CBT-based domestic-violence perpetrator programmes

1. Introduction

Version followed: the CBT-based, Duluth-informed group model as delivered in court/probation-mandated programmes. The structural spine is HMPPS Building Better Relationships (BBR) (England and Wales, CSAAP-accredited 2013): Foundation module first, then further modules, with one-to-one sessions between modules. Accountability methods come from the Duluth (DAIP) men's curriculum (Pence/Paymar, control log). The CBT skills sequence comes from Strength at Home – Men's Program (SAH-M) (Taft et al., VA) and Murphy & Eckhardt (2005). Partner-safety and risk procedures come from the Respect Standard (4th ed., 2022) and a current US state standard (South Carolina DPPPS BIP Standards, 2024). The BBR manual itself was not available; where BBR session content is not public it is marked [uncertain]. Note: gov.uk states BBR will no longer be delivered from 1 April 2025. Its replacement is not confirmed in the sources [uncertain]. [source: gov.uk judicial brochure; MoJ 2023 BBR feasibility study]

What it is. This is a family of structured, usually court-mandated group programmes for men who have used violence and abuse against an intimate partner. They are not one therapy. They combine (a) pro-feminist accountability education, which says abuse is a learned, chosen pattern of power and control, and (b) cognitive-behavioural skills training in self-monitoring, arousal control, cognitive restructuring, and communication and problem-solving skills. They are delivered inside a coordinated community response: courts, probation, police, child protection and a partner/victim support service. [source: Duluth discussion (Pence & Aravena); MoJ 2023; Taft et al. 2016; Respect Principles]

How change is thought to happen. Men are first helped to name the full range of their abusive behaviour. They then examine the intentions and beliefs behind it, including entitlement, stereotyped gender roles and hostile attributions. Finally they practise noticing early cues and choosing non-abusive alternatives that they rehearse in group and apply at home. BBR frames IPV as multi-causal and works on three need domains: pro-offending thinking styles, emotional awareness and management, and relationship problems. It aims to build on existing strengths and to develop sustainable strategies for maintaining change. SAH-M frames IPV partly as the result of social-information-processing deficits, often trauma-related, such as misreading threat and intent, and corrects these while holding men accountable. [source: MoJ 2023; gov.uk brochure; Taft et al. 2016]

Clinician's caveat (the reason partner safety is central). Controlled studies show small effects that do not differ between Duluth and CBT formats (Babcock et al. 2004). A man's attendance or completion must therefore never be presented to a partner, court or children's services as evidence that she is safe. [source: Babcock et al. 2004 abstract; SC Standards 2024]

2. Framework

Typical dose and format

• BBR (UK): 24 group sessions of 2.5 hours, plus 5–6 individual sessions. There are four six-session modules (24 ÷ 6). The Foundation module is always delivered first and must be completed before any other module. The remaining modules can run closed or rolling. After each module comes a one-hour one-to-one with a designated facilitator, to bridge modules, review learning and check progress against goals. Eligibility: men aged 18 and over, with an index or historical IPA-related offence, assessed as medium-to-high risk. In practice this takes about 30 weekly sessions, and 75% of completers spent more than six months on the programme. The gov.uk brochure does not name the three non-Foundation modules. Mapping them to the three need domains (thinking, emotions, relationships) is an inference [uncertain]. [source: gov.uk brochure; MoJ 2023; Renehan & Gadd 2024]
• Duluth men's groups (US): 20, 27 or 52 weeks (10- and 15-week formats also exist). Weekly video vignette plus control-log work. [source: Pence & Aravena]
• STOP (Wexler, 4th ed. 2020): 26- or 52-week psychoeducational group format with handouts and homework. [source: Norton page]
• SAH-M: 12 weekly 2-hour closed-group sessions with a male–female co-leader pair. Optional Stage 2 (8 trauma sessions), Stage 3 (6 relapse-prevention sessions) and an 8-session couples group. [source: Taft et al. 2016; Taft slides]
• US state standards (example: South Carolina 2024): at least 26 weeks of at least 90 minutes each, excluding intake, orientation and exit. Gender-specific groups of 2–20 (8–15 preferred). Individual-only work is strongly discouraged. [source: SC Standards]

Phases, goals and movement criteria (a composite drawn from the sources above; the phase labels are mine [synthesis])

Termination criteria (example standard): a fifth absence triggers automatic termination unless there are documented extenuating circumstances. 'Good standing' requires homework, fees and contract requirements to be met. A new violation is reported to the referrer within 24 hours. [source: SC Standards]

Session format (example, SAH): review of practice; introduction of new skill or content; in-session practice; assignment of new practice (the slides list 50/50/15/5-minute blocks without mapping them to components). [source: Taft slides]

