# Duluth model _The coordinated community response to domestic abuse devised in Duluth, Minnesota, in 1980–1981, and the court-ordered men's groups taught under it — what the model holds, what Minnesota law requires of offender programs, how far the model spread, what the evaluations found and what the record does and does not tie to it_ | Duluth model | | |---|---| | Origin | Duluth, Minnesota, 1980–1981 | | Organization | Minnesota Program Development, Inc. (incorporated 1980; now Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, DAIP); its first project, the [[Domestic Abuse Intervention Project]] | | First director | [[Ellen Pence]] (died 2012) | | Components | written inter-agency policies (the "coordinated community response"); arrest, prosecution and sentencing practices; court-ordered educational groups for men who batter; the [[Power and Control Wheel]] | | Minnesota statutes on offender programs | [[Domestic Abuse Act]], § 518B.01 (Laws 1979, ch. 214); § 609.2244 (1996, presentence investigations); § 518B.02 (2001, program standards) | | Minnesota statute or rule naming the model | none found | | Federal ratings | [[National Institute of Justice]] reports (2003): rigorous evaluations "find little or no reduction"; [[CrimeSolutions]] (2013): "Effective" on violent reoffending, "Promising" on victimization | | Parent article | [[How Minnesota Got Here]] | | Companion articles | [[At Issue - Minnesota's Feminist Regime]] · [[DFL Feminists]] · [[GOP Feminists]] | | Status | side ledger; restates the record and sets out the readings; adjudicates nothing | The **Duluth model** is a method for a community's police, prosecutors, courts, probation officers and advocates to coordinate their response to domestic abuse, developed in Duluth, Minnesota, beginning in 1980, together with the curriculum for court-ordered groups for men who batter that the same project wrote.[^1][^2] Its originators describe it as "an inter-agency approach that brings the justice and human service interventions together around the primary goal of protecting victims from ongoing abuse."[^1] Its best-known tool, the Power and Control Wheel, was drawn from the accounts of women in Duluth support groups and depicts "the tactics typically used by men who batter."[^3] The project's successor organization says its work "is found in every state".[^4] This article is a side ledger to [[How Minnesota Got Here]] and a companion to [[At Issue - Minnesota's Feminist Regime]], [[DFL Feminists]] and [[GOP Feminists]], which treat the women's-economic and domestic-abuse instruments of Minnesota government. The record ties the model to Minnesota government in three ways: through the state statutes that require domestic-abuse offenders on probation to complete a counseling or educational program, and that set standards for such programs, including the requirement of "separate sessions for male and female offenders"; through the state shelter and battered-women statutes of 1977–1979 that preceded and surrounded the Duluth project; and through the project's own export of its curriculum and training from Minnesota to other states and countries.[^5][^6][^7][^2] No Minnesota statute or rule read for this article names the Duluth model or prescribes its curriculum.[^5][^8][^9] The evaluation record is mixed and is set out in full below. A 2003 National Institute of Justice report stated that "recent evaluations based on more rigorous designs find little or no reduction" in battering from batterer-intervention programs, while adding that methodological limits make it "impossible to say how effective BIPs are"; a 2004 meta-analysis found "no differences in effect sizes in comparing Duluth model vs. CBT-type interventions"; the federal CrimeSolutions review, drawing on the same meta-analysis, rated the Duluth model "Effective" for reducing violent reoffending.[^10][^11][^12] The corpus describes the model as a doctrine seeded by the state's women's council and as the subject of a federal null finding answered by continued export; the record read here supports neither description as written.[^13][^14] These and other corrections are collected in [[#Corpus claims checked]]. ## Scope and method The article follows the method of its parent: officials and institutions in their official capacity, instruments described by what they require, the readings the record supports stated side by side.[^15][^16] The Duluth project is a private nonprofit, not a state agency; its documents are cited as its own account of itself, and its outcome claims are attributed to it. Evaluations are reported in their authors' words, with their stated limitations. The article records the published work and public roles of the project's founders and staff, and nothing of their private lives. It takes no position on whether the model works, on the causes of domestic violence or on how offenders should be treated; it reports what the statutes require, what the model's authors hold, what the evaluators found and what the critics and the model's defenders have said.[^13] ## Before Duluth: the Minnesota statutes of 1977–1979 Four Minnesota session laws of 1977–1979, all enacted before the project began, set the legal frame in which it worked.[^6][^17][^18][^7] **Shelter funding, 1977.** Laws 1977, chapter 428, approved June 2, 1977, was "An act relating to women; establishing pilot programs" to provide emergency shelter "and support services to battered women".[^6] The Legislative Reference Library describes it as making Minnesota "the first state to give financial support to battered women's shelters," with $500,000 for four pilot programs, and names its authors as Representative [[Phyllis Kahn]] and Senator B. Robert Lewis.[^19] Its grant provisions became Minn. Stat. § 611A.32, which as of 2022 directed the commissioner to fund "programs which provide emergency shelter services to battered women"; the section was amended in 2023, and the House Research Department reports that "The Office of Justice Programs awards grants to programs that provide emergency shelter services to battered women".[^20][^21] [[Rudy Perpich]], a Democratic-Farmer-Labor governor, was in office.[^22] **Arrest and counseling, 1978.** Laws 1978, chapter 724, approved April 5, 1978, permitted peace officers "to make arrests upon probable cause in cases of domestic assault" and allowed a judge to condition a stayed sentence on the defendant's participation in counseling.[^17] The same day the Governor approved chapter 732, "An act relating to battered women," which added data-collection duties and required the commissioner of corrections to report on the "feasibility of creating similar programs for men."[^18] **The Domestic Abuse Act, 1979.** Laws 1979, chapter 214 (H.F. 521), approved May 25, 1979, enacted Minn. Stat. § 518B.01, "the domestic abuse act," which authorized "judicial intervention to provide protection from domestic abuse" through civil orders for protection.[^7] The House Research Department describes it as the law that "established the basic structure for Minnesota's response to domestic violence".[^21] It was enacted in the first year of Governor [[Al Quie]], an Independent-Republican.[^22] The act's text is written in terms of "family or household members" and does not distinguish by sex.[^7][^23] ## Origin in Duluth, 1980–1983 The project's own timeline states that Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs "was incorporated as a nonprofit agency in 1980 under the name Minnesota Program Development, Inc.", and that its first project, the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project, began "in a small, upstairs kitchen of the Duluth Community Health Center".[^2] The timeline records that "At the request of the Duluth shelter (Women's Coalition), Duluth is selected as the site for a pilot criminal justice reform project."[^2] Ellen Pence, the project's first director, wrote that "The original Minnesota organizers were activists in the battered women's movement", who selected Duluth as the best Minnesota city in which to bring criminal and civil justice agencies together.[^1][^4] The Legislative Reference Library and the federal CrimeSolutions profile date the model to 1981; the project dates its own start to 1980.[^19][^12][^2] The timeline describes the first years as a sequence of agency agreements:[^2] | Year | Event in the project's timeline | |---|---| | 1981 | Duluth police issue an experimental mandatory-arrest policy; eight agencies agree on guidelines for the resulting cases; "Groups for men who batter are started by three mental health centers" | | 1982 | After an initial evaluation, nine agencies make the experimental policies permanent; the court raises mandated offender sessions from eight to twelve weeks | | 1983 | "Women in the neighborhood groups develop the Power and Control Wheel" | | 1985 | The court raises mandated sessions from twelve to twenty-six weeks; the prosecutor's "no drop" policy is eliminated and conviction rates fall | | 1987 | The City of Duluth receives the Kennedy School of Government award from the Ford Foundation for "Innovations in State and Local Government" | | 1989 | DAIP organizes a National Training Project "to teach the Duluth Model" | | 1993 | *Education Groups for Men Who Batter: The Duluth Model* is published | | 2003 | The men's curriculum is retitled *Creating a Process of Change for Men Who Batter* | Pence's account gives the initial collaboration as eleven agencies — "911, police, sheriff's and prosecutors' offices, probation, the criminal and civil court benches, the local battered women's shelter, three mental health agencies" and the coordinating project — and says that over three decades the initiative "became the most replicated woman abuse intervention model in the country."[^1] The project's website also gives eleven, but as the number that, after the first interventions, agreed "to continue to formally work together".