Most abusers who go through intervention programs do not dramatically change. Research consistently shows that formal treatment programs produce only small reductions in re-offense rates, and roughly one in three men who complete a batterer intervention program will physically assault their partner again. The picture is more nuanced than a single number, though, because “change” can mean different things, and the way you measure it shifts the results significantly.
What the Recidivism Numbers Actually Show
Across dozens of studies, the average recidivism rate for men in batterer intervention programs is about 26 percent when measured by police reports alone. But police records dramatically undercount abuse. When researchers ask the partners of these men directly, the numbers jump: women whose partners completed programs reported re-assault rates between 26 and 41 percent, with an average of 32 percent. For men who dropped out of programs or never attended, partners reported re-assault rates between 40 and 62 percent, averaging 46 percent.
That gap matters. Completing a program does appear to reduce the odds of future violence compared to doing nothing, but the reduction is modest. One widely cited finding puts it bluntly: about two-thirds of men arrested for domestic violence do not re-assault within six months, and about two-thirds of men who complete intervention programs also remain nonviolent over that same window. In other words, much of the “success” may come from the arrest and legal consequences themselves, not the program.
Follow-up time also changes the picture. Studies that checked in at five months or less found an average recidivism rate of 14 percent. Studies that followed up at six months or longer found rates above 32 percent. The longer you watch, the more re-offending you see.
How Much of the Change Comes From Treatment?
A 2024 meta-analysis reviewing 59 controlled studies with over 20,000 participants confirmed what earlier reviews had found: batterer intervention programs produce “small but significant effects” on physical abuse recidivism. The effect is real but limited. One earlier quantitative review calculated that 36 percent of men who completed treatment re-offended, compared to 39 percent of men who only went through the legal system. That three-percentage-point difference suggests the treatment itself adds very little beyond what arrest, court appearances, and probation already accomplish.
The two most common program models, the Duluth model (which focuses on power and control dynamics) and cognitive behavioral therapy, perform about equally. Neither consistently outperforms the other. Some newer approaches show more promise. A program called ACTV, which focuses on changing abusive behaviors through values-based strategies rather than trying to restructure thoughts about women and power, showed stronger results in a randomized trial of 338 men in Iowa. Partners of men in the ACTV group reported significantly less controlling behavior, fewer physical assaults, and fewer instances of stalking a year after the program, compared to partners of men who went through the standard Duluth program. Another approach called Circles of Peace also showed larger effects than traditional models in head-to-head comparisons.
Why “Change” Is Hard to Measure
One reason these numbers are so frustrating is that stopping physical violence is the lowest possible bar. An abuser can stop hitting and still control, intimidate, stalk, or emotionally terrorize a partner. The American Psychological Association has acknowledged that no single outcome measure fully captures the scope of an abuser’s behavior. A man who stops punching but continues monitoring his partner’s phone, isolating her from friends, or berating her hasn’t meaningfully changed.
Clinicians working with newer programs look for deeper markers of reform: the ability to regulate emotions under stress, a willingness to be held accountable without retaliating, and what psychologists call “reflective functioning,” which is the capacity to understand your own mental states and recognize other people’s perspectives and feelings. Programs like Fathers for Change use motivational interviewing to build these skills. A Call for Change, a phone-based intervention, specifically targets what it calls “abusive values,” including the belief that it’s acceptable to use power and control to avoid discomfort, and the refusal to tolerate being questioned by a partner.
These markers are harder to quantify than arrest records, which is part of why the research remains limited. But they point to what genuine change looks like: not just the absence of violence, but a fundamentally different way of relating to another person.
What Predicts Whether Someone Leaves an Abuser
While the data on abuser change is sobering, research on survivors’ outcomes offers a different angle. A study through the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee tracked factors that predicted whether domestic violence program participants successfully left their abusers, and some findings were striking.
Of the fourteen participants who obtained even a temporary restraining order, not a single one returned to their abuser. Age played a role too: only 5 percent of participants aged 18 to 27 returned to their abuser, while 17 percent of those aged 28 to 37 did, likely reflecting deeper financial and family entanglements. Counterintuitively, people who had endured longer abuse were more likely to leave successfully. Seventy-eight percent of participants with ten years of abuse exited to a safe location, and 75 percent of those with eleven to twenty years did. The highest rate of returning to an abuser, 31 percent, was among those in relationships lasting five to nine years.
Having custody of children also appeared protective. Among participants with custody, only 10 percent returned to their abuser, and 47 percent moved into their own housing. The study also found a surprising practical indicator: participants who used more than five bus tokens during their shelter stay never returned to their abuser. Researchers interpreted this as a proxy for resourcefulness, suggesting that the willingness to learn new systems and seek out opportunities independently is a powerful predictor of leaving for good.
What These Numbers Mean in Practice
If you’re searching for this information, you’re likely trying to decide whether someone in your life is capable of real change. The honest answer from decades of research is that the odds are not encouraging. Roughly one-third of program completers will assault a partner again by the most generous measures, and treatment programs add only a small benefit beyond what the legal system alone provides. The majority of abusers who stop being physically violent do so because of external consequences like arrest and monitoring, not because of an internal transformation.
That said, the data does not mean change is impossible. It means change is uncommon, and it cannot be reliably predicted by promises, apologies, or enrollment in a program. The behavioral markers that professionals look for, including genuine emotional regulation, accountability without defensiveness, and the ability to recognize a partner’s experience as separate and valid, take sustained effort over years. A 12- or 24-week program is a starting point at best, not evidence of transformation. The newer, more intensive approaches show some improvement over traditional models, but even the best programs operate in a range where most participants show limited or temporary change.