3. Guiding principles

• Safety first, do no harm. Survivors' (adult and child) safety outranks the man's treatment. Decline or stop the intervention if it raises risk, and run an integrated partner-support service alongside it. [source: Respect Principles]
• Violence is learned and chosen, so it can be unlearned. Frame every session around his choices, not provocation, illness or loss of control. [source: SC Standards; Pence & Aravena]
• Accountability. He gives accurate, detailed accounts free of minimisation, justification and victim-blaming. Group members challenge each other. [source: SC Standards]
• Sex- and gender-informed. Name gendered patterns of entitlement and control. Adapt the approach for women who use violence and for LGBT+ clients rather than applying it blindly. [source: Respect Principles]
• Feelings come after intents and beliefs. In accountability work, ask what he wanted and believed before asking how he felt, so that anger is not treated as the cause. [source: Pence & Aravena] CBT formats nonetheless train arousal control. Use both, but never present anger management alone as the explanation [synthesis].
• Dialogue, not lecture or attack. Ask genuine, open questions that keep going past the first answer. Use problem-posing rather than steering to a set answer, and do not psychoanalyse. [source: Pence & Aravena]
• Working alliance without collusion. Change depends on a relationship in which he is heard, and that relationship never endorses his account of her. [source: Renehan & Gadd 2024; synthesis on collusion]
• Trauma-informed but accountable. Acknowledge his trauma history and work on it, while keeping responsibility for abuse with him. Shame hinders responsibility-taking, so challenge behaviour, not worth. [source: Taft et al. 2016; Taft slides]
• Strengths and goals. Build on existing skills and set personal goals toward 'better lives for everyone affected'. [source: MoJ 2023]
• Match intensity to risk. Medium-to-high risk calls for moderate- or higher-intensity programmes. Give the right service at the right time. [source: gov.uk brochure; Respect Principles]
• Coordinated community response. Programme staff are one link in a chain with police, courts and probation. Report non-compliance and do not act as his advocate. [source: Pence & Aravena; SC Standards; Respect Principles]
• Her participation is voluntary and his change is his responsibility. Never make his eligibility depend on her cooperation, and tell her so. [source: SC Standards]
• No false reassurance. Tell partners and agencies at intake, at exit and at termination that attendance or completion does not guarantee the abuse will stop. [source: SC Standards; Babcock et al. 2004]
• Limited confidentiality. He is told at intake that his partner will be contacted, that compliance is reported, and that threats trigger a warning. [source: SC Standards]
• Skilled, supported, monitored workforce. Provide ongoing training, regular clinical supervision and fidelity checks such as recorded sessions rated for adherence. [source: Respect Principles; Taft et al. 2016; Renehan & Gadd 2024]
• Inclusive and responsive. Remove barriers related to literacy, neurodivergence, culture and language. [source: Respect Principles; Renehan & Gadd 2024]

4. Intervention inventory

The inventory is grouped as A: assessment, safety and engagement; B: accountability; C: CBT self-regulation; D: relationship skills; E: trauma and co-occurring needs; F: maintenance, exit and programme-level risk management. Session-level BBR worksheets are not public. Items attributed to BBR come only from the gov.uk brochure, the MoJ 2023 study and Renehan & Gadd's ethnography. All example language is illustrative unless quoted and cited.

A. Assessment, partner safety and engagement

A1. Intake risk and lethality assessment

• Purpose / when: Before acceptance, to decide whether group work is safe and which intensity fits. Repeat whenever new information arrives.
• Steps: (1) Gather police reports, the conviction record, previous call-outs and the offender manager's assessment (OASys in England and Wales). (2) Complete a structured spousal-assault risk assessment. BBR requires at least moderate risk on SARA, a licensed instrument; use it as trained and do not improvise items. (3) Cover substance use, mental health, antisocial traits, prior recidivism and lethality, meaning potential to kill a current or former partner or household member. (4) Ask about children, contact arrangements, current relationship status and whether he is living with the victim. (5) Ask about access to weapons and recent escalation, such as separation, strangulation, stalking or threats to kill [synthesis: standard IPV risk-practice items, not listed in the standard]. (6) Record the risk level, the drivers of risk and an immediate risk-management plan. If you decline him, tell the referrer why and suggest an alternative.
• Example language (illustrative): "I'm going to ask detailed questions about the incidents, your relationship and your children. Some of what you tell me will be shared with probation and the partner-support service, and I'll be clear about exactly what."
• Watch for: A gap between his account and the police record. Recent separation. Obsessive jealousy or monitoring. Escalating frequency. Suicidality combined with homicidal or jealous ideation, which needs immediate escalation (see F2). [source: MoJ 2023; SC Standards; gov.uk brochure]

A2. Programme contract and limits of confidentiality

• Purpose / when: At intake. It creates the conditions for accountability and protects the partner.
• Steps: (1) Explain in writing that his partner or ex-partner will be contacted throughout. (2) Explain attendance rules, homework, fees, conduct, and what counts as termination (e.g. the fifth absence under the SC standard). (3) Explain that progress, non-compliance and any new offence are reported to the referrer, with new violations reported within 24 hours. (4) Explain duty to warn: threats against anyone are passed to the victim and the police. (5) Get signatures on the contract and the information-sharing consent.
• Example language (illustrative): "This group isn't confidential the way therapy usually is. If you tell us about new abuse or threats, we act on it. That's part of the deal for everyone here."
• Watch for: Bargaining about which disclosures will be reported, or attempts to get staff to agree not to contact her. Both are early markers of control. [source: SC Standards]

A3. Partner contact and integrated support service (partner-safety procedure)

• Purpose / when: From referral to after exit. It informs and supports the (ex-)partner, adds an independent source of risk information, and stops the programme from becoming false reassurance. Respect treats an integrated support service or IDVA as essential. BBR used Partner Link Workers (later called Domestic Abuse Support Officers).
• Steps: (1) Keep partner support separate from the men's group. Use a different worker if possible, and store victim contact details and logs apart from his file. (2) Make reasonable, logged efforts to locate her promptly (the SC standard: written notice within 5 days of intake). (3) First contact: check she is in a safe, private place to talk. If she is not, arrange a call-back at a time she chooses. (4) Tell her what the programme is and what it covers. Tell her that his participation does not guarantee he will stop, that responsibility for change lies with him alone, and that she does not have to take part (his place does not depend on her). (5) Offer safety planning, local domestic-abuse service details, crisis and emergency numbers, refuge, and referral for legal, housing and counselling support. (6) With her consent, ask about current behaviour (physical, sexual, coercive control, use of children, stalking) and how she sees his participation. (7) Never disclose what she says to him or the group without her explicit consent. Never confront him with it in a way that identifies her as the source [synthesis: core safety logic; not stated in the SC text, which does not address it]. (8) Re-contact her at intervals and at key points: before the group starts, mid-programme, at exit and at termination. (9) At termination, inform her within 24 hours that he has left the programme, that this may mean greater danger, and give service details and encouragement to safety-plan. At completion, notify her (within 5 days) and restate that completion does not guarantee safety. (10) Imminent threats: warn her immediately by phone and through police.
• Example language (illustrative): "Is now a safe time to talk, and can anyone overhear you? … I want to be straight with you: him coming to the group doesn't mean you're safe, and it's not your job to make it work."
• Watch for: Her reports that he is using programme language against her ("you're the one who needs a time-out"). New abuse he hasn't disclosed. Her pressure to drop charges. A partner-support worker pulled onto other duties. BBR fieldwork found workers overstretched and under-trained, and some women felt "betrayed" by the support their partners received. [source: Respect Principles; SC Standards; Taft et al. 2016; Taft slides; Renehan & Gadd 2024]