[^24] Pence died in January 2012 at 63; Minnesota Public Radio described her as "internationally renowned" for creating the Duluth model.[^25] The [[Battered Women's Justice Project]], a national resource center, states that it "started in 1993 as a part of the Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project" and became an independent nonprofit in 2015.[^26] [[Michael Paymar]], a co-creator of the Power and Control Wheel whose legislative record lists him as an author of the 1993 men's-group manual, later served in the [[Minnesota House of Representatives]] from 1997 to 2014, elected as a Democratic-Farmer-Labor member from a Ramsey County district.[^3][^27] ## What the model holds **The coordinated community response.** The project's 2015 definition describes the model as offering "a method for communities to coordinate their responses to domestic violence", including arrest, prosecution, jail sentences of increasing severity for repeat offenses, "court ordered educational groups for men who batter", and a coordinating organization to track offenders.[^28] It holds that "The focus of intervention is on stopping the violence, not on fixing or ending interpersonal relationships", and that "The primary responsibility of placing controls on abusers belongs to the community and the individual abuser."[^28] A reply to critics by Paymar and Graham Barnes of the Battered Women's Justice Project states that "The Duluth Model is not a treatment program, but rather a coordinated response by community institutions".[^29] **Its account of battering.** The project's website says a community using the model "Believes that battering is a pattern of actions used to intentionally control or dominate an intimate partner and actively works to change societal conditions that support men's use of tactics of power and control over women."[^30] Its mission statement is "to end violence against women."[^24] Its answers to questions about the Power and Control Wheel state that "When women use violence in an intimate relationship, the context of that violence tends to differ from men", and that "men's use of violence against women is learned and reinforced through many social, cultural and institutional avenues".[^31] The National Institute of Justice summarized the model in 2003 as "based on the feminist theory that patriarchal ideology, which encourages men to control their partners, causes domestic violence."[^10] The CrimeSolutions profile describes it as employing "a feminist psychoeducational approach".[^12] **The Power and Control Wheel.** According to the project's account of its development, the wheel "was created in 1982 by Ellen Pence, Coral McDonnell, and Michael Paymar as part of a curriculum for a court ordered program for men who batter", and was "developed out of the experiences of women who were battered and attending support and educational groups".[^3] The same document states: "The wheel is not a theory. It is a conceptual tool", and "The wheel was based on women's experience in hetero-sexual intimate partner relationships."[^3] The spokes depict tactics such as intimidation, emotional and economic abuse, isolation, "male privilege" and use of children; in the project's words, "Physical and sexual violence holds it all together-this violence is the rim of the wheel."[^31][^12] The same note adds that "The battered women did not identify a desire for power or control as motivating their partners"; rather, the men "gained power and control in the relationship as an outcome of those behaviors."[^3] A companion Equality Wheel describes the changes the project seeks in men who batter.[^31] The project's documents date the wheel variously to 1982, 1983 and 1984.[^3][^2][^32] The project reports that the wheels "have been translated into over 30 languages".[^3] **The men's curriculum.** The project sells its current curriculum, *Creating a Process of Change for Men Who Batter*, as "The most-widely used curriculum for working with men who batter", with "lesson plans and exercises for up to 30 weeks of classes."[^33] Paymar and Barnes write that "The Duluth curriculum's central focus is exploring and understanding power relationships", and reject "the criticism that the Duluth curriculum is confrontational and shame-based".[^29] ## Minnesota law today Minnesota law now contains provisions that parallel several components of the Duluth project — mandatory programming for offenders on probation, program standards, police arrest policies and prosecution plans — without naming the project, its wheel or its curriculum.[^5][^34][^35] The House Research Department's 2024 survey of the state's domestic-abuse laws describes the program requirement and its standards in the same terms as the statute and mentions no model.[^21] **The program mandate, § 518B.02.** Enacted in the First Special Session of 2001, in the term of Governor [[Jesse Ventura]] of the Reform Party, the section provides that when a court stays a sentence for a domestic abuse offense and places the offender on probation, "the court shall order that, as a condition of the stayed sentence, the offender participate in and successfully complete a domestic abuse counseling program or educational program."[^5][^22] Its standards require at least "24 sessions or 36 hours of programming" unless a probation agent recommends fewer; written policies requiring that facilitators "hold offenders and abusing parties solely responsible for their behavior" and "be violence free in their own lives"; services "in a group setting"; and, in paragraph (i), that "Programs must provide separate sessions for male and female offenders and abusing parties."[^5] Programs may not offer or refer couples counseling until the court-ordered sessions are completed and the facilitator "reasonably believes that the violence, intimidation, and coercion has ceased and the victim feels safe to participate."[^5] **Accountability measures, 2001–2023.** The 2001 act also directed the Minnesota Center for Crime Victim Services to consult on "acceptable measures to ensure program accountability" and, by December 30, 2001, to make recommendations to the Legislature "on agreed upon accountability measures including outcome studies."[^36] A 2013 amendment substituted the Office of Justice Programs in the Department of Public Safety as the consulting agency but kept the 2001 deadline.[^37] The subdivision was repealed in 2023.[^5] Whether the recommendations were made, and what they said, is not in the documents read for this article; see [[#Open items]]. **The 2026 amendment.** Laws 2026, chapter 97 (S.F. 4760), a public-safety act presented to the governor on May 14 and signed on May 18, 2026, amended paragraph (l) of § 518B.02 to strike "battered women's and" from the list of programs with which offender programs must coordinate.[^38] The same section of the act left paragraph (i), the requirement of separate sessions for male and female offenders, unchanged.[^38] The act's domestic-violence article also lengthened the warrantless-arrest window in § 629.341 from 72 hours to 14 days, directed officers who do not arrest to seek a warrant "without undue delay," and widened the definition of a "domestic abuse case" for prosecution plans under § 611A.0311.[^38] [[Tim Walz]], a Democratic-Farmer-Labor governor, was in office.[^22] **Presentence investigations and sentencing.** Minn. Stat. § 609.2244, enacted in 1996 under Governor [[Arne Carlson]], an Independent-Republican, requires a presentence domestic abuse investigation whose report must include "a specific recommendation for the defendant to complete a domestic abuse counseling program or domestic abuse educational program under section 518B.02"; the investigating agent may not have a "referral relationship resulting in shared financial gain with a treatment provider."[^39][^22] The companion sentencing section, § 609.2243, lets a court stay the minimum jail term for gross misdemeanor domestic assault on the condition that the person "complete anger therapy or counseling".[^40] Federal grant guidance, discussed below, treats anger management as no substitute for a batterer's program; the Minnesota statute's phrase and the federal guidance are set side by side in [[#Two readings]].[^41] **Civil orders.** The Domestic Abuse Act lets a court issuing an order for protection "order the abusing party to participate in treatment or counseling services," including a program under § 518B.02.[^23] The act's protected class remains "family or household members," without distinction by sex.[^23] **Police and prosecutors.** Three further statutes write coordination duties into law. Section 629.341 permits a warrantless arrest anywhere, including at the person's residence, on probable cause that the person committed nonfelony domestic abuse within a set period — 72 hours in the 2023 text, 14 days as amended in 2026 — and requires officers to give victims written notice of their rights.[^42][^38] Section 629.342, enacted in 1992, required every law enforcement agency to adopt by July 1, 1993 a written arrest policy developed in consultation with domestic abuse advocates; the policy "shall discourage dual arrests" and must consider self-defense.[^34] Section 611A.0311, enacted in 1990, requires each county and city attorney to "develop and implement a written plan to expedite and improve the efficiency and just disposition of domestic abuse cases", including "procedures to encourage the prosecution of all domestic abuse cases where a crime can be proven".[^35] These duties parallel the Duluth agreements of 1981–1985 described above; no document read for this article records whether the Duluth experience informed their drafting.[^2][^34][^35] **Shelter grants and the battered-women rule.