1. Russell Dobash & Rebecca Dobash, Criminology in Law, University of Manchester Programme Evaluation The story so far Rebecca Emerson Dobash Russell P. Dobash Criminology, School of Law University of Manchester RESPECT London May 2007

2. Russell Dobash & Rebecca Dobash, Criminology in Law, University of Manchester Overview Making & Changing Policies and Practices The ‘fit’-problem, intervention & evaluation 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

3. Russell Dobash & Rebecca Dobash, Criminology in Law, University of Manchester Making & Changing Policies and Practices Enlightenment Model – from evidence to TO policy TO practice Pragmatic Model – from practice TO policy Influential Model – From ‘important’ persons/organisations TO policy TO practice Incrementalism Model – Ever expanding/modifying policy OR practice Begins with Research & values evidence Begins with Programmes & values practice Begins with Government, media, committees & values power/influence Modifications at various levels

4. Russell Dobash & Rebecca Dobash, Criminology in Law, University of Manchester The ‘Fit’ and the ‘Transformative’ Project The ‘Fit’: The Violence (nature, extent, definitions and explanations) The Intervention (the violence, men’s responsibility and need to change) The Evaluation (of what works) The ‘Transformative’ Project: The goal is changing violent men and improving the safety of women as well as developing effective interventions for abusers and victims

5. Russell Dobash & Rebecca Dobash, Criminology in Law, University of Manchester Risk factors and violence..

6. Russell Dobash & Rebecca Dobash, Criminology in Law, University of Manchester 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’

7. Russell Dobash & Rebecca Dobash, Criminology in Law, University of Manchester Who assessed as a risk? Who should receive intervention? Ideally, Interventions for men should be aimed at: … a broad band of offenders within CJS … specific focus on abusers and attempt to: …‘capture’ those who do not come to attention of CJS ‘ordinary guys’ present a problem for risk assessment & intervention because they are less likely to come to attention of those dealing with this violence … and risk assessment tools unlikely to identify them

8. Russell Dobash & Rebecca Dobash, Criminology in Law, University of Manchester Intervention Effective responses must include: -Sanctuaries for women -Clearly focused interventions for men -Comprehensive community approach

9. Russell Dobash & Rebecca Dobash, Criminology in Law, University of Manchester Evaluation of Abuser Programmes The story so far…….

10. Russell Dobash & Rebecca Dobash, Criminology in Law, University of Manchester Evaluations of Abuser Programmes types, strengths and limitations Process evaluations – Does not study outcome but, e.g. what is done, why completion, participants & programme providers views & programme integrity Randomised designs – show little or no effect Random 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 effect Compare 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 effect Combination of many studies – depends on quality of those studies

11. Russell Dobash & Rebecca Dobash, Criminology in Law, University of Manchester Randomised Design Studies San Diego, The US Navy – Four Alternatives (n=800) No differences in rates of recidivism across 4 groups Unrepresentative Sample – not criminogenic, all employed Impact of context – extensive supervision and potential sanctions Artificial Programmes – ‘proxy wives’ Example of successful coordinated ‘community response’? New York – Programmes vs Community Service (n=376) No differences in two groups Serious Design Problems – random assignment based on ‘intention to participate’ rather than on actual participation…. 30% of random assignments altered by judges discretion (selection bias?)…. High Attrition-50% of female partners lost at follow-up…. No consideration of separation effects ‘Dodgy’ practices-50% follow-up sample by private Investigators Florida –Programme+Probation vs Probation (n=400) No differences in two groups Serious Design Problems – high attrition-80% female partners lost, evaluation primarily based on ‘probation violations’

12. Russell Dobash & Rebecca Dobash, Criminology in Law, University of Manchester Quasi-experimental Research Design (Viol.Men.Study) Control Group Design Comparative & Longitudinal Two Naturally occurring groups: Criminal Justice Interventions- Other CJ Court Mandated Abuser Programmes (the first in UK & Europe) -CHANGE & LothianDomesticViolenceProbationProject Pre & 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 questionnaire Time 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

13. Russell Dobash & Rebecca Dobash, Criminology in Law, University of Manchester Some results from quasi-experimental studies Abuser Programmes more effective than other interventions Reductions in Violence –prevalence, frequency and severity Reductions 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

14. Russell Dobash & Rebecca Dobash, Criminology in Law, University of Manchester 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

15. Russell Dobash & Rebecca Dobash, Criminology in Law, University of Manchester 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

16. Russell Dobash & Rebecca Dobash, Criminology in Law, University of Manchester References Abuser Programme Evaluation: Dobash et al., 1999, A Research Evaluation of British Programmes for Violent Men, Journal of Social Policy, 28:205-233. Dobash et al., 2000, Changing Violent Men. Sage Series on Violence Against Women. Dobash & Dobash, 2005, Abuser Programmes & Violence Against Women. In Smeenk and Malsch, Family Violence and Police Response, Asgate. Intimate Partner Murder: Dobash et al., 2004, Not an Ordinary Killer, Just an ‘Ordinary’ Guy: When Men Murder an Intimate Partner, Violence Against Wives: An International Journal, 10:577-605. Dobash et al., 2007, Lethal and Non-Lethal Violence Against an Intimate Female Partner. Violence Against Women, 13, 4:329-353. Cavanagh, Dobash & Dobash, (2007), The Murder of Children by Fathers in the Context of Child Abuse, Child Abuse and Neglect (In Press). Considers relationship between child murder and abuse of victim’s mother.