A4. Pre-programme individual sessions (personal story, goals, treatment targets)

• Purpose / when: Before the first group (BBR pre-group sessions). Builds alliance, screens out men not yet able to sit in a group, and handles early 'men versus women' hostility individually.
• Steps: (1) Invite his story of his life and relationships with open questions and listen fully; men later said they valued being properly heard. (2) Gently map the offence and other abusive behaviour, noting the gap between his account and the record without arguing yet. (3) Co-write personal goals, such as the kind of partner and father he wants to be, and treatment targets linked to his risk factors. (4) Agree group rules. (5) Assess literacy, neurodivergence, language and practical barriers, and adapt.
• Example language (illustrative): "Tell me about the man you want to be in your relationships five years from now. What would your kids say is different?"
• Watch for: Hostility, "one-off" framing and blaming her. Expect these at this stage and note them as targets rather than reasons to exclude, unless he is threatening. [source: Renehan & Gadd 2024]

A5. Motivational enhancement: pros and cons of abuse

• Purpose / when: Early (SAH session 1), and again whenever motivation dips.
• Steps: (1) Draw a decisional balance listing what abuse gets him in the short term (control, getting his way, release) and what it costs (her fear, the children, the relationship, the law, his self-respect). (2) Elicit his own reasons for change and reflect them back. (3) Link these to his goals from A4. Murphy & Eckhardt devote a chapter to enhancing motivation and engagement; their specific techniques are [uncertain].
• Example language (illustrative): "What has controlling things got you, honestly? And what has it cost you, and her, and the kids?"
• Watch for: Listing only legal costs, which means the motivation is external; move on to the costs for her and the children. Do not let "pros" become justifications that go unchallenged. [source: Taft slides; Murphy & Eckhardt 2005 contents]

A6. Individualised case formulation

• Purpose / when: After assessment. Ties the group content to his own drivers.
• Steps: (1) List his patterns of abuse (physical, psychological, coercive). (2) Identify triggers and high-risk situations, his beliefs about entitlement, gender and partner intent, his emotional patterns, substance use and trauma history. (3) Write a short formulation and share it with him. (4) Pick two or three priority treatment targets and revisit them at each between-module review. The formulation steps are my synthesis; Murphy & Eckhardt (2005, ch. 6) is the primary text and is not drawn on here [synthesis/uncertain].
• Example language (illustrative): "From what you've said, things go bad when you believe she's disrespecting you in front of others, you've been drinking, and you feel you have to win. Does that fit?"
• Watch for: A formulation that turns into an excuse ("my trauma made me"). Keep choice and accountability inside it. [source: Murphy & Eckhardt 2005 contents; synthesis]

B. Accountability work

B1. Defining abuse: the Power and Control wheel and forms of abuse

• Purpose / when: In the Foundation/psychoeducation phase, to widen his definition of abuse beyond hitting.
• Steps: (1) Present the forms of abuse: physical, sexual, emotional, economic, intimidation, isolation, using children, threats, minimising and blaming. (2) Use the DAIP Power and Control wheel, which is copyrighted, so use the licensed version and do not redraw it. Show how several tactics appear together in a single scene. (3) Ask each man to identify which tactics he has used, including small ones such as pointing, folding his arms or a 'strut'. (4) Cover the effects of abuse and trauma on partners and children (SAH session 1).
• Example language (illustrative): "Look at the wheel. In that argument you described, which parts of it were you using, apart from the shove?"
• Watch for: Men who only own the convicted incident. Joking. 'Everyone does that.' Progress shows when he starts naming non-physical tactics without being prompted. [source: Pence & Aravena; Taft slides]

B2. Video vignettes as discussion 'codes' (Duluth)

• Purpose / when: To open each theme with a safe, external example before turning to his own behaviour.
• Steps: (1) Show a short clip of a man abusing his partner (Duluth clips run about 2–3 minutes and are based on women's accounts). Under the SC standard, video is limited to 15 minutes per session. (2) Run the control-log questions (B3) on the man in the clip first. (3) Move to group members' own logs.
• Example language (illustrative): "What did he want in that scene? … And what else? … What did he need to believe for that to seem okay?"
• Watch for: Siding with the man in the clip ('she provoked him'). Use that as material for the beliefs and blaming steps. [source: Pence & Aravena; SC Standards]

