Table 3.

Critical Findings.

• Only a handful of DVIPs are adopting evidence-informed approaches that prioritize social and structural inequities and determinants of violence, trauma-informed care, restoration, and social justice.

• There is a need for more inclusive and restorative DVIP programs that consider the diverse characteristics and circumstances of IPV offenders.

• Most articles do not describe how programs should address social and structural issues in programming beyond group conversations and building partnerships with social justice-oriented organizations. Examples of activities and actionable ways for practitioners to address social/structural determinants of violence are needed

• DVIPs use inconsistent and inappropriate tools and methods to measure program effectiveness.

Note. DVIPs = Domestic Violence Intervention Programs; IPV = intimate partner violence.