Evaluating domestic violence perpetrator programmes:

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 OKelly, 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. (n112) Group
Two mainly non-domestic violence group. One
DV incident recorded, but also arrested for
non-DV offences. (n62) Group Three dedicated
repeat domestic violence perpetrators. A number
of DV incidents recorded, but no other offences.
(n62) Group Four -all-round repeat
offenders. Had a number of DV incidents
recorded, and also been arrested for non-DV
offences. (n120)
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 Childrens 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.