B3. The control log

• Purpose / when: The core weekly accountability exercise. Each man brings an instance in which he used controlling behaviour. Facilitators work through the full log over the course of the programme rather than completing it every week.
• Steps (sequence as described by Pence): (1) Actions: list every abusive behaviour in the incident, including small ones. (2) Intents: what he was trying to achieve; keep asking past the first answer. (3) Beliefs: what he believed, where those beliefs came from and who benefits from them; ask whether a belief is true or just something he has been living. (4) Feelings: only after actions, intents and beliefs, so that anger is not treated as the cause. (5) Minimisation, denial and blaming: how he made it smaller or her fault, and who he needs to be honest with. (6) Effects: on her, the children, himself and other relationships. (7) Past violence: how earlier violence changes what the present behaviour means to her; after violence, even 'minor' acts carry threat. (8) Alternative behaviours: identify and then role-play non-controlling options (see D6). Pence spends most time on intents and beliefs and gives roughly one in three groups to alternatives.
• Example language: "once you have hit a woman, you have changed the dynamics" (Pence, quoted). Illustrative: "Given what happened last year, how do you think it felt to her when you stood in the doorway?"
• Watch for: Logs that list only her behaviour, or vague logs ('we argued'). Feelings brought in early as an excuse. It is working when intents and beliefs are named honestly and alternatives aim at equality, not just at being 'less aggressive'. [source: Pence & Aravena]

B4. Detailed incident account (most recent violent incident)

• Purpose / when: Early and repeated. Required by many state standards.
• Steps: (1) He describes his most recent violent incident in the group: what happened before, during and after, in behavioural detail. (2) Facilitators and peers ask clarifying questions and name minimisation, justification and victim-blaming as they occur. (3) He retells the incident with those removed. (4) Refer to victims by first name only, not as 'the ex' or with insults. (5) Compare his account with the official record where it helps; never use partner-support information without her consent.
• Example language (illustrative): "You said 'I just pushed her out of the way.' Slow it down: where were your hands, how hard, where did she land?"
• Watch for: Pressure that turns into humiliation, which breeds defensive shame. Keep the challenge to the behaviour. Progress shows in fuller, more consistent accounts that match external information. [source: SC Standards; Taft slides on shame]

B5. Challenging minimisation, denial and blame (peer accountability)

• Purpose / when: Throughout. Applied to remarks in session, sexist jokes, and the language used about partners.
• Steps: (1) Notice the move (e.g. 'technically' abusive, 'not real DV', 'she pushed my buttons'). (2) Reflect it back with a question rather than a lecture. (3) Invite group members to respond. (4) Link it to the effects step of the control log. (5) Challenge inappropriate comments and jokes as soon as they occur.
• Example language (illustrative): "You said she made you do it. Was there a moment when you could have chosen differently? What would that have looked like?"
• Watch for: Group collusion, such as nods or shared grievance about ex-partners. Facilitators colluding to protect rapport. [source: SC Standards; Renehan & Gadd 2024 (examples of minimisation)]

B6. Effects on partners and children / empathy building

• Purpose / when: Within the control log and in a dedicated session on children [the dedicated session is synthesis].
• Steps: (1) Ask him to describe the incident from her viewpoint, then from the children's, covering what they saw, heard, feared and did afterwards. (2) Link these to longer-term effects such as fear, walking on eggshells, children's distress and ACEs (the STOP 4th edition adds ACE content). (3) Ask what she now has to do to stay safe around him. (4) Connect this to his own goals as a father.
• Example language (illustrative): "If your son were describing that night to his teacher, what would he say?"
• Watch for: Self-pity substituted for empathy ('it ruined my life'). Using the children's welfare to argue for contact. [source: Pence & Aravena; SC Standards; Norton STOP page]

C. CBT self-regulation skills

C1. Self-monitoring of thoughts, feelings and body signals (anger log)

• Purpose / when: From the Foundation phase onwards. It lets him catch escalation early.
• Steps: (1) Teach the anger response: the physical signs, the hot thoughts and the urges. (2) Give a weekly log: situation, body signals, thoughts, feelings, what he did, and what he could have done (an anger log was used in the 1992 CBT group study; SAH teaches self-monitoring of thoughts, feelings and physiological responses). (3) Review logs at the start of each session.
• Example language (illustrative): "Before you raised your voice, what was happening in your body? Jaw, chest, hands? Those are your early-warning lights."
• Watch for: Logs that only record her 'provocations'. Logs filled in just before the session. It is working when the logs show earlier detection and more 'what I did instead' entries. [source: Taft slides; JFV 1992 abstract]

C2. Time-out

• Purpose / when: Taught early (SAH sessions 1–2, the 1992 CBT group study, and in use in BBR). An emergency de-escalation tool that stops escalation before abuse occurs.
• Steps: The specifics below are a common clinical version; the sources name time-out but do not set out its rules [synthesis]. (1) Agree in advance a personal cue list (from C1) and a neutral phrase for saying he is leaving. (2) He tells his partner he is taking a time-out and when he will check back. Before using it, he explains the plan to her when things are calm, ideally reinforced through the partner-support worker so it is not sprung on her. (3) He leaves the situation without slamming, blocking or taking the car keys while aroused. (4) During the time-out he does not drink or use drugs, does not drive while angry, and does not rehearse grievances; he uses calming (C4) and coping self-talk (C3). (5) He returns or checks in as agreed. He does not reopen the argument immediately and offers to discuss it later. If he is still aroused, he takes another time-out.
• Example language (illustrative): "I'm getting too wound up. I'm taking a time-out for an hour and I'll check in with you after."
• Watch for: Time-out turned into a control tactic: storming out, punishing silence, leaving her with the children unannounced, or demanding that she take one. It must never be used to dodge accountability conversations. Partner reports via A3 are the best check. It is working when he reports early exits and she reports reduced fear. [source: Taft slides; JFV 1992 abstract; Renehan & Gadd 2024; synthesis]