** The 1977 grant program survives as § 611A.32, which as of 2022 directed the commissioner to fund "programs which provide emergency shelter services to battered women" and required at least one program for "battered American Indian women"; the section was amended in 2023, and the grants are now awarded by the Office of Justice Programs.[^20][^21] Its implementing rule, Minnesota Rules chapter 2915, "Services for Battered Women," defines emergency shelter services as facilities for "women and children seeking safety from assault primarily by a spouse, male relative, or male with whom they are residing or have resided in the past", includes "programs for violent partners" in its definition of service providers, and, where other qualifications are equal, gives priority in advisory-council appointments to "persons who have personally experienced partner abuse."[^8] **What the texts do not say.** The Revisor's topic index for domestic abuse, the program statute, the sentencing statutes and the battered-women rule were read for this article; none names the Duluth model, the Power and Control Wheel or any curriculum.[^9][^5][^39][^40][^8] The statutory mandate is for "a domestic abuse counseling program or educational program" meeting the listed standards.[^5] Two of those standards — sessions separated by sex and the bar on couples counseling — match positions the model's authors state, who write that "The Duluth curriculum is designed for male perpetrators" and describe a separate Duluth program for women; most of the others govern reporting, intake and victim contact.[^5][^29] Paymar and Barnes also write that "we have never supported state statutes that mandate a particular treatment model".[^29] ## Into family court The Battered Women's Justice Project, which began inside the Duluth project in 1993 and has been independent since 2015, also works on custody cases.[^26] Its National Child Custody Project developed the SAFeR approach in 2009 "in response to concerns voiced by advocates and survivors" about how custody professionals handled intimate partner violence.[^43] SAFeR has four steps — screening for intimate partner violence, assessing its nature and context, focusing on its effects and responding to them — and the project's description asks what is happening with the children "as well as the parent who is subjected to abuse."[^44] Hennepin County's family court is among the courts that use it. A 2018 fact sheet on the [[Office on Violence Against Women]]'s Domestic Violence Mentor Courts states that "Family Court Judicial Officers utilize the SAFeR Approach to custody and parenting time cases".[^45] Minnesota's Fourth Judicial District was "one of four sites awarded federal funding" from the same federal office for the Family Court Enhancement Project, whose Hennepin work includes a docket for protection orders in which child-related relief is requested.[^46][^47] The project's own text for SAFeR is written in sex-neutral terms; the documents read here do not show how judicial officers apply it in individual cases.[^44] ## Spread beyond Minnesota **State standards.** The National Institute of Justice wrote in 2003 that the Duluth model "is the most common form of BIP in the Nation" and that "many States mandate that BIPs conform to the Duluth model."[^10] The four state texts read for this article do not name the model; three require power-and-control or gender-role content, while Washington's moved to tiered cognitive behavioral treatment:[^48][^49][^50][^51] | State | Standard | What it requires | |---|---|---| | Georgia | Department of Corrections rules for Family Violence Intervention Programs, Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 125-4-9 | Curricula must "follow a model that identifies and challenges family violence as an overall system of physical and emotional abuse"; at least 24 weekly classes; "All participants in a class must be of the same gender."; couples, marriage or family therapy excluded[^48] | | Oklahoma | Attorney General standards for certified batterer intervention programs, Okla. Admin. Code tit. 75, ch. 25 | Curricula must address how "support for and perpetuation of abuse are based on traditional gender roles and privilege"; programs "shall not be less than 52 weeks in duration"[^49] | | Texas | Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Community Justice Assistance Division, accreditation guidelines for battering intervention and prevention programs, as described in a 2024 evaluation report | "The guidelines do not mandate a specific curriculum," but approved curricula must treat family violence as one partner's use of abuse "to maintain power and control" and must work "without shaming batterers"[^50] | | Washington | Washington Administrative Code ch. 388-60B, as described in a 2020 report to the Legislature | New regulations replaced a "one-size-fits-all" approach with "a four-tiered cognitive behavioral therapy approach"[^51] | **Federal law and grant terms.** Title IV of Public Law 103-322, enacted September 13, 1994, created the federal grants to encourage arrest policies, codified at 34 U.S.C. § 10461; among their purposes is "To centralize and coordinate police enforcement, prosecution, or judicial responsibility for domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking cases" in specialized teams or units.[^52] Congress struck "mandatory arrest" from the grant purposes in 2006, and in 2022 replaced the eligibility condition that a jurisdiction "encourage or mandate arrests of domestic violence offenders" with one that it "encourage arrests" of offenders.[^52] The Office on Violence Against Women's 2018 companion guide for grant applicants lists, among "Examples of activities that may compromise victim safety", the practice of "Offering or ordering anger management programs for offenders as a substitute for batterer's intervention programs" and "Relying on batterer intervention programs that do not use court monitoring".[^41] None of these federal texts names the Duluth model.[^52][^41] The same office chose Duluth in 2011 as one of three national sites for its Blueprint for Safety adaptation project, carried out with Praxis International, a training organization with offices in Duluth and St. Paul.[^4] **International recognition.** In 2014 the World Future Council, with the Inter-Parliamentary Union and UN Women, gave the model its Future Policy Gold Award for ending violence against women and girls.[^53][^4] The award's citation describes the model as introduced in Duluth in 1981 "to ensure the implementation of the State of Minnesota's Domestic Abuse Act."[^53] The project lists training events and collaborations abroad, including a 2017 event at London Metropolitan University.[^4] ## Evaluations The evaluation record depends on what was measured, against what comparison group and with what fidelity to the model. The main studies and ratings are listed here in the order they appeared, in their authors' words.[^10][^12] **Arrest, 1981–1982.** The Duluth project's first experimental arrest policy, issued by the Duluth police in 1981, ran at the same time as the [[Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment]], a Police Foundation study funded by the National Institute of Justice in which officers took the response indicated by a color-coded report form in misdemeanor domestic assaults from early 1981 to mid-1982. Its report found that "arrest was most effective in reducing recidivism", and closed with "a cautious interpretation of the findings."[^54][^19][^2] The study tested arrest, not the men's groups.[^54] **The multisite study.** Edward W. Gondolf's multisite evaluation, published as *Batterer Intervention Systems* in 2002 with federal research funding, included chapters on "The De-Escalation of Reassault and Other Abuse" and "Evidence of a Program Effect".[^55] Gondolf later cited it as "contradictory evidence" against the experimental findings that followed.[^56] **Broward County and Brooklyn, 2003.** Two randomized evaluations funded by the National Institute of Justice were published together in June 2003. In Broward County, Florida, judges referred men to "one of five county-certified batterer treatment programs, each of which used the Duluth model"; the study found "no significant differences" between treatment and control groups on reoffense rates or attitudes.[^10] In Brooklyn, men in an 8-week program did no better than controls, but men in a 26-week program "had significantly fewer official complaints lodged against them than the control group"; neither group changed its attitudes.[^10] The institute's summary added that in Florida, where employment and home ownership predicted outcomes, "Those with the most to lose were the least likely" to reoffend.[^57] It listed the studies' limits — low response rates, high dropout, victims who could not be found and, in Brooklyn, overridden random assignment — and concluded that the limitations of virtually all such evaluations "make it impossible to say how effective BIPs are."[^10] Its abstract states that "it is too early to abandon the concept of batterer intervention programs."[^58] **The Babcock meta-analysis.** Julia Babcock, Charles Green and Chet Robie reviewed 22 studies of treatment for domestically violent men in *Clinical Psychology Review*; the federal library lists it as published in 2004, and Paymar and Barnes date it to 2002.[^11][^29] They found "no differences in effect sizes in comparing Duluth model vs. CBT-type interventions" and judged the effects of treatment generally small, "meaning that the current interventions have a minimal impact on reducing recidivism beyond the effect of being arrested."[^11] Paymar and Barnes, replying for the model, quote the study's estimate that treated men had a 40 percent chance of remaining nonviolent against 35 percent for untreated men — a gain its authors equated to about 42,000 women a year no longer battered nationally — and its authors' advice that policymakers "should not accept the null hypothesis" and abandon current programs, while contending that other studies show more change than the meta-analysis found.