The development of batterer treatment program standards in many States is rational and well-intentioned, since an increasing number of batters are being referred by courts to treatment. Standards have been implemented to provide mandates designed to improve the quality of the treatment programs for batterers and structure a coordinated community response to domestic violence. Although initial treatment standards emerged from the understanding of husband violence that existed at the time, newer research data have not supported many of the assumptions that underlie current standards. The assumptions of some standards that have been invalidated by recent research are as follows: conjoint treatment (group therapy for both partners) is never appropriate; the best length, content, and process of treatment can be standardized; a treatment approach proven effective for one sample is suitable for standardization; and having some standards is better than having no standards. Given the lack of empirical support for the aforementioned assumptions, the author argues that it is too early to impose standards that mandate an approach to treatment. This may, in fact, obstruct the development of diverse types of treatment from which those appropriate for particular clients can be selected. With the development of any new treatment approach comes the obligation to conduct methodologically sound evaluations that assess its effectiveness. The author recommends that all batterer treatment programs evaluate their effectiveness and publish their findings. Architects of various treatment programs for target populations can then have a reservoir of empirical data upon which to draw in designing their programs. 25 references