[10] Advocates of the Duluth model claim it is successful because it is grounded in the experience of female victims, helps offenders and society change, and pulls the whole community together to respond.
The curriculum "is designed to be used within a community using its institutions to diminish the power of batterers over their victims and to explore with each abusive man the intent and source of his violence and the possibilities for change through seeking a different kind of relationship with women”.
"[19] The program's philosophy is intended to help batterers work to change their attitudes and personal behavior so they would learn to be nonviolent in any relationship.
[23] This study had considerable shortfalls, and the National Institute of Justice said in its introduction that "response rates were low, many people dropped out of the program, and victims could not be found for subsequent interviews.
"[24] A 2003 longitudinal, four-year evaluation by E. W. Gondolf, covering four cities, shows clear deescalation of reassault and other abuse, with 80% of men reaching sustained non-violence.
"[22][29] Others criticize the Duluth Model as being overly confrontational rather than therapeutic, focusing solely on changing the abuser's actions and attitudes rather than dealing with underlying emotional and psychological issues.
[29] Donald Dutton, a psychology professor at the University of British Columbia who has studied abusive personalities, states: "The Duluth Model was developed by people who didn't understand anything about therapy.
[32] Ellen Pence herself writes: By determining that the need or desire for power was the motivating force behind battering, we created a conceptual framework that, in fact, did not fit the lived experience of many of the men and women we were working with.
[33]The Duluth model is featured in the documentary Power and Control: Domestic Violence in America with commentary from its authors, as well as its main critics, such as Dutton.