Research Evaluation of Programmes for Abusers

Rebecca Emerson DobashRussell P. Dobash

Criminology, School of LawUniversity of Manchester

‘Ten years of the Abuser Programme Practiced in Vienna’Vienna, Austria

December 2009

Overview

The ‘transformative’ project Risk factors and violence Interventions for victims & abusers Evaluations of abuser programmes

Types- randomised & quasi-experimental designs Results- from quasi-experimental studies Ongoing issues, Ongoing evaluations

Conclusions evidence based knowledge – policy - interventions

The ‘Transformative’ Project

The goal is changing violent men, improving the safety of women & developing effective interventions for abusers and victims

Three Arenas of Change Individual

Beliefs & behaviours Institutional

Policies & practices Cultural

Popular beliefs & practices

The Transformative ProjectThe Transformative Project

Goal of Change Improving Women’s Safe, Sense of Well being

& Autonomy Eliminating the Constellation of Violence

Responses to Violence & AbuseSanctuaries for Women Support Assistance Information Safety Provision, Protection, Participation & Prevention

Sanctions/Interventions for Men Control Surveillance Re-education Responsibility Accountability Positive Role for Justice System (Symbolic & Real)

Intervention

Effective responses must include:

-Sanctuaries for women

-Clearly focused interventions for men

-Comprehensive community approach

Abuser Programmes

Risk Factors - Offending & Escalating/Lethal IPV

General Criminogenic Unemployed Criminal career Substance abuse Education deficits Problematic social networks Poor emotional management Poor thinking skills Mental health problems

Specific problems (IPV): Tenuous relationships

(cohabiting, dating) Contested relationships -

Prolonged conflict Intense

Possessiveness/jealousy Separation/attempts to leave Persistent/intense

harassment Sexual Violence Use of instruments/weapons Violence to murder victim

and pervious partners Specialising in IPViolence ‘Ordinary guys’

Transforming Violent Men Why Include Men? What Needs Changing? Beliefs, Cognitions & Behaviour

Self-oriented/ narcissistic Objectification of woman/victim Violence is purposeful & functional Violence is legitimised Responsibility

- rejected and/or deflected Consequences

- denied, minimised

Programme ContentProgramme Content

1. Focus on violent/offending behaviour 2. Focus on attitudes and beliefs 3. Develop knowledge/ skills/ strategies to

avoid further violence 4. Accountability - monitoring individual’s

progress 5. Accountability - monitoring the programme

itself

Research Evaluation of Abuser Programmes

Do Men Change?Do Men Change?Questions to ask?????Questions to ask?????

Three Questions of Research Evaluation: Effectiveness of Criminal Justice Sanctions Effectiveness of Abuser Programmes Sustainability of any change after intervention

Research EvaluationResearch Evaluation Non-equivalent control group design

CJS Men’s Programmes Other CJ (fines, prob, etc)

Time 1: Men (n=122) & Women (n=134) Men-Programme Group (n=…), Other CJ group (n=…) Women-Programme Group (n=…), Other CJ group (n=…) [including 95 couples]

3 Time periods: intervention, 3mos, 12mos

Interviews and postal Questionnaires Response rates:

men women Time 2 76% 80% Time 3 51% 59%

MEASURES

INDEXES: Violence Assessment Index Injury Assessment Indices Controlling Behaviour Index Quality of Life Index (Women) Quality of Life Index (Men)

Evaluations of Abuser Programmestypes, strengths and limitations

Process evaluations – studies what is done, why complete, participants & programme providers views & programme integrity

Randomised designs – show little or no effectRandom assignment of individuals to different interventions (compare experimental & control groups and ‘theoretically’ deals with all significant factors)Problems- ethics of random assignment, informed consent, maintaining design, little on nature of violence and why intervention may/may not work, little attention to context of violence & intervention

Quasi-experimental/naturalistic designs–show some effectCompare real life interventions (e.g. programmes & probation), can study context and multi-dimensional assessments, easier to maintain design Problems – requires comparison of groups & outcomes, requires large samples, complex statistics, impossible to rule out selection effect

Meta-Analysis – show small effectCombination of many studies – depends on quality of those studies

Quasi-experimental Research Design (Viol.Men.Study)

Control Group DesignComparative & LongitudinalTwo Naturally occurring groups:

Criminal Justice Interventions- Other CJ Court Mandated Abuser Programmes (the first in UK & Europe)

-CHANGE & LothianDomesticViolenceProbationProjectPre & Post Tests at 3 Time Periods

Time 1: at intervention interviews with 122 abusers & 132 women partners

Time 2: after 3 mos - follow-up--postal questionnaireTime 3: after 12 mos - follow-up--postal questionnaire

Baseline Assessments-5 Indexes:

(violence, injuries, controlling behaviour, quality of life (women & men)

Data Analysis:Assess change(s) in:

[violence, injuries, controlling behaviour, quality of life] findings focused on women’s reports

Selection bias - Post-hoc matching

Quasi-experimental Research Design (Viol.Men.Study)

Control Group DesignComparative & LongitudinalTwo Naturally occurring groups:

Criminal Justice Interventions- Other CJ Court Mandated Abuser Programmes (the first in UK & Europe)

-CHANGE & LothianDomesticViolenceProbationProjectPre & Post Tests at 3 Time Periods

Time 1: at intervention interviews with 122 abusers & 132 women partners

Time 2: after 3 mos - follow-up--postal questionnaireTime 3: after 12 mos - follow-up--postal questionnaire

Baseline Assessments-5 Indexes:

(violence, injuries, controlling behaviour, quality of life (women & men)

Data Analysis:Assess change(s) in:

[violence, injuries, controlling behaviour, quality of life] findings focused on women’s reports