[^29] **The Campbell review, 2008.** A systematic review by Lynette Feder, David B. Wilson and Sabrina Austin of court-mandated interventions for men convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence found a "modest benefit" on official reports from experimental studies and a mean effect of zero on victim reports; it attributed the large positive effects in studies comparing completers with dropouts to selection bias, and concluded that the findings "raise doubts about the effectiveness of court-mandated batterer intervention programs".[^59] The review covered batterer programs generally, not the Duluth model alone.[^59] **CrimeSolutions, 2013.** The federal CrimeSolutions service, drawing on the Babcock meta-analysis, rated "Interventions for Persons Who Committed Intimate-Partner Violence: Duluth Model" "Effective" for reducing violent reoffending (an effect size of d = 0.19 from police reports in five randomized trials) and "Promising" for reducing victimization (d = 0.35 from partner reports in five quasi-experimental studies).[^12] It noted as a limitation that 13 of the quasi-experimental studies "used dropouts as a comparison group".[^12] A companion profile rated cognitive behavioral therapy for the same offenders "Ineffective" on both outcomes, drawing on the Babcock analysis's quasi-experimental studies and on a 2011 review by Smedslund and colleagues of four randomized trials.[^60] Both profiles now carry a notice that the pages are "no longer being updated."[^12][^60] A 2019 National Institute of Justice article, since archived and titled "Batterer Intervention Programs Have Mixed Results," repeated the ratings, describing the cognitive behavioral result as "No Effects."[^61] The two ratings rest on different subsets of studies, and they sit uneasily with the meta-analysis both cite: its authors found no difference between the two approaches, while the ratings place them at opposite ends of the scale.[^11][^12][^60] **The project's own figure.** The Duluth project states that "68% of offenders who move through Duluth's criminal justice system and men's nonviolence classes do not reappear in the system eight years out."[^62] The project's answers to frequently asked questions present the figure as "Our research" and state its measure — not reappearing in the criminal justice system over eight years — but neither page identifies the study or a comparison group.[^62][^32] Paymar and Barnes cite a different Duluth figure from a 1992 follow-up of 100 men ordered to a 26-week program: "Forty percent of the court-mandated offenders recidivated at least once during the five years".[^29] | Study or rating | Year | Design | Finding on reoffending | |---|---|---|---| | Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment | 1981–1982 | randomized police responses | arrest most effective; caution urged[^54] | | Gondolf, *Batterer Intervention Systems* | 2002 | multisite follow-up | de-escalation and a program effect reported[^55] | | Broward County (NIJ) | 2003 | randomized; Duluth-model programs | no significant difference[^10] | | Brooklyn (NIJ) | 2003 | randomized, assignment partly overridden | fewer complaints after 26 weeks; none after 8[^10] | | Babcock, Green and Robie | 2004 | meta-analysis, 22 studies | small effects; no Duluth–CBT difference[^11] | | Feder, Wilson and Austin (Campbell) | 2008 | systematic review | modest official-report benefit; zero on victim reports[^59] | | CrimeSolutions | 2013 | rating of the Babcock analysis | Duluth "Effective"/"Promising"; CBT "Ineffective"[^12][^60] | | Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs | undated | not stated | 68 percent not back in the system after eight years[^62] | ## Critiques and replies **Dutton and Corvo, 2006.** Donald Dutton and Kenneth Corvo's "Transforming a flawed policy" appeared in *Aggression and Violent Behavior* in September 2006.[^56] The article was not available to this project; as summarized in Gondolf's reply, which Paymar and Barnes's reply parallels, it argued that the counseling approach promoted by Duluth's manual and many state guidelines impeded progress in the field, called for more psychotherapeutic treatment, a smaller role for the criminal justice system "and more attention to women's violence", and accused the model's proponents of an "ideologically narrowed view".[^56] **Gondolf's reply, 2007.** Gondolf answered that the critics were "highly selective in the research they use" and that "a definitive dismissal of the Duluth program based on program evaluations is unwarranted."[^56] He defended the model's focus on men's violence against women as "supported by government victimization research" and wrote that "there is criminological research to support the cognitive-behavioral approach underlying Duluth counseling".[^56] **Paymar and Barnes.** The model's co-author and a colleague at the Battered Women's Justice Project answered the federal studies, the meta-analysis and Dutton and Corvo together. They argued that "at no stage did the NIJ study establish that the programs being studied were operated in accordance with Duluth Model practice", that the Duluth curriculum is itself cognitive-behavioral in basis and close to the Emerge and AMEND programs the federal report offered as alternatives, and that stating domestic violence is gender neutral "is not only disingenuous, but also has serious public policy implications."[^29][^10] The project's answers to frequently asked questions make the same points: the criticized research studied "batterer intervention programs modeled after the Duluth Model but that are unconnected to a larger coordinated community response", and "some programs have inappropriately used our curriculum to shame men".[^32] **Pence's 1999 reflection.** Wikipedia's article on the model quotes a passage it cites to Pence's chapter "Some Thoughts on Philosophy" (pp. 29–30) in *Coordinating Community Responses to Domestic Violence: Lessons from Duluth and Beyond* (1999), a volume edited by Melanie Shepard and Pence: the project had "created a conceptual framework that, in fact, did not fit the lived experience of many of the men and women we were working with", and "we were finding what we had already predetermined to find".[^63] The book itself was not read for this article. The passage concerns the premise that a desire for power motivates battering. The project's later account of the wheel says the battered women themselves "did not identify a desire for power or control as motivating their partners", and treats power as an outcome of the behavior; its current statement defines battering as intentional control of a partner and works against conditions that support "men's use of tactics of power and control over women."[^3][^30] Whether the passage amounts to a retraction, a refinement or a reflection on practice is a question of reading; see [[#Two readings]]. **Other critics.** The same Wikipedia article summarizes critics who argue that the model "ignores the reality that women can be the perpetrators of domestic violence in heterosexual relationships", and records proponents' answer that the model is effective and "makes best use of scarce resources."[^63] Wikipedia files the article in its "Pseudoscience" category; the article's text does not use the word.[^63] Washington State's replacement of a "one-size-fits-all" approach with tiered cognitive behavioral treatment is the one instance found here of a state replacing a single standard with tiered cognitive behavioral treatment.[^51] **The project's position on men and on women's violence.** The project explains its gendered language by stating that "men commit over 85% of all criminal assaults and women are killed 3.5 times more often than men in domestic homicides", while recognizing "cases of domestic violence other than male perpetrated violence against women".[^32] It holds that "When women use violence in an intimate relationship, the circumstances of that violence tend to differ from when men use violence."[^32] ## In Minnesota politics, 2026 **A candidate's statement.** On January 24, 2026, Phillip Parrish, who signed as a candidate for governor of Minnesota, posted a statement on his campaign site calling the model a "fraud" and "pseudoscience" built on "radical feminism," dating it to 1977, accusing both parties of protecting it, and proposing to "Audit Duluth programs, scrap biased laws, prioritize evidence over ideology."[^64] The post cites no study, statute or audit for its dollar figure or its characterizations.[^64] The 1977 date matches the state's first shelter-funding law, not the Duluth project, which the project dates to 1980.[^6][^19][^2] **The Legislature's 2026 edit.** Four months later the Legislature removed the words "battered women's and" from the coordination clause of § 518B.02 and left the sex-separated-sessions requirement in place, in a public-safety act signed on May 18, 2026.[^38] No document read for this article records debate on either clause.[^38] ## Connections The model touches the other articles of this series at the points below. The three companion articles treat the same statutes from the side of the instruments and of the two parties whose officials enacted them.