The Double Standard of Accountability: A Call for Treatment Integrity of IPV Offender Programs

Abstract

In this study, we explain the importance of treatment integrity by listing and exploring state standards for service providers of IPV perpetrator programs across the United States. The overall expectations of BIP's will be discussed as we compare and contrast the Duluth Model with evidence-based practice. Expectations of treatment efficacy will be explored from the stance of the professional code of ethics and ethical practice. The context for this article is inspired by the following issues: a) mental health professionals' ethical obligations to clients and to standards of practice; b) the value of treatment integrity; c) expectations regarding program efficacy; d) the nature of court-mandated batterer intervention programs. Potential ethical concerns that are explored include: failure to consider and utilize research evidence, failure to ensure treatment integrity, inadequate assessment/diagnosis, failure to connect assessment to treatment, using a diagnosis on a client not identified in the DSM-V, giving a diagnosis without proper credentials or evaluation of the client, and imploring a homogeneous approach to a complex behavior.