C3. Self-talk

• Purpose / when: Alongside time-out, to replace escalating thoughts with calming, responsible ones. Named in BBR fieldwork as a tool some men used successfully.
• Steps: (1) Identify his typical escalating statements ('she's disrespecting me', 'I won't let her win'). (2) Co-write short, believable alternatives that he owns ('I can leave this', 'I don't have to win', 'she's allowed to disagree'). (3) Rehearse them in role-plays and write them on a card or phone. The specific BBR self-talk worksheets were not available [uncertain].
• Example language (illustrative): "What could you say to yourself, in your own words, that would get you to the door instead of across the room?"
• Watch for: Self-talk that still blames her ('she's not worth it'). Steer it toward respect and responsibility. [source: Renehan & Gadd 2024; synthesis]

C4. Relaxation training for anger

• Purpose / when: Conflict-management phase (SAH sessions 3–4).
• Steps: (1) Teach slow breathing and progressive muscle relaxation in session. (2) Practise daily for homework. (3) Pair relaxation with his cues so it is used early in escalation and during time-outs. [specific procedures are synthesis; SAH names relaxation training for anger]
• Watch for: Relaxation framed as the whole solution. Keep it tied to beliefs and choices. [source: Taft slides]

C5. Cognitive restructuring: anger-related thinking and hostile attributions

• Purpose / when: Conflict-management phase and the BBR 'thinking' domain. Corrects misreading of threat and intent (SAH) and irrational beliefs (1992 study).
• Steps: (1) From logs, pull out the thought just before escalation. (2) Name the pattern: mind-reading her intent, 'should' rules about how a partner must behave, entitlement, catastrophising disrespect. (3) Examine the evidence and alternative explanations for her behaviour. (4) Ask where the belief came from and who benefits from it (the Duluth beliefs step). (5) Write a balanced thought and the behaviour it would lead to. (6) Practise on fresh situations.
• Example language (illustrative): "You decided she was on her phone to wind you up. What else could explain it? … And if she just didn't want to talk, is that allowed?"
• Watch for: Intellectual agreement with no behavioural change. Restructuring used to rationalise ('I was right to be suspicious'). It is working when alternative explanations come more quickly and earlier in the chain. [source: Taft slides; JFV 1992 abstract; Pence & Aravena]

C6. Stress coping: problem-focused versus emotion-focused coping

• Purpose / when: Conflict-management phase (SAH), for stressors outside the relationship (work, money, legal, contact disputes) that feed into it.
• Steps: (1) List his current stressors. (2) Sort them into changeable ones, which call for problem-solving, and unchangeable ones, which call for emotion-focused coping such as relaxation, support or exercise. (3) Plan one coping action for each and review it the following week.
• Watch for: Stress offered as the reason for abuse. Restate that stress explains arousal, not the choice to control or harm. [source: Taft slides; synthesis]

C7. Body map

• Purpose / when: A BBR exercise for locating physical signs of emotion. It is named in fieldwork; its exact procedure was not available [uncertain].
• Steps (generic): He marks on a body outline where he feels anger, fear, shame and so on, then links each to his early-warning cues in C1 [synthesis].
• Watch for: Men with alexithymia (a STOP 4th-edition topic) or neurodivergence who may need concrete prompts. [source: Renehan & Gadd 2024; Norton STOP page]

D. Relationship and communication skills

D1. Assertiveness versus aggression

• Purpose / when: Foundation phase (SAH sessions 1–2), returned to in the communication phase.
• Steps: (1) Distinguish passive, aggressive, passive-aggressive and assertive responses with examples. (2) Define assertiveness as stating his needs while respecting her right to say no. (3) Have him rewrite one of his logged incidents as an assertive response.
• Example language (illustrative): "Assertive means you say what you want. It doesn't mean you get it."
• Watch for: 'Assertive' used to mean insisting. Check that his examples accept her refusal. [source: Taft slides]

D2. Roots of communication style

• Purpose / when: Start of the communication phase (SAH).
• Steps: (1) Ask how conflict, anger and affection were handled in his family of origin. (2) Identify the patterns he has carried forward. (3) Choose the patterns he wants to keep and the ones he wants to drop.
• Watch for: History used as an excuse. Connect it to choice now. [source: Taft slides]

D3. Active listening

• Purpose / when: Communication phase (SAH). Builds empathy and reduces hostile misreading.
• Steps: (1) Model listening, paraphrasing and checking meaning without rebutting. (2) Practise in pairs on neutral topics, then on mild relationship topics. (3) Observers give feedback. (4) Set homework to use it in a low-stakes conversation.
• Example language (illustrative): "So what you're saying is… have I got that right?"
• Watch for: Listening as a tactic before winning the point. Bodily intimidation while 'listening'. [source: Taft slides]

D4. Assertive messages and expressing feelings

• Purpose / when: Communication phase (SAH). The 1992 study also covered communication training.
• Steps: (1) Teach a structure: describe the specific behaviour, his feeling and his request, with no blame or name-calling. (2) Widen his feelings vocabulary beyond anger (hurt, fear, shame, jealousy). STOP addresses normative male alexithymia. (3) Role-play, giving feedback on tone, volume and posture.
• Example language (illustrative): "When plans change last minute, I feel shut out. Could you text me earlier?"
• Watch for: Feelings statements that carry demands or threats ('I feel you'd better…'). [source: Taft slides; JFV 1992 abstract; Norton STOP page]

D5. Communication 'traps'

• Purpose / when: Communication phase (SAH).
• Steps: (1) Identify his escalating habits, such as interrupting, sarcasm, bringing up the past, 'always/never', mind-reading, stonewalling and threats. (2) Pick his top two to work on. (3) Pair each with an alternative from D3 and D4 and practise. [the specific list of traps is synthesis; SAH names the topic]
• Watch for: Spotting traps only in her speech. [source: Taft slides]