[^14][^22] | Article | Where it meets this ledger | |---|---| | [[How Minnesota Got Here]] | Parent article; lists the model among four instruments of 1976–1985 and states the corpus claims checked below[^14] | | [[At Issue - Minnesota's Feminist Regime]] | Instrument-by-instrument ledger; sets § 518B.02(i), the battered-women rule and the shelter grants beside the pay-equity, women's-business and women's-economic-status instruments[^5][^8] | | [[DFL Feminists]] | Democratic-Farmer-Labor officials in office for the 1977 shelter law and the 1978 arrest and counseling laws (Perpich), the 1990 prosecution-plan statute (Perpich), the 2023 repeal of the accountability subdivision (Walz) and the 2026 amendment (Walz); the model's co-author served as a DFL House member, 1997–2014[^22][^27] | | [[GOP Feminists]] | Independent-Republican governors in office for the 1979 Domestic Abuse Act (Quie) and the 1992 arrest-policy and 1996 presentence statutes (Carlson)[^22][^34][^39] | | [[Domestic Abuse Act]] | Minn. Stat. § 518B.01 (1979), the civil-order statute the Future Policy citation says the model was devised to implement[^7][^53] | | [[Domestic Abuse Intervention Project]] | The Duluth nonprofit, now Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, that wrote the model and sells its curriculum[^2][^33] | | [[Battered Women's Justice Project]] | Started inside the Duluth project in 1993; author of SAFeR, used in Hennepin County family court[^26][^45] | | [[CrimeSolutions]] | The federal rating service that rated the model "Effective" in 2013[^12] | | [[Council on the Economic Status of Women]] | Created by Laws 1976, ch. 337; credited by the corpus, without a supporting document found, with seeding the model[^65][^14] | | [[Amy Klobuchar]] | Spine whose corpus tied her county office to the model; the tie is not supported[^66] | | [[Federal nondiscrimination certifications of the State of Minnesota]] | The certification layer on which the corpus's [[Title IX]] argument about family-court training would turn[^67] | ## Timeline | Date | Event | |---|---| | 1974 | [[Women's Advocates]] opens a shelter in a St. Paul house[^68] | | June 2, 1977 | Laws 1977, ch. 428, funds pilot shelter programs for battered women (Perpich)[^6][^22] | | April 5, 1978 | Laws 1978, chs. 724 and 732: probable-cause arrests for domestic assault; counseling as a condition of a stayed sentence; data collection[^17][^18] | | May 25, 1979 | Domestic Abuse Act, Laws 1979, ch. 214 (Quie)[^7][^22] | | 1980 | Minnesota Program Development, Inc. incorporated; the Duluth project begins[^2] | | 1981 | Duluth's experimental mandatory-arrest policy; groups for men begin; the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment runs into 1982[^2][^54] | | 1982–1984 | The Power and Control Wheel is drawn; the project's documents give three different years[^3][^2][^32] | | 1985 | Mandated sessions in Duluth rise to twenty-six weeks[^2] | | 1989 | National Training Project organized[^2] | | 1990 | Prosecution-plan statute, § 611A.0311[^35] | | 1992 | Arrest-policy statute, § 629.342, with policies due July 1, 1993[^34] | | 1993 | *Education Groups for Men Who Batter: The Duluth Model*; the Battered Women's Justice Project starts within the Duluth project[^2][^26] | | September 13, 1994 | Federal arrest-policy grants enacted, Pub. L. 103-322, title IV[^52] | | 1996 | Presentence domestic abuse investigation, § 609.2244 (Carlson)[^39][^22] | | 2001 | § 518B.02 program mandate, standards and accountability subdivision (Ventura)[^36][^22] | | June–September 2003 | National Institute of Justice publishes the Broward and Brooklyn evaluations[^10][^57] | | 2004 | Babcock meta-analysis published, by the federal library's date[^11] | | January 5, 2006 | "Mandatory arrest" struck from the federal grant purposes[^52] | | September 2006 – February 2007 | Dutton and Corvo's critique; Gondolf's reply[^56] | | 2008 | Campbell systematic review of court-mandated programs[^59] | | 2009 | BWJP develops SAFeR for custody cases[^43] | | January 2012 | Ellen Pence dies[^25] | | September 13, 2013 | CrimeSolutions posts its Duluth model profile[^12] | | 2014 | Future Policy Gold Award[^53] | | 2015 | BWJP becomes independent; Duluth adopts the Blueprint for Safety[^26][^4] | | October 9, 2019 | NIJ article "Batterer Intervention Programs Have Mixed Results"[^61] | | March 15, 2022 | Federal eligibility changed from "encourage or mandate" arrests to "encourage" arrests[^52] | | 2023 | § 518B.02, subd. 3, repealed (Walz)[^5][^22] | | January 24, 2026 | A candidate for governor posts a call to audit Duluth programs[^64] | | May 18, 2026 | Laws 2026, ch. 97, strikes "battered women's and" from § 518B.02(l)[^38] | ## Corpus claims checked The project's corpus on the model consists of passages in the merged master and its densified companion, a dedicated killshot file on deaths attributed to the model, an audit of the 2026 Republican field for governor, the Klobuchar Duluth-model pass and the record's link rows.[^13] Each claim is set against the record read for this article. | Claim in the corpus | Verdict | What the record shows | Sources | |---|---|---|---| | The Council on the Economic Status of Women "seeded" the model before it went national | not supported | The project's history says the Duluth shelter asked for the pilot site; no council document read mentions domestic abuse or Duluth | [^2][^14] | | A federal "null finding" of June 2003 | partly supported | The NIJ found "little or no reduction" in the more rigorous studies and a reduction after 26 weeks in Brooklyn, and said the limitations made it "impossible to say" how effective programs are | [^10] | | The program is still court-mandated today | partly supported | § 518B.02 mandates a program meeting listed standards for offenders on probation; no statute or rule names the model | [^5][^9] | | The State answered the federal finding by continued export rather than revalidation | not supported as stated | Export was by the nonprofit's National Training Project from 1989; the 2001 statute directed the Minnesota Center for Crime Victim Services to recommend accountability measures "including outcome studies", though no report under it was found | [^2][^36] | | Klobuchar's county office was tied to the model | not supported | The county's Domestic Abuse Service Center was established in 1994, before her 1999–2007 tenure, and serves victims | [^66][^69] | | Wikipedia documents the model as pseudoscientific | partly supported | The article is filed in Wikipedia's "Pseudoscience" category; its text does not call the model pseudoscience | [^63] | | The model's co-author retracted its empirical basis in 1999 | disputed | Wikipedia quotes a 1999 passage by Pence saying the power-motive premise "did not fit" many participants' experience; the book was not read; the project's later account treats power as an outcome rather than a motive, and its statements keep the coordinated-response framework | [^63][^3][^30] | | The Justice Department rates the curriculum as not statistically effective on recidivism | contradicted | CrimeSolutions rated the model "Effective" on violent reoffending; the "Ineffective" rating was for cognitive behavioral therapy | [^12][^60] | | The Power and Control Wheel places a male perpetrator at its center | supported in substance | The project says the wheel depicts "the tactics typically used by men who batter" and was based on women's experience in heterosexual relationships | [^3] | | The deaths of two Minnesota children, in 2020 and 2022, resulted from the model's curriculum or screening | not supported | The case reports the corpus cites concern child-protection and custody decisions; those read for this article do not mention the model, a batterer program or SAFeR | [^70][^71] | | The screening framework is BWJP's SAFeR, and the funder is the Office on Violence Against Women | partly supported | SAFeR is BWJP's custody framework and is used in Hennepin family court; the Family Court Enhancement Project there was federally funded; SAFeR is separate from the men's curriculum and its text is sex-neutral | [^43][^45][^46][^44] | | A Title IX complaint against Duluth-model family-court training was pending in May 2026 | not found | No filing or agency record of such a complaint was found in a search for this article; the federal Title IX suit against Minnesota agencies found concerns school athletics | [^13][^72] | | Only one 2026 Republican candidate for governor named the model | not checked | The candidate's January 2026 post is confirmed, though it does not state his party; a claim that no other candidate named the model cannot be verified from the documents read | [^64] | | Many states mandate conformity to the model | not confirmed | The 2003 NIJ report says so; none of the four state standards read names the model | [^10][^48][^49][^50][^51] | ## Two readings The two readings below are the strongest forms of the positions the record supports. This article adopts neither.[^15][^16] **Reading one: a sex-classified architecture, enacted by the State and exported with federal money.** On this reading the model is the theory and the statutes are its instruments. The project's own texts define battering as intentional control of a partner, work against conditions that support "men's use of tactics of power and control over women", and draw the wheel from women's experience only.[^30][^3] Minnesota then required that every court-ordered program "provide separate sessions for male and female offenders", wrote a shelter rule defined by assault "primarily by a spouse, male relative, or male", and funded shelters for "battered women" — and in 2026, while striking "battered women's and" from one clause, left the sex-separation clause untouched.[^5][^8][^20][^38] The 2001 Legislature directed recommendations on accountability measures "including outcome studies"; no report was found, and the subdivision was repealed in 2023.[^36][^5] The federal government's grant guidance steers money toward batterer programs and away from anger management, and Hennepin County's family court, a federally funded project site, uses SAFeR, developed by a justice project that began inside the Duluth project.[^41][^45][^46][^26] The evaluations do not rescue the design: the National Institute of Justice reported that more rigorous evaluations "find little or no reduction", a systematic review found a zero mean effect on victim reports, and Pence's own reflection, as Wikipedia quotes it, concedes the power-motive premise "did not fit" many of the men and women in the groups.