Evaluating domestic violence perpetrator programmes: effective interventions and approaches

1. Evaluating domestic violence perpetrator programmes: effective interventions and approaches Professor Marianne Hester University of Bristol

2. This session • Identifying evaluation issues/measures from our previous studies • The STDAPP evaluation • Next step - longitudinal, large scale evaluation

3. Identifying evaluation issues/measures from previous studies

4. Heterosexual DV triangle VICTIM CHILD PERPETRATOR

5. ‘The system is what matters’ (Gondolf 2002); multi-agency links are key re repeat perpetrators (Hester et al. 2003) • Have to examine multi-agency working/ links • 2. Different ‘types’ of perpetrators; different levels of motivation & help-seeking (Hester et al. 2006) • Have to explore differences between perpetrators • 3. Different routes of entry to programme (Hester et al. 2006; Hester & Williamson in progress) • Have to take into account differences in referral routes/ perpetrator entry to programme

6. Marianne Hester, Nicole Westmarland and Geetanjali Gangoli (University of Bristol) & Mike Wilkinson, Caitriona O’Kelly, Andrew Kent and Alana Diamond (Home Office) Domestic Violence Perpetrators: Identifying Needs to Inform Early Intervention 2006

7. Did they keep on offending? Half of the perpetrators were involved in at least one more incident within the 3 year follow up period need tracking in police databases Perpetrators were arrested for more non-domestic violence offences than domestic violence offences (mean dv = 0.83 compared with mean non dv = 2.24) track both dv and non-dv One in five of these re-offended against a different partner interview new and old partners?

8. From sample of 356 DV perpetrators: Group One – ‘one incident’ group. One DV incident recorded on the police database. (n=112) Group Two – ‘mainly non-domestic violence’ group. One DV incident recorded, but also arrested for non-DV offences. (n=62) Group Three –‘dedicated repeat domestic violence’ perpetrators. A number of DV incidents recorded, but no other offences. (n=62) Group Four -‘all-round repeat offenders’. Had a number of DV incidents recorded, and also been arrested for non-DV offences. (n=120)

9. Triggers for change – motivational factors • Loss • Crisis point • [also danger points for women] • Maturity

10. Which agencies are men in contact with? • Of the 45 men interviewed by the Home Office team: • 32 men had been to their GP prior to beginning the domestic violence programme; • 26 men had contact with the police in relation to domestic violence (13 for non-domestic violence; 21 for other non-violent offences). • 13 men had contact with Relate, 11 with Social Services, 6 with the Samaritans, 5 with hospitals, 5 with alcohol services, and 4 with drugs services; • Some men in contact with services such as counselling, legal aid or solicitors, and welfare services at work.

11. The STDAPP evaluation Marianne Hester & Emma Williamson • STDAPP began 27th September 2006 • Co-ordinated and based at Barnardos Streetlevel Family Centre • Multi-agency team employed by the following organisations: • South Tyneside Primary Care Trust • The Riverside Children’s Centre, South Shields • Barnardos Streetlevel Family Centre, South Shields • Sunderland Family Support Services and Child Contact Centre • South Tyneside Matrix Service • South Tyneside Drug Action Team

12. The STDAPP evaluation • Programme approach - Action for Change • 2. Three elements: • Initial one to one hour weekly sessions. • Two day pre group block run by two practitioners, one of each gender. • 26 week group work programme with a group of eight plus service users. Delivered by two practitioners, one of each gender. • Open rolling programme • Peer group support for ongoing support on completion of programme

13. Process evaluation • Assessment of multi-agency working and context, development of the programmes, training and database development • Semi-structured interviews - perpetrator programme co-ordinators / facilitators, steering groups members, other stakeholders locally and regionally every 12 months.

14. Impact/outcome evaluation • Impact of interventions over time in relation to perpetrators and partners, and where relevant their children. • Baseline (both perpetrators and current partners): • Semi-structured interview (to assess context and history) • Inventory of controlling behaviours (standard measure of behaviour) • Q-sort (to assess attitudes) [Sunderland]

15. During programme - STDAPP RADAR data Criminal History Cluster Criminal activity Aggression towards another family member Breach of bail orders or court order conditions Breach of ‘no contact’ orders General aggression Psychosocial adjustment cluster Substance misuse Personality disorder Problems in childhood Exposure to an abusive parental role model Recent suicidal or homicidal thinking History of domestic violence or abuse cluster Aggression or violence towards another intimate partner Violence against the current partner Past sexual assault or sexual jealousy Recent escalation of frequency or severity of abuse Extreme minimisation or denial or past history Attitude appearing to support or condone partner assault

16. STDAPP RADAR data • Any other factors to consider • Likelihood of violence towards partner or ex partner • Attitude to assessment • Attitude towards change • Acceptance of culpability • Acceptance of responsibility • Remorse • Adjustment to summary risk rating

17. Additional data on the STDAPP database • Unique STDAPP ID number Clients Name; • Partner ID(s) and nature of relationship; • Age and number of children; • DOB; Age; • Ethnicity; • How heard of project [includes agencies and media] • Date of referral and subsequent contacts including notes; • Local Authority area; • Assigned Practitioner • Date of last session, where in program it occurred. • Each session practitioners ranking questions [0-10] acceptance of responsibility; culpability; the problem; wish to change. • Previous intervention. E.g.: Anger management, other court /vol. perpetrator programme, couple counselling addressing violence. • Employment status • Number of times moved house. • Educational attainment/school leaving age • Income. • Will also monitor alcohol, drug and mental health issues.

18. Also….. • third party database with information pertaining to other agencies – e.g. police and child protection.

19. Impact/outcome evaluation • At completion or drop out (both perpetrators and partners): • Semi-structured interview (to assess views about programme, outcome) • Inventory of controlling behaviours (standard measure of behaviour) • Q-sort (to assess attitudes) [Sunderland]

20. Impact/outcome evaluation • Following the end of the programme • Contact with perpetrators & partners maintained on 3-monthly basis via text, email, telephone, and/or other negotiated methods. Apply inventory & questions. • Tracking of repeat offending via criminal and civil justice data and programme monitoring. • Tracking of perpetrators through other agency data.

21. Impact/outcome evaluation • Children • Issues regarding child abuse or child contact arrangements: • identified via police data, programme monitoring data, social services’ data, and if possible via CAFCASS.