D6. Role-play of alternative, non-controlling behaviour

• Purpose / when: The last step of the control log (Duluth), and whenever a skill is taught (1992 study; SAH in-session practice).
• Steps: (1) Set up the scene from his log, or a version of it. A co-facilitator or group member plays the partner; never involve the real partner. (2) He acts out the alternative. (3) The group gives feedback on words, tone, posture and whether the alternative respects her autonomy or just repackages control. (4) Replay it.
• Example language (illustrative): "Let's run it again. This time she says no to the weekend away. Show us what you do."
• Watch for: Mocking the 'partner' role. Alternatives that are only quieter control. Pence stresses the aim is equality, not less aggressive tactics. [source: Pence & Aravena; JFV 1992 abstract; Taft slides]

D7. Problem-solving and negotiation

• Purpose / when: Communication and problem-solving phase (1992 study, Study 2).
• Steps: (1) Define the problem jointly in neutral terms. (2) Brainstorm without judgement. (3) Weigh the options for fairness to both. (4) Agree one option and review it. Practise on everyday disagreements such as money, chores and contact arrangements. [steps are standard CBT problem-solving, synthesis]
• Watch for: 'Negotiation' over things that are her right alone, such as whom she sees, her phone, or sex. Name those as not negotiable. [source: JFV 1992 abstract; synthesis]

D8. Sexual attitudes and respect

• Purpose / when: Added in the second 1992 CBT group study, which targeted sexual attitudes and practices.
• Steps: (1) Discuss consent, entitlement and sexual coercion within relationships. (2) Examine his beliefs about sex as a partner's duty. (3) Link this to the 'sexual abuse' segment of the wheel. [steps are synthesis]
• Watch for: Disclosure of sexual violence, which raises risk and may need a separate referral or reporting. [source: JFV 1992 abstract; synthesis]

D9. Buddy system / group support

• Purpose / when: Throughout. A 1992 programme component for building cohesion and support.
• Steps: (1) Pair members to check in with each other between sessions about practice and high-risk situations. (2) Set boundaries: no colluding about partners, and safety concerns are reported to facilitators. [boundaries are synthesis]
• Watch for: Buddies sharing grievances or tactics, or members contacting each other's partners. [source: JFV 1992 abstract]

E. Trauma and co-occurring needs

E1. Trauma-informed core themes

• Purpose / when: Throughout SAH. Optional Stage 2 adds 8 trauma sessions. Murphy & Eckhardt (2005) have a 'trauma recovery' chapter, which is not drawn on here.
• Steps: (1) Introduce the core themes of trust, self-esteem, power conflicts, and guilt and shame. (2) Link trauma reactions such as hypervigilance and threat bias to IPV risk without excusing abuse. (3) Use practice assignments on these themes. (4) Refer him on for PTSD treatment where indicated.
• Example language (illustrative): "What happened to you was real, and it may make you quicker to see threat. What you did with that was still your choice, and you can make a different one."
• Watch for: Shame spirals, dissociation or emerging suicidality. Trauma narratives crowding out accountability. [source: Taft et al. 2016; Taft slides; Murphy & Eckhardt 2005 contents]

E2. Substance use linkage

• Purpose / when: At intake screening and throughout. STOP 4th ed. includes a substance-abuse session, and BBR suitability criteria list alcohol and drug misuse.
• Steps: (1) Screen at intake. (2) Map substance use onto his offence chain. (3) Include not drinking during time-outs and in high-risk situations in his plan. (4) Refer to substance-use treatment in parallel. (5) Do not admit him to a session while he is intoxicated, and record and report this [synthesis].
• Watch for: 'It was the drink.' Treat intoxication as a risk multiplier, not the cause. [source: gov.uk brochure; Norton STOP page; SC Standards]

F. Maintenance, exit and programme-level risk management

F1. Weekly practice assignments and review

• Purpose / when: Every session. In SAH, practice is assigned at the end and reviewed first thing next time. Homework completion counts toward good standing in US standards.
• Steps: (1) Set one concrete task linked to the skill just taught. (2) Begin the next session by reviewing it: what he did, what happened, what got in the way. (3) Problem-solve the barriers. (4) Record completion.
• Watch for: Repeated non-completion (see section 5). [source: Taft slides; SC Standards]

F2. Ongoing risk monitoring, escalation and duty to warn

• Purpose / when: Every contact.
• Steps: (1) Run a brief check-in each session covering contact with the partner, new conflicts, substance use, court and child-contact events, and mood. (2) Hold a team debrief after each group, combining group observations with any partner-support information (used without revealing her as the source). (3) Define escalation triggers in advance, for example new abuse, threats, stalking, breach of orders, weapons, suicidal and homicidal talk together, sudden separation, or dropout. (4) On a trigger: inform the offender or case manager and the referrer (within 24 hours for violations), alert the partner-support worker to contact her, and refer to multi-agency risk processes (e.g. MARAC/MAPPA in the UK) [synthesis: named UK processes are not in the cited texts]. (5) Imminent threat: warn her immediately by phone and through police. (6) Record decisions.
• Example language (illustrative): "You've just said you'd 'make her pay'. I take that seriously. I'm going to have to share it with probation today."
• Watch for: Staff minimising risk to protect the alliance. Risk information not reaching the partner. [source: SC Standards; Respect Principles; Renehan & Gadd 2024]

F3. Between-module individual reviews (BBR)

• Purpose / when: A one-hour one-to-one after each module, to bridge modules, review learning and check progress against goals.
• Steps: (1) Review his goals and treatment targets from A4 and A6. (2) Look at his logs, homework and group behaviour. (3) Bring in risk information. (4) Set targets for the next module. (5) Feed back to the offender manager. [steps 2–5 synthesis]
• Watch for: Reviews that confirm attendance only. [source: gov.uk brochure; Renehan & Gadd 2024]