[^10][^59][^63] The statutes were signed by governors of three parties — Perpich and Walz of the DFL, Quie and Carlson as Independent-Republicans, Ventura of the Reform Party — which this reading takes as evidence of a settled cross-party architecture rather than a one-party program.[^22] **Reading two: a local nonprofit's method, voluntarily copied, in mostly sex-neutral law with mixed evidence.** On this reading the Duluth model is a private method that state law neither names nor requires. The Domestic Abuse Act, the arrest statute, the prosecution-plan statute and the presentence statute are written in sex-neutral terms; the program mandate is satisfied by any program meeting procedural standards; and Paymar and Barnes write that they "have never supported state statutes that mandate a particular treatment model".[^23][^34][^35][^39][^5][^29] The sex-separation clause requires sessions for female offenders as well as male ones rather than excluding either.[^5] Minnesota's sentencing statute still allows "anger therapy or counseling", which shows the State did not adopt the federal grant view wholesale.[^40][^41] On the evidence, the federal rating service rated the model "Effective" on violent reoffending, the federal institute's own 2003 report said the limits of the studies made effectiveness "impossible to say", the Brooklyn trial found fewer complaints after 26 weeks, and the meta-analysis found no difference between the Duluth and cognitive behavioral approaches — the alternative critics favor.[^12][^10][^11] The model spread through a nonprofit's training project and other states' choices; Texas does not mandate a specific curriculum, and Washington moved to tiered, cognitive-behavioral treatment.[^2][^50][^51] **What both readings foreclose.** Both readings rest on the same statutes, rules, grant terms and evaluations. Neither is supported by the claims that a Minnesota statute names the model, that the federal rating service rated it ineffective, that the Council on the Economic Status of Women seeded it, that Klobuchar's office was tied to it, or that the record attributes the deaths of two Minnesota children to it.[^9][^12][^2][^66][^70][^71] ## Open items 1. **The 2001 accountability recommendations.** Whether the Minnesota Center for Crime Victim Services made the recommendations § 518B.02, subd. 3, required by December 30, 2001, and whether any outcome study of Minnesota programs followed.[^36] 2. **Which programs use the curriculum.** The statute requires programs to document their policies to the probation department or court; no statewide list of programs, or of the curricula they use, was found.[^5] 3. **The legislative history of paragraph (i).** The committee record of the 2001 special-session act, including any testimony on sex-separated sessions and the authors of that provision, was not read; nor was the record of the 2026 amendment.[^36][^38] 4. **The 68 percent figure.** The study behind the project's eight-year figure is not identified on its pages, and it differs from the 40 percent five-year recidivism figure Paymar and Barnes cite from a 1992 Duluth follow-up.[^62][^32][^29] 5. **Pence's 1999 chapter and Dutton and Corvo's article.** Both are known here only through Wikipedia, Gondolf's reply and Paymar and Barnes.[^63][^56][^29] 6. **SAFeR in practice.** How Hennepin County judicial officers apply SAFeR, and whether federal project funding required its use, is not shown in the documents read.[^45][^46] 7. **Which states mandate the model.** The 2003 NIJ statement that many states mandate conformity to it was not traced to particular statutes or rules.[^10] 8. **Conflicting dates and counts.** The project dates its start to 1980; the Legislative Reference Library, CrimeSolutions and the Future Policy citation give 1981. The wheel is dated 1982 in its development note, 1983 in the timeline and 1984 in the answers to frequently asked questions. The project counts nine founding agencies in one document and eleven in another. The Legislative Reference Library cites the 1977 shelter law as chapter 425; the Revisor prints chapter 428. Paymar and Barnes date the Babcock meta-analysis to 2002; the federal library dates it to 2004.[^2][^19][^12][^53][^3][^32][^4][^1][^6][^29][^11] ## Red links Titles linked from this article that the wiki does not have yet, grouped by project; the cross-spine list is `_spines/redlinks.tsv`. - **Duluth model children:** [[Ellen Pence]] · [[Michael Paymar]] · [[Power and Control Wheel]] - **Minnesota domestic-abuse record:** [[Women's Advocates]] · [[Phyllis Kahn]] · [[Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment]] ## See also - [[How Minnesota Got Here]] — parent article - [[At Issue - Minnesota's Feminist Regime]] — the instrument ledger - [[DFL Feminists]] · [[GOP Feminists]] — the two parties' officials and caucuses - [[Domestic Abuse Act]] · [[Domestic Abuse Intervention Project]] · [[Battered Women's Justice Project]] - [[CrimeSolutions]] · [[National Institute of Justice]] · [[Office on Violence Against Women]] - [[Council on the Economic Status of Women]] · [[Amy Klobuchar]] ## Notes [^1]: Ellen Pence, "The Duluth Model" (Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, posted 2017) — origins among "activists in the battered women's movement"; the eleven-agency initiative of 1980–81; the coordinated community response; "the most replicated woman abuse intervention model in the country." https://www.theduluthmodel.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/The-Duluth-Model.pdf [^2]: Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, "History and Recognition" (2017) — incorporation in 1980 as Minnesota Program Development, Inc.; site chosen at the Duluth shelter's request; year-by-year timeline 1981–2003 of arrest policies, session lengths, the wheel, the National Training Project and the curricula. https://www.theduluthmodel.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/DAIP-History-and-Recognition-2017.pdf [^3]: Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, "The Development of the Power and Control Wheel" — created in 1982 by Pence, Coral McDonnell and Michael Paymar for a court-ordered men's program; drawn from battered women's accounts; "not a theory"; based on heterosexual relationships; translated into over 30 languages. https://www.theduluthmodel.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/The-Development-of-the-Power-and-Control.pdf [^4]: Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, "History, Benchmarks, and Recognitions" — nine founding agencies; work "found in every state"; 2011 Blueprint for Safety site with the Office on Violence Against Women and Praxis International; 2014 Future Policy Award; 2017 London event; Paymar's work and co-authorships. https://www.theduluthmodel.org/about-us/recognitions/ [^5]: Minn. Stat. § 518B.02 (2025) — subd. 1, program required as a condition of a stayed sentence; subd. 2(a)–(l), standards, including 24 sessions or 36 hours and (i) separate sessions by sex; subd. 3 repealed, 2023 c 52 art 5 s 80; history from 1Sp2001 c 8 art 10 s 6. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/518B.02 [^6]: Laws of Minnesota 1977, ch. 428 (S.F. 124), approved June 2, 1977 — pilot shelter and support programs for battered women; community education; data collection; displaced homemakers. Office of the Revisor of Statutes. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/1977/0/428 [^7]: Laws of Minnesota 1979, ch. 214 (H.F. 521), approved May 25, 1979 — the Domestic Abuse Act, Minn. Stat. § 518B.01: definitions, petitions and orders for protection for "family or household members." Office of the Revisor of Statutes. https://revisor.mn.gov/laws/1979/0/214 [^8]: Minn. R. ch. 2915, "Services for Battered Women" (Department of Corrections) — definitions, including emergency shelter for women and children and "programs for violent partners"; nine-member advisory council; grants; provider duties; data; authority Minn. Stat. § 611A.33. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/2915/full [^9]: Office of the Revisor of Statutes, Minnesota Statutes and Session Laws topic index, "Domestic abuse" — entries for orders for protection, counseling and educational programs, arrests, prosecution plans and shelters; no entry for the Duluth model. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/index/comb/topic/domestic_abuse [^10]: Shelly Jackson et al., *Batterer Intervention Programs: Where Do We Go From Here?* (NIJ Special Report, NCJ 195079, June 2003) — model types; the Broward County and Brooklyn experiments; limitations; "impossible to say how effective BIPs are." https://www.ojp.gov/txtfiles1/nij/195079.txt [^11]: Office of Justice Programs, record of Julia C. Babcock, Charles E. Green and Chet Robie, "Does Batterers' Treatment Work? A Meta-Analytic Review of Domestic Violence Treatment," *Clinical Psychology Review* (dated Jan. 1, 2004) — 22 studies; no Duluth–CBT difference; small effects. https://www.ojp.gov/library/publications/does-batterers-treatment-work-meta-analytic-review-domestic-violence-treatment [^12]: CrimeSolutions (National Institute of Justice), practice profile, "Interventions for Persons Who Committed Intimate-Partner Violence: Duluth Model" (posted Sept. 13, 2013; no longer updated) — "Effective" on violent offenses (d = 0.19); "Promising" on victimization (d = 0.35); Babcock meta-analysis. https://crimesolutions.ojp.gov/ratedpractices/17 [^13]: Minnesota record, Duluth-model corpus files (the merged master's §4.7 and the densified companion's passages on the model; the killshot file on deaths attributed to the model; the May 29, 2026 audit of the Republican field for governor; the Klobuchar Duluth-model pass; and the record's link rows), as checked against the primaries cited in this article, Oct. 28, 2026. [^14]: Minnesota record, *How Minnesota Got Here — Minnesota's Administrative Discrimination Regime* (merged master, footnoted; compiled June 12, refreshed June 19, 2026), §4.7 — the four instruments (Duluth Model, comparable worth, the women's-economic-status organ, § 43A.191) and their construction schedule 1976–1985. [^15]: Minnesota record, *How Minnesota Got Here — Minnesota's Administrative Discrimination Regime* (merged master, footnoted; compiled June 12, refreshed June 19, 2026), preface and §0 — the discipline (structural claims about institutions; individuals in official capacity only; verdicts reserved to the grand jury, the court and the Division) and the two readings built to be cited by both sides. [^16]: Minnesota record, *The Instrument No One Will Name* (densified companion, June 18, 2026), opening register and method note — combative to the game, critical of each team, neutral on the players; judges the container, never the merits; "symmetric or void". [^17]: Laws of Minnesota 1978, ch. 724, approved April 5, 1978 — peace officers may arrest on probable cause in domestic assault cases; counseling as a condition of a stayed sentence. Office of the Revisor of Statutes. