Early Intervention in Repeat Cases of Domestic Abuse: An evaluation of Project 360 DC Mark Brennan, Leicestershire Police Dr Jesse Matheson, University of Leicester 1

2 Rapid response & assessment. Specialist ‘engagement workers’. Engaging with repeat victims. Co-ordinating long term support.

3 Why do we need Project 360? What effect will Project 360 have? How will we evaluate Project 360?

Why do we need Project 360?

HMIC (2014): A lack of expertise negatively effecting the victim experience. “Officers lacking the skills and knowledge necessary to engage confidently and competently with victims of domestic abuse” (pg 7). “Victims told HMIC that they did not always feel believed or that they were being taken seriously by the police” (pg 9). “A lack of understanding of many complex factors is, at least, in part responsible for the poor attitudes of police officers.” (pg 53).

Project 360: Independent specialists briefed to engage and improve the victim journey “Well not only did they understand all the things that can be going on within a controlling relationship; they approached things in appropriate ways.” Specialists identified from partner domestic abuse agencies – Specialists in the range of domestic abuse and other multi-agency referral routes. ‘Engagement Workers’ with an engagement brief (as opposed to a evidence gather brief) – To place the victim at the heart of the process.

HMIC (2014): The need for earlier specialist review on standard and medium repeat cases. An inconsistent victim journey through services with often indifferent engagement, large gaps and the potential for duplication. 1 st Police Report Long Term Multi- Agency Support 2 nd Police Report 3rd Police Report 4th Police Report 5th Police Report Long Term Multi- Agency Support

Project 360: A ‘High Risk’ Service for Standard and Medium Risk Repeat Victims -A consistent, rapid response within 24hrs of the 3 rd repeat incident; - A integrated multi-agency service offering less gaps, duplication. Project 360 Victim Engagement & Review 3 rd Police Report Long Term Multi- Agency Support Specialist Review, Engagement, Referral & Support

What effect will Project 360 have? Summary from the What Works Centre: “If victims of family abuse receive a follow-up ‘second responder’ visit within a two-week period (typically from a police officer and a social worker acting as a ‘victim advocate’), offering advice and support, they may be more willing to report subsequent incidents of violence.” %20works%20Domestic%20Violence%20final%20version%20May% pdf

Project 360: Procedural fairness approach which to base other approaches on A more engaged victim Increased confidence to report and support Greater opportunity for civil/criminal tools & perpetrator programmes

Building the ‘Victim Engagement’ role into existing police response in a cost effective manner First Police Responders Neighbourhood Policing Teams Volume Crime Investigation Teams Domestic Abuse Investigation Units PCC Commissioned Victim Services Working alongside Perpetrator Approaches

How will we evaluate Project 360? Dr Jesse Matheson, University of Leicester

Research Methods Evaluation of project 360: Randomised control trial RCT allows estimation of causal effects. Random assignment of eligible victims (3 repeat police callouts in 365 days) into treatment or control group. Control group receives current service level. Treatment group is contacted by an engagement worker within 24 hours. Police callout 50% Treatment Control

Research Methods Intervention features rapid secondary response, integration of police and social services, coordinated information transfers. Intervention effect may show up through different outcomes personal safety and security, victim engagement with police and other services, child academic engagement.

Research Methods A number of different outcomes will be examined Administrative data repeat police callouts, child school attendance and academic achievement. Survey data (1 month and 4 month) victim self-assessed stress and well-being, engagement with services and criminal justice, satisfaction with police service. Face-to-face interview engagement workers, school administrators, victims of domestic violence.

Contribution to academic literature Several studies exist looking at non-randomized interventions. Hovell et al, 2006; Casey et al, 2007; Stovers et al, 2010 Relatively few randomized control trials. Davis and Taylor, 1997; Davis et al, 2007 This study will look at outcomes beyond repeat police callouts Increased police callouts are ambiguous: 1) the intervention lead to an increase in abuse (Davis et al; 2008) 2) the intervention lead to an increase in empowerment and willingness to report abuse on the part of the victim (Davis and Taylor; 1997). This is the first RTC of this kind in the UK.

Analysis For outcomes observed across time (police callouts, school attendance) we use a difference-in-difference design: Is there a difference in the change in the outcome, before and after the initial police call-out, between the treatment group and the control group? For outcomes observed at a single point in time we compare outcome averages between the two groups. Demographic details from administrative data will allow us to condition on observable characteristics (using regression analysis). Statistical significance will be determined via t and chi-squared tests statistics.

Early Results As of mid-March 462 cases in the treatment group and 398 cases in control group. >50% uptake of the intervention by treatment group. A total of 1,800 cases expected by September month survey for November and December Treatment group: 59 cases (25.8%) Control group: 50 cases (25.6%)

Early Results: 1 month survey Survey questions% difference in treatment vs. control Control over life improved? Stress levels improved? Mental health improved? Ongoing contact with perpetrator? Visit GP as a result of the incident? Satisfaction with police handling of case? Improved opinion of police? More likely to report future incidents?

Early Results: 1 month survey Survey questions% difference in treatment vs. control Control over life improved?-13.3% Stress levels improved?-10.9% Mental health improved?-9.0% Ongoing contact with perpetrator? Visit GP as a result of the incident? Satisfaction with police handling of case? Improved opinion of police? More likely to report future incidents?

Early Results: 1 month survey Survey questions% difference in treatment vs. control Control over life improved?-13.3% Stress levels improved?-10.9% Mental health improved?-9.0% Ongoing contact with perpetrator?-8.7% Visit GP as a result of the incident?+14.7% Satisfaction with police handling of case?+6.5% Improved opinion of police?+48.3% More likely to report future incidents?+22.5%

DC Mark Brennan, Leicestershire Police Dr Jesse Matheson, University of Leicester – Project details available on the What Works Research Map: Map/Pages/ResearchProject.aspx?projectid=342 22

References Casey, R.L., Berkman, M., Stover, C.S., Gill, K., Durso, S., Marans, S., “Preliminary results of a police-advocate home-visit intervention project for victims of domestic violence”, Journal of Psychological Trauma, 6, 39–49. Davis, R.C., D., Taylor, B., “A proactive response to family violence: The results of a randomized experiment”, Criminology, 35, 307–333. Davis, R.C. Weisburd, D., Hamilton, E.E., “Preventing repeat incidents of family violence: A randomized field test of a second responder program in Redlands, CA”, Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6, 397–418. Hovell, M.F., Seid, A.G., Liles, S., “Evaluation of a Police and Social Services Domestic Violence Program”, Violence Against Women, 12, 137–159. Stover, C.S., Berkman, M., Desai, R., Marans, S., “The efficacy of a police-advocacy intervention for victims of domestic violence: 12-month follow-up data”. Violence Against Women, 16(4), 410–