F4. Relapse-prevention / maintenance plan

• Purpose / when: Final phase (BBR aims at 'sustainable strategies for maintaining change'; Murphy & Eckhardt ch. 11; SAH Stage 3 adds 6 sessions).
• Steps: (1) List his personal high-risk situations, early warning signs and offence-supportive thoughts. (2) List the skills that worked for him (time-out, self-talk, specific communication skills). (3) Name the people and services he will use. (4) Note the specific behaviours that would show he is slipping back, such as monitoring, jealousy or isolating her. (5) State what he will do if a lapse happens. (6) Share the plan with his offender manager. A version for the partner goes only through the partner-support worker, and only if she wants it [synthesis on structure].
• Watch for: Plans that rely on her behaving differently. [source: MoJ 2023; Murphy & Eckhardt 2005 contents; Taft slides]

F5. Exit review and handover

• Purpose / when: At completion. Fieldwork found completion experienced as "game over" with no structured follow-up, so the handover matters.
• Steps: (1) Write a post-programme review covering his engagement, observed change, remaining risk factors (e.g. withdrawal, depression, loneliness) and recommended follow-up through his case manager. (2) Send it to the referrer and offender manager. (3) Notify the partner (within 5 days under the SC standard) that he has completed, that completion does not guarantee safety, and where she can get support. (4) Offer maintenance or relapse-prevention follow-up where it is available.
• Watch for: Completion certificates read as risk reduction by family courts. State the limits in writing. [source: Renehan & Gadd 2024; SC Standards; Babcock et al. 2004]

F6. Facilitator supervision and fidelity monitoring

• Purpose / when: Ongoing. SAH clinicians had weekly supervision and video-rated adherence. BBR fieldwork found clinical supervision no longer routine and staff under strain.
• Steps: (1) Hold regular clinical supervision that covers both risk and the facilitator's own reactions. (2) Record sessions and rate a sample against the manual. (3) Use co-facilitator debriefs. (4) Agree a staff conduct standard (the SC standard requires staff to be free of abuse for five years and to disclose any incident).
• Watch for: Collusion, burnout, and material that resonates with a facilitator's own history. [source: Taft et al. 2016; Renehan & Gadd 2024; SC Standards; Respect Principles]

5. Handling problems

The sources document the problems themselves: dropout, minimisation, hostility, disclosures, ruptures, staff strain, neurodivergence and gaps in partner support. Except where a source is cited, the responses are my own synthesis [synthesis].

