The Hidden Costs of Mandating One-Size-Fits-All Domestic Violence Treatment Models

In many jurisdictions, domestic violence service providers must adopt a specific treatment model to receive accreditation. In the United Kingdom, the RESPECT accreditation system effectively requires a uniform approach. In the United States, most states mandate the Duluth Model for court-approved batterer intervention programs. While these policies are typically well-intentioned—aimed at standardization and safety—they can have serious unintended consequences.

By mandating a one-size-fits-all model, governments hinder innovation, invest in largely ineffective programs, and fail to meet the diverse needs of those affected by domestic violence. The result is a system that often misuses public funds, burdens participants with irrelevant content, and fails to reduce violence in a meaningful way.

Government Mandates Stifle Innovation

When government bodies require that all service providers follow a single treatment model, they inadvertently suppress progress. Domestic violence is a complex, multifaceted issue shaped by individual histories, mental health, trauma, personality, gender dynamics, and more. Rigidly enforcing one model limits providers’ ability to develop or implement approaches better suited to their clients.

Innovation depends on flexibility. Service providers need the freedom to pilot new interventions, integrate updated research, and adjust based on feedback from participants. But under a mandated model, any deviation from the approved framework can result in losing accreditation or funding—dis-incentivizing creativity and reducing opportunities to improve outcomes.

The Duluth Model’s Limited Effectiveness

The Duluth Model, which focuses on male power and control over women as the root cause of abuse, was developed in the early 1980s. It was a first-of-its-kind program to address and attempt to rehabilitate domestic violence offenders. However, decades of research have shown that it is not especially effective at reducing recidivism or preventing future abuse.

Multiple studies, including those sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice, have found minimal or no statistically significant benefits from Duluth-based programs compared to other interventions—or even no intervention. The model’s ideological emphasis often overlooks key contributors to violence, such as trauma, emotional regulation issues, substance use, and relationship dysfunction.

Moreover, its core assumption—that domestic violence is always an expression of male dominance—excludes scenarios involving mutual abuse, female perpetrators, or violence rooted in psychological distress rather than ideology. Many participants find the Duluth curriculum confusing, irrelevant, or invalidating, which undermines the potential for genuine behavioral change.

Ineffective Programs Waste Resources

Public funding for domestic violence programs is often tied to accreditation. When accreditation requires adherence to a specific, ineffective model, it channels taxpayer money into interventions with little measurable impact. This not only squanders limited resources but also diverts attention from approaches with stronger evidence of success.

Instead of investing in outdated curricula, governments could support programs grounded in trauma-informed care, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), or other empirically supported practices. Funding could also support pilot programs and outcome-based research to discover and refine better interventions. But under rigid mandates, those opportunities are often blocked, and ineffective models continue to receive financial backing by default.

Harm to Participants and Victims

When offenders are mandated into programs that do not reflect their lived experiences or the nature of their behavior, they often disengage or resist the process. A person who does not hold patriarchal views or whose violence stems from emotional dysregulation, substance abuse, or mutual conflict—which is most offenders—may find Duluth-style programming unrelatable or irrelevant.

This mismatch can make participants feel misunderstood or unfairly labeled, decreasing their motivation to change. Rather than promoting motivation for growth and change, the program can become a box to check, with little lasting impact.

Ultimately, this does a disservice not only to the offender but also to their current and future partners. Ineffective treatment means the risk of continued violence remains, and victims are left without meaningful protection or hope for change.

A Better Way Forward: Flexibility and Outcome-Based Evaluation

This critique is not a call for a deregulated or unaccountable system. Standards matter, especially when dealing with sensitive and high-risk issues like domestic violence. But accreditation should be based on results, not rigid adherence to a specific ideology.

A more productive approach would allow for multiple evidence-based models to qualify for accreditation. Programs should be evaluated on their ability to reduce violent behavior, promote meaningful self-reflection, and improve relationship dynamics. Service providers should have room to adapt methods for different populations, integrate new findings, and refine practices over time.

Whether it’s CBT, trauma-focused care, restorative justice, or mentorship models, flexibility encourages a more accurate and humane response to domestic violence. It recognizes that people change in different ways and that no single model can fit every case.

Domestic violence intervention is too important to be governed by ideology or bureaucracy. Lives depend on it—and we can do better.