seven other more general criticisms of the Duluth model are also addressed in the article: namely that the Duluth curriculum is shame based, doesn't account for women's violence; is not culturally appropriate for marginalised groups and relies too much on the criminal justice system; works counter to restorative justice; that the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project in Duluth is anti-marriage; discounts anger as a causal factor; and ignores psychological problems. The authors follow this with an explanation of theories about why domestic violence happens and how to stop it; what the Duluth model is and is not, and the Duluth approach to working with men who batter
UR  - http://www.bwjp.org/files/bwjp/files/Countering_Confusion_Duluth_Model.pdf
ER  -