• Denial and minimisation ('one-off', 'not real DV', 'technically'). Expect it, especially pre-group. Do not argue facts head-on. Use the control-log sequence (actions, then intents, then beliefs) and ask for behavioural detail, which exposes minimisation better than confrontation does. Compare his account with the official record in individual sessions. Do not exclude a man for denial alone if he attends and engages; do escalate if denial comes with continuing abuse reported via partner support. [source for the problem: Renehan & Gadd 2024; method: Pence & Aravena; response: synthesis]
• Group hostility, 'men versus women', sarcasm, calling staff a 'snitch'. Restate the group rules and the reporting contract calmly, without moralising. Turn the remark into a question ('Who benefits from believing that?'). Use co-facilitators of different sexes to model respectful disagreement (SAH uses a male/female pair). If one member keeps derailing the group, move to individual work temporarily (the SC standard allows this for disruptiveness) and record it. [source: Renehan & Gadd 2024; Taft et al. 2016; SC Standards; synthesis]
• Persistent blaming of the (ex-)partner. Acknowledge his feelings about the relationship without agreeing with his version of her. Redirect to his own choices with 'What did you do next?' Refuse to discuss her character. Ask what he can control. [synthesis]
• Facilitator collusion and alliance pressure. Signs include laughing at jokes about partners, accepting 'she provoked me' to keep the peace, and reluctance to report breaches. Bring these to supervision, and debrief after every group. The alliance is a means to accountability, not a replacement for it. [source: Renehan & Gadd 2024 on supervision gaps; synthesis]
• Rupture over 'not accepting my truth'. Separate validating his experience (stress, loss, trauma, feeling judged) from validating his account of the abuse. Repair explicitly: name the rupture, own any facilitator misstep, and restate the shared goal from A4. [source for the problem: Renehan & Gadd 2024; response: synthesis]
• Non-attendance and dropout. After any missed session, phone and send a letter (SAH did both to reduce attrition). Apply the absence rules consistently. Treat dropout as a risk event: notify the referrer, and notify the partner-support worker so she can be told within 24 hours, with a safety-planning offer. Long waits between referral and start are associated with drop-off, so offer pre-group individual contact while men wait. [source: Taft et al. 2016; SC Standards; MoJ 2023; synthesis]
• Homework non-completion. Find the barrier: literacy, chaos at home, avoidance, or contempt for the task. Simplify to a verbal or phone-recorded log, do it together at the start of the session, and link it to his own goals. Count it toward good standing where the standard requires. [source: SC Standards; synthesis]
• Using programme language as a new control tactic. Examples are telling her she needs a time-out, labelling her 'aggressive', or quoting the wheel at her. Partner reports via A3 are usually the only way this surfaces. Address it in group as a general theme rather than citing her, and track it as a risk indicator. [synthesis]
• Partner's false reassurance. She may stay, return or drop protective measures because he is 'doing the course'. At every contact, restate that attendance and completion do not guarantee safety. Support her decisions without pressure, and keep safety planning going. Make sure courts and children's services receive written limits with any report. [source: SC Standards; Babcock et al. 2004; codebook risk note]
• Partner declines contact or cannot be found. Log your attempts and escalate to the local victim advocate or IDVA (SC: if her address is not found within three days). Never make his participation conditional on her. Remain available. [source: SC Standards]
• Disclosure of new abuse, threats or breach in session. Stop the content, take a factual account, tell him what you must do, and report to his offender or case manager and the referrer within 24 hours. Trigger partner contact. If the threat is imminent, warn her immediately and call police. Do not promise confidentiality afterwards. [source: SC Standards]
• Suicidal or self-harm disclosures at the end of a session. Facilitators in BBR felt forced to 'just cut that off'. Build in protected time and a second facilitator for a one-to-one risk assessment after group. Ask directly about suicidal thoughts, intent, plans and access to means. For lethal means, cover safe storage and removal only. In IPV, ask about thoughts of harming the partner or children alongside suicidal thoughts, because homicide–suicide risk combines the two. Escalate through crisis services and the offender manager, and warn the partner if there is any threat to her. [source for the problem: Renehan & Gadd 2024; response: standard risk practice, synthesis]
• Overwhelm, shame spirals and trauma activation. Slow down, ground him with breathing (C4), and separate shame about himself from responsibility for his behaviour. Offer an individual session, and refer to trauma treatment (SAH Stage 2) instead of running trauma processing in the accountability group. [source: Taft slides; synthesis]
• Intoxication at group. Do not admit him. Arrange safe departure without driving, record it, and report it. Raise it in the next individual session as a risk factor. [synthesis]
• Neurodivergence, learning disability, literacy and language. Reflective, worksheet-heavy content is hard for some men; BBR fieldwork found little provision. Use concrete visual materials, scripted role-plays, shorter tasks and individual support. Consider a programme adapted for learning disability where one exists. [source for the problem: Renehan & Gadd 2024; Respect Principles; response: synthesis]
• 'She's violent too' and claims of mutual abuse. Do not dismiss the claim. Ask about patterns of fear, control and injury. Refer her account only through partner support, and pass any child-safeguarding concerns on. If the assessment suggests he is primarily the victim, review whether the programme is appropriate. [source: Respect Principles (gender-informed, tailored responses); synthesis]
• Requests for couples work. Do not do joint work while abuse is ongoing or risk is unassessed. Couples formats exist only as a selected follow-up (SAH offers an 8-session couples group). Any couples work requires a separate safety assessment of her, and her free choice, outside the mandated programme. [source: Taft slides; synthesis] [uncertain: the US standard did not address couples counselling; check your jurisdiction's standard]
• Rolling groups and newcomers. Newcomers raise minimisation levels. Pair a newcomer with an established member who models accountability, after checking for collusion, and repeat the core concepts briefly when someone joins. [source: gov.uk brochure (rolling format); synthesis]
• Completion cliff ('game over'). Plan the exit from the midpoint onward. Hand over his maintenance plan and residual risk factors to his case manager, offer follow-up (SAH Stage 3), and do a final partner contact. [source: Renehan & Gadd 2024; Taft slides]
• Facilitator distress and vicarious trauma. Protect clinical supervision time. Rotate the heaviest material between co-facilitators, and acknowledge personal resonance in supervision. [source: Renehan & Gadd 2024; Respect Principles]

Sources

Sources

• Does Batterers' Treatment Work? A Meta-Analytic Review of Domestic Violence Treatment (NCJRS abstract)
• Evaluating the Building Better Relationships (BBR) programme: feasibility study (MoJ, 2023)
• Judicial brochure: accredited programmes overview (gov.uk)
• Renehan & Gadd (2024), For Better or Worse? Improving the Response to Domestic Abuse Offenders on Probation, BJC
• Durham Research Online record for Renehan & Gadd 2024
• A Discussion on the Duluth Curriculum with Ellen and Luis (DAIP)
• The STOP Domestic Violence Program, 4th ed. (W. W. Norton page)
• Respect Principles (Respect Standard, 4th ed., 2022)
• Taft et al. (2016), RCT of the Strength at Home Men's Program, J Clin Psychiatry
• Taft, Strength at Home presentation slides (Ohio Supreme Court specialized dockets conference materials)
• South Carolina DPPPS Batterer's Intervention Program Standards (2024)
• Cognitive-behavioral group treatment for male spouse abusers (NCJRS abstract, J Fam Violence 1992, 7(1):37–55) [uncertain: the authors are not listed on the page; usually cited as Faulkner, Stoltenberg et al. 1992]
• Treating the Abusive Partner: contents (Guilford)

Further reading (not drawn on)

• Babcock, J. C., Green, C. E., & Robie, C. (2004). Does batterers' treatment work? A meta-analytic review of domestic violence treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1023–1053.
• Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1993). Education Groups for Men Who Batter: The Duluth Model. Springer. (Basis of the DAIP curriculum Creating a Process of Change for Men Who Batter.)
• Wexler, D. B. (2020). The STOP Domestic Violence Program: Group Leader's Manual (4th ed.). W. W. Norton.
• Murphy, C. M., & Eckhardt, C. I. (2005). Treating the Abusive Partner: An Individualized Cognitive-Behavioral Approach. Guilford.
• Taft, C. T., Murphy, C. M., & Creech, S. K. (2016). Trauma-Informed Treatment and Prevention of Intimate Partner Violence. APA. (The full SAH session content is here.)
• HMPPS. Building Better Relationships programme manuals (restricted; not available). The Probation Institute BBR paper is not drawn on here.

Left [uncertain]: the names and session-level content of the three non-Foundation BBR modules; the BBR body-map and self-talk procedures; the detailed rules of time-out (the steps above are a synthesis); Murphy & Eckhardt's specific motivational, formulation and trauma techniques; what replaced BBR after April 2025.