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/1978/0/724 [^18]: Laws of Minnesota 1978, ch. 732, approved April 5, 1978 — "An act relating to battered women": data collection; report by the commissioner of corrections on the "feasibility of creating similar programs for men." Office of the Revisor of Statutes. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/1978/0/732 [^19]: Minnesota Legislative Reference Library, Women's Legislative Timeline, "1977 - Battered Women/Domestic Violence" — first state funding of shelters (cited as ch. 425); authors Kahn and Lewis; Women's Advocates; the Duluth project (1981); the Minneapolis arrest study. https://www.lrl.mn.gov/womenstimeline/details?recid=26 [^20]: Minn. Stat. § 611A.32 (2022 version), battered women programs — grants for emergency shelter and support services; equitable metropolitan and nonmetropolitan distribution; a program for battered American Indian women; application contents. Office of the Revisor of Statutes. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/611A.32/version/2022-10-12%2000:40:23+00:00 [^21]: Ben Johnson, *Domestic Abuse Laws in Minnesota* (Minnesota House Research Department, August 2024) — orders for protection, criminal penalties, arrest and the § 518B.02 program requirement and standards, including separate sessions for male and female participants. https://www.house.mn.gov/hrd/pubs/domabuse.pdf [^22]: Minnesota Legislative Reference Library, "Minnesota Governors" — list with dates of office and party: Perpich (DFL) from 12/29/1976; Quie (Independent-Republican) from 1/4/1979; Perpich from 1/3/1983; Carlson (Independent-Republican) from 1/7/1991; Ventura (Reform) from 1/4/1999; Pawlenty from 1/6/2003; Dayton from 1/3/2011; Walz (DFL) from 1/7/2019. https://www.lrl.mn.gov/lrl/mngov/gov.aspx [^23]: Minn. Stat. § 518B.01 (2025), Domestic Abuse Act — definitions by "family or household members"; relief including an order to complete a counseling or educational program under § 518B.02. Office of the Revisor of Statutes. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/518B.01 [^24]: Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, "About Us" — mission "to end violence against women"; the eleven agencies of the first coordinated response; programs for victims and for men who batter. https://www.theduluthmodel.org/about-us/ [^25]: Tom Crann, "Friend and colleague remembers Ellen Pence," MPR News, Jan. 13, 2012 — Pence of St. Paul, "internationally renowned" for creating the Duluth model, died the previous week at 63 of breast cancer. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2012/01/13/ellen-pence-remembrance [^26]: Battered Women's Justice Project, "Our Mission" — national resource center; "started in 1993 as a part of the Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project"; independent nonprofit since 2015; offices in St. Paul. https://bwjp.org/about/our-mission-1/ [^27]: Minnesota Legislative Reference Library, Legislators Past & Present, record of Michael Paymar — House 1997–2014 (District 64B), Democratic-Farmer-Labor, Ramsey County; born in Duluth; publications including *Education Groups for Men Who Batter: The Duluth Model* (1993). https://www.lrl.mn.gov/legdb/fulldetail?ID=10513 [^28]: Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, "Definition of the Duluth Model" (June 2015) — coordinated responses by 911, police, prosecutors, courts, probation and advocates; court-ordered groups for men who batter; "stopping the violence, not on fixing or ending interpersonal relationships." https://www.theduluthmodel.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Definition-of-Duluth-Model-June-2015.pdf [^29]: Michael Paymar and Graham Barnes (Battered Women's Justice Project), "Countering Confusion about the Duluth Model" — replies to the 2003 NIJ studies, the Babcock meta-analysis and Dutton and Corvo; fidelity of the NIJ sites; gender and homicide data; opposition to statutes mandating a model. https://theduluthmodel.org/pdf/CounteringConfusion.pdf [^30]: Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, "What is the Duluth Model?" — a community using the model treats battering as intentional control of a partner and works against conditions supporting "men's use of tactics of power and control over women." https://www.theduluthmodel.org/what-is-the-duluth-model/ [^31]: Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, "FAQs About the Wheel" — the spokes and the rim of physical and sexual violence; the Equality Wheel; women's violence differing in context from men's; men's violence as learned and socially reinforced. https://www.theduluthmodel.org/wheels/faqs-about-the-wheel/ [^32]: Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, "Frequently Asked Questions" — the 68 percent eight-year figure; replies to criticism and to the charge of shaming; reasons for gendered language ("men commit over 85% of all criminal assaults"); women's use of violence. https://www.theduluthmodel.org/what-is-the-duluth-model/frequently-asked-questions/ [^33]: Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, product page, "Creating a Process of Change for Men Who Batter" curriculum package — "The most-widely used curriculum for working with men who batter"; lesson plans for up to 30 weeks of classes. https://www.theduluthmodel.org/product/creating-process-change-men-batter-curriculum-package/ [^34]: Minn. Stat. § 629.342 (2006 edition), law enforcement policies — written arrest policy due July 1, 1993, discouraging dual arrests; model policy by the BCA, the POST Board and the Advisory Council on Battered Women and Domestic Abuse; history 1992 c 571. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/2006/cite/629.342 [^35]: Minn. Stat. § 611A.0311 (2020 version), domestic abuse prosecution plans — each county and city attorney to adopt a written plan, with advocates' participation, covering early prosecutor assignment, victim contact and evidence-based prosecution; history 1990 c 583 s 5. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/611A.0311/version/2020-10-29%2021:03:42+00:00 [^36]: Minn. Stat. § 518B.02 (2006 edition) — the 2001 text, including subd. 3, "Program accountability": consultation by the Minnesota Center for Crime Victim Services and recommendations by Dec. 30, 2001 on accountability measures "including outcome studies." https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/2006/cite/518B.02 [^37]: Minn. Stat. § 518B.02 (2022 edition) — subd. 3 as amended in 2013 to name the Office of Justice Programs in the Department of Public Safety, keeping the Dec. 30, 2001 deadline; history 1Sp2001 c 8 art 10 s 6; 2013 c 125 art 1 s 82. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/518B.02/version/2022-10-12%2000:20:55+00:00 [^38]: Laws of Minnesota 2026, ch. 97 (S.F. 4760), public safety — art. 1, sec. 20, amending § 518B.02, subd. 2(l), to strike "battered women's and"; paragraph (i) unchanged; presented to the governor May 14, signed May 18, 2026. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/2026/0/97/ [^39]: Minn. Stat. § 609.2244, presentence domestic abuse investigations — report contents, including a recommendation to complete a program under § 518B.02; no financial or referral interest with a treatment provider; history 1996 c 408 art 3 s 24 and later amendments. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.2244 [^40]: Minn. Stat. § 609.2243, sentencing for repeat domestic assault — 20-day minimum for gross misdemeanor domestic assault, stayable on condition of "anger therapy or counseling"; felony presumptions; history 1996 c 408 art 3 s 23. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.2243 [^41]: U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women, *FY2018 Solicitation Companion Guide* — post-award requirements; examples of activities that may compromise victim safety, including anger management in place of batterer programs and programs without court monitoring. https://www.justice.gov/media/919686/dl [^42]: Minn. Stat. § 629.341 (2023 version), domestic abuse arrests — warrantless arrest on probable cause within 72 hours; officer immunity; notice of rights and of shelter services to the victim. Office of the Revisor of Statutes. https://revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/629.341/version/2023-11-11%2012:15:30+00:00 [^43]: Battered Women's Justice Project, "Children" (National Legal Center on Children and Domestic Violence, formerly the SAFeR project) — SAFeR developed in 2009 by BWJP's National Child Custody Project; implemented in many jurisdictions; subject of a national research project. https://bwjp.org/our-work/children/ [^44]: Battered Women's Justice Project, "SAFeR Approach to Decision Making in Domestic Related Child Custody Disputes" (Aug. 8, 2018) — four parts: screening for intimate partner violence, assessing its nature and context, focusing on its effects, responding to them. https://bwjp.org/site-resources/safer-approach-to-decision-making-in-domestic-related-child-custody-disputes/ [^45]: Center for Court Innovation, "Domestic Violence Mentor Court Fact Sheet: Hennepin County" (2018) — mentor courts selected by the Office on Violence Against Women; family court practices, including judicial officers' use of BWJP's SAFeR approach. https://WWW.COURTINNOVATION.ORG/sites/default/files/media/documents/2018-07/hennepin.pdf [^46]: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, webinar page, "The Family Court Enhancement Project — Part I of IV: Reflections from Hennepin County, Minnesota" (Sept. 11, 2015) — the Fourth Judicial District as one of four federally funded sites. https://ncjfcj.org/webcasts/the-family-court-enhancement-project-part-i-of-iv-reflections-from-hennepin-county-minnesota [^47]: Family Court Enhancement Project, "Hennepin County, Minnesota" — unified family court of 9 judges, 6 referees and 5 child support magistrates; a protection-order docket for child-related relief; outreach to the urban Native population; help for self-represented litigants. https://familycourtenhancementproject.org/courts/hennepin-county-minnesota/ [^48]: Georgia Department of Corrections, Rules for Family Violence Intervention Programs, Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 125-4-9 — certification; curriculum principles of power and control; 24 classes within 27 weeks; same-gender classes; excluded couples and individual therapy. https://rules.sos.ga.gov/gac/125-4-9 [^49]: Oklahoma Administrative Code, title 75, ch. 25, Standards and Criteria for Batterers Intervention Programs (Attorney General) — curriculum content, including abuse based on "traditional gender roles and privilege"; 52-week minimum; group modality. https://www.oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/oag/divisions/victim-advocacy-and-services-unit/administrative-rules-and-standards-for-certified-programs/OAC%20Title%2075%20Chapter%2025%20Standards%20and%20Criteria%20for%20BIPs.pdf [^50]: Texas Department of Criminal Justice, *Battering Intervention and Prevention Program Evaluation Report* (September 2024) — accreditation guidelines; curricula approved by the Community Justice Assistance Division, without a mandated curriculum; power-and-control model; "without shaming batterers." https://www.tdcj.texas.gov/documents/cjad/Evaluation_of_Effectiveness_of_BIPP_During_FY2022-23_Biennium.pdf [^51]: E2SHB 1517 Domestic Violence Perpetrator Treatment Work Group, *Domestic Violence Intervention Treatment: Removing Obstacles to Implementation*, report to the Washington State Legislature (Oct. 2020) — WAC 388-60B; tiered cognitive behavioral treatment. https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicUpload/GJCOM/FINAL_DV_Treatment_Work_Group_Report_2020.pdf [^52]: 34 U.S.C. § 10461, grants to encourage arrest policies and enforcement of protection orders (Legal Information Institute) — purposes and eligibility; enacted by Pub. L. 103-322, title IV, § 40231 (Sept. 13, 1994); amendment notes for Pub. L. 109-162 (2006) and Pub. L. 117-103 (2022). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/34/10461 [^53]: World Future Council, futurepolicy.org, "Minnesota's 'Duluth Model'" — Future Policy Gold Award 2014 with the Inter-Parliamentary Union and UN Women; the model as introduced in Duluth in 1981 to implement the Domestic Abuse Act; international adoption. https://www.futurepolicy.org/violence/duluth-model/ [^54]: Office of Justice Programs, abstract, *The Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment* (Police Foundation; NIJ grant 80-IJ-CX-0042) — early 1981 to mid-1982; misdemeanor assaults; 330 victims; "arrest was most effective in reducing recidivism"; caution in interpretation. https://www.ojp.gov/library/abstracts/minneapolis-domestic-violence-experiment [^55]: Office of Justice Programs, abstract of Edward W. Gondolf, *Batterer Intervention Systems: Issues, Outcomes, and Recommendations* (2002, NCJ 247403) — multisite evaluation funded by federal and Pennsylvania grants; chapters on reassault de-escalation and program effect. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/batterer-intervention-systems-issues-outcomes-and-recommendations [^56]: Edward W. Gondolf (Indiana University of Pennsylvania), "Theoretical and Research Support for the Duluth Model: A Reply to Dutton and Corvo" (Feb. 14, 2007) — summarizes and answers Dutton and Corvo, *Aggression and Violent Behavior* 11 (Sept. 2006): 457–483; cites his multisite study. https://theduluthmodel.org/pdf/Theoretical%20and%20Research%20Support.pdf [^57]: National Institute of Justice, *Do Batterer Intervention Programs Work? Two Studies* (Research for Practice, NCJ 200331, Sept. 2003) — no change in attitudes; Florida reoffending tied to employment and home ownership; New York 26-week program; research limitations. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/200331.pdf [^58]: Office of Justice Programs, abstract of *Batterer Intervention Programs: Where Do We Go From Here?* (NCJ 195079) — Broward and Brooklyn results and limitations; "it is too early to abandon the concept of batterer intervention programs." https://ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/batterer-intervention-programs-where-do-we-go-here [^59]: Lynette Feder, David B. Wilson and Sabrina Austin, "Court-mandated interventions for individuals convicted of domestic violence," *Campbell Systematic Reviews* 12 (2008), repository record — experimental and rigorous quasi-experimental studies; main results; reviewers' conclusions. https://publikationen.uni-tuebingen.de/xmlui/handle/10900/64664 [^60]: CrimeSolutions (National Institute of Justice), practice profile, "Interventions for Persons Who Committed Intimate-Partner Violence: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy" (posted Sept. 12, 2013; no longer updated) — rated "Ineffective" on violent offenses and victimization; Babcock meta-analysis. https://crimesolutions.ojp.gov/ratedpractices/16 [^61]: National Institute of Justice, "Batterer Intervention Programs Have Mixed Results" (Oct. 9, 2019; archived) — the CrimeSolutions ratings: Duluth model "Effective" and "Promising"; cognitive behavioral therapy "No Effects" on both outcomes. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/batterer-intervention-programs-often-do-not-change-offender-behavior [^62]: Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, "Why the Duluth Model Works" — agency coordination; victims' voices central; "the most replicated program for men who batter in the world"; 68 percent of offenders not back in the system after eight years (no study cited). https://www.theduluthmodel.org/the-duluth-model/duluth-model-works/ [^63]: Wikipedia, "Duluth model" (revision 1379863183, retrieved Oct. 2026; CC BY-SA 4.0) — origin, effectiveness and criticism sections; a quoted passage attributed to Pence in a 1999 book on Duluth; filed in the "Pseudoscience" category. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duluth_model [^64]: Phillip Parrish, "The Duluth Model: Minnesota's Fear-Fueled Family Shredder…" (campaign post, Jan. 24, 2026), signed as a candidate for governor of Minnesota, 2026 — characterizations of the model and a call to "Audit Duluth programs." https://parrish4mn.com/2026/01/the-duluth-model-minnesotas-fear-fueled-family-shredder-a-110-billion-grift-machine-built-on-lies-codified-by-crooks-and-guarded-by-bipartisan-goons/ [^65]: Laws of Minnesota 1976, ch. 337 (H.F. 1940), approved April 19, 1976 — an advisory council "to study and report on the economic status of women in Minnesota": five House members, five senators and eight citizens appointed by the governor; expiration June 30, 1978. https://revisor.mn.gov/laws/1976/0/337 [^66]: Hennepin County Attorney's Office, "Domestic Abuse Service Center" — established 1994; partners and services for victims. https://www.hennepinattorney.org/get-help/crime/domestic-abuse-service-center [^67]: Education Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. 92-318, 86 Stat. 235, Title IX, § 901 — sex discrimination in federally funded education programs. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-86/pdf/STATUTE-86-Pg235.pdf [^68]: MNopedia (Minnesota Historical Society), "Women's Advocates" — St. Paul group formed after 1971 meetings; in 1974 bought and renovated a Grand Avenue house as a shelter and crisis-line headquarters for victim-survivors of domestic abuse. https://www.mnhs.org/mnopedia/search/index/group/women-s-advocates [^69]: Talking Points Memo, "Klobuchar Denies That She Declined To Prosecute Officer In Floyd Case In '06 Shooting" (May 2020) — county attorney "From 1999 until January 2007"; the 2006 Senate race; her statement on the online claim. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1311587 [^70]: CBS News/AP, report of Feb. 9, 2023 — a Hennepin County jury convicts a Minnesota woman of killing her six-year-old son ten days after she regained full custody, in a case that "raised questions about the conduct of child welfare workers"; no mention of a batterer program or the Duluth model. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/julissa-thaler-convicted-killing-6-year-old-son-eli-hart-minnesota/ [^71]: Safe Passage for Children of Minnesota, "Lessons to be Learned from Autumn Hallow's Murder" (Aug. 19, 2021) — county child-protection screening and police welfare checks in the 2020 Elk River case; no mention of a batterer program or the Duluth model. https://safepassageforchildren.org/lessons-to-be-learned-from-autumn-hallows-murder/ [^72]: Complaint, *United States v. Minnesota Department of Education and Minnesota State High School League*, No. 0:26-cv-02078 (D. Minn. filed Mar. 30, 2026). https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1433251/dl