Selection bias - Post-hoc matching

Some results from quasi-experimental studiesAbuser Programmes more effective than other interventionsReductions in Violence –prevalence, frequency and severityReductions in Constellation of Abuse

-across a range of controlling and intimidating behaviours

Improvements in Quality of Life -men & women feel happier and women feel ‘safer’

Importance of ‘Dosage’ US (length of programme)Importance of Context/System

-police, courts, probation, additional sanctions, victim support-consistent messages and actions

Repeat assaulters, difficult to identify but higher risk when UK: unemployed, younger, alcohol problems, non-state sanctioned relationship, criminal careers, intense ‘constellation of abuse’ (Dobash et al.)USA: alcohol problems, severe previous assault & criminal career, constellation of abuse (small % with severe mental disorder and no difference in personality types) (Gondolf, et. al.)- best predictors are women’s judgements & men’s drunkenness

Evaluations of Abuser Programmes - research issues -

Self-assessment by programme staff Programme integrity not assessed No outcome measures No control or comparison group Little consideration of offender characteristics

Psychological, behavioural, ethnic characteristics, voluntary or court mandated, IMPORTANCE OF STAKE IN CONFORMITY FACTORS

No consideration of ‘dosage’/length programme Small sample size, high attrition at follow-up Selection bias Short follow-ups – sustainability Poor or singular outcome measures

Only use arrests or self-reports of offenders – not reports of partners

Ongoing Issues, Ongoing Evaluations

Limits of Research: ethics, methods, pragmatics and resources

Research design: selection bias, sample sizes, generalisability, what to

assess/compare, use of drop-outs, attrition rates, arrests vs. women’s assessments …

People changing: difficult to achieve, difficult to evaluate

Public policy is incremental – based on evidence, debates and informed judgements

Overall, there are benefits of abuser programmes

for perpetrators, victims, communities & society

Violence at Times 1,2 & 3 (women’s reports)

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

Other CJ n=59

Programme n=27

Three Stories of ChangeThree Stories of Change

1. Men who cannot or will not change despite the intervention

2. Men who engage in limited change maintained under the watchful eye of the enforcers of law and the threat of increasing sanctions

3. Men who change their violent behaviour and supporting attitudes and become the regulators of their own behaviour

Why Men Change Why Men Change (eight stage (eight stage process)process)1. Change is Possible

-away from impossibility/undesirability of change to view as real prospect2. Motivation to Change

-must want to change3. Why Change

-recognition of cost and benefits to self and expand to include ‘the other’4. What Changes

-from a view self as ‘object’ -[acted upon] -to self as ‘subject’ - [making decisions] - (taking responsibility for actions)

5. Gen. Mechanisms of Change-external constraints to internal controls (from surveillance to self control)

6. New Discourse

-from accept viol.,deny, min./blame to notions of rights,respect, responsibility7. The Medium of Change

-learning,talking,listening8. Specific Elements of Change

-cognitive and behaviour skills on men’s programmes

Ongoing Issues, Ongoing Evaluations

Limits of Research: ethics, methods, pragmatics and resources

Research design: selection bias, sample sizes, generalisability, what to

assess/compare, use of drop-outs, attrition rates, arrests vs. women’s assessments …

People changing: difficult to achieve, difficult to evaluate

Public policy is incremental – based on evidence, debates and informed judgements

Overall, there are benefits of abuser programmes

for perpetrators, victims, communities & society

Books- Intimate Partner Violence by Dobash et al.

Abuser Programme Evaluation: Selected Publications

1999, Dobash et al., ‘A Research Evaluation of British Programmes for Violent Men’, Journal of Social Policy, 28:205-233.

2000, Dobash et al., Changing Violent Men. London: Sage. 2000, Dobash & Dobash, ‘Evaluating Criminal Justice

Interventions for Domestic Violence’, Crime & Delinquency, 46:252-270.

2005, Dobash & Dobash, Abuser Programmes & Violence Against Women. In Smeenk and Malsch, Family Violence and Police Response, London: Ashgate.

Intimate Partner Murder: Selected Publications

2004, Dobash et al., Not an Ordinary Killer, Just an ‘Ordinary’ Guy: When Men Murder an Intimate Partner, Violence Against Wives: An International Journal, 10:577-605.

2007, Dobash et al., Lethal and Non-Lethal Violence Against an Intimate Female Partner. Violence Against Women, 13, 4:329-353.

2007, Cavanagh, Dobash & Dobash, The Murder of Children by Fathers in the Context of Child Abuse, Child Abuse and Neglect , 31:731-746.

2009, Dobash et.al., ‘Out of the Blue’: Men who murder an intimate partner, Feminist Criminology, 4:194-225.

2010, Dobash & Dobash, What were they thinking? Men who murder an intimate partner, Violence Against Women (in press)

Intimate Partner Violence: Selected Publications

1979. Dobash & Dobash, Violence Against Wives, New York: Free Press.

1992, Dobash & Dobash, Women, Violence and Social Change, London: Routledge.

1992, Schlesinger, Dobash, Women Viewing Violence, London. 1992, Dobash, et.al., The myth of symmetry in family violence.

Social Problems, 39,1,71-91. 1998, Dobash & Dobash, eds., Rethinking Violence Against

Women London: Sage. 1998, Dobash, et.al., Separate and Intersecting Realities,

Violence Against Women: a comparison of men’s and women’s accounts of violence against women, Violence Against Women, 4,4,382-414.

2001, Cavanagh, et al.: ‘Remedial work’: men’s strategic responses to their violence against intimate female partners, Sociology, 35,3,395-714,

2004, Dobash & Dobash, Women’s Violence Against an Intimate Male Partner: Working on a Puzzle, British Jr of Criminology, vol.44,324-349.