Search results

1 – 4 of 4
Per page
102050
Citations:
Loading...
Access Restricted. View access options
Article
Publication date: 13 March 2017

Chris Blatch, Andrew Webber, Kevin O’Sullivan and Gerard van Doorn

The purpose of this paper is to determine recidivism costs and benefits for 1,030 community-based male offenders enrolled in a domestic abuse program (DAP) compared to an…

499

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to determine recidivism costs and benefits for 1,030 community-based male offenders enrolled in a domestic abuse program (DAP) compared to an untreated control group (n=1,030) matched on risk factors.

Design/methodology/approach

The study time frame was October 1, 2007-June 30, 2010 with reconvictions measured to December 31, 2010. Follow up averaged 19 months. Controls received standard community supervision, but no domestic violence group interventions. Follow up measures included court costs for violent and non-violent reconvictions; re-incarcerations and community-based orders costs measured in days.

Findings

Adjusting for time at risk, DAP enrollees had 29 percent fewer reconvictions, 46 percent fewer violent reconvictions, 34 percent fewer custodial days, but 23 percent more days on community orders. Costs: DAP enrollment avoided $2.52 M in custodial costs, but higher community correction costs (+$773 K) and court costs (+$5.8 K), reducing the DAP’s criminal justice system cost savings to $1.754 M ($8.92 M for the DAP group compared to $10.67M for controls). Cost benefits: when the 64 DAP program costs were deducted ($602 K), the net benefit to the New South Wales criminal justice system was $1,141 M, or $1,108 per enrollee, providing a net benefit/cost ratio of 2.89. If the DAP was completed, the net benefit was $1,820 per offender. These results compares favorably to economic evaluations of other community-based interventions.

Practical implications

Group interventions for domestically violent (DV) offenders can provide good investment returns to tax payers and government by reducing demand on scarce criminal justice system resources. The study provides insights into justice costs for DV offenders; a methodological template to determine cost benefits for offender programs and a contribution to cost-effective evidence-based crime reduction interventions.

Originality/value

Using a rigorous methodology, official court, custodial and community correction services costing data, this is the first Australian cost benefit analysis of a domestic violence group intervention, and the first to justify program expenditure by demonstrating substantial savings to the criminal justice system.

Access Restricted. View access options
Article
Publication date: 11 January 2016

Chris Blatch, Kevin O'Sullivan, Jordan J Delaney, Gerard van Doorn and Tamara Sweller

The purpose of this paper is to determine recidivism outcomes for 953 offending men with domestic violence histories, serving community-based sentences and enroled in the domestic…

1961

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to determine recidivism outcomes for 953 offending men with domestic violence histories, serving community-based sentences and enroled in the domestic abuse program (DAP), provided by Corrective Services New South Wales in Australia.

Design/methodology/approach

An intention to treat definition of DAP participation and a quasi-experimental and pseudo-prospective research design compared recidivism outcomes of the treatment group to a propensity score matched control group. Cox and Poisson regression techniques determined survival time to first reconviction and rates of reconvictions adjusted for time at risk.

Findings

DAP enrolment was associated with significant improvements in odds of time to first general reconviction (15 per cent) and first violent reconviction (by 27 per cent) compared to controls. Reconviction rates were significantly lower (by 15 per cent) for DAP enrolees. Programme completion was necessary for significant therapeutic effect; 62 per cent completed the programme.

Practical implications

This evaluation suggests the 20 session DAP is an effective intervention which could be adopted by other jurisdictions to modify criminal behaviours of domestically abusive men; potentially lessening the physical, emotional and financial impacts on victims and providing savings to government and criminal justice systems. The methodology, with refinements, could be adopted by other service providers to evaluate similar community-based therapeutic interventions in forensic settings.

Originality/value

First peer reviewed evaluation of the DAP. The programme contributes to evidence-based best practice interventions for domestically violent men.

Details

Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, vol. 8 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1759-6599

Keywords

Access Restricted. View access options
Article
Publication date: 8 February 2016

Chris Blatch, Kevin O'Sullivan, Jordan J Delaney and Daniel Rathbone

The purpose of this paper is to determine reconviction outcomes for 2,882 male and female offenders with significant alcohol and other drug (AOD) criminogenic needs, serving…

1073

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to determine reconviction outcomes for 2,882 male and female offenders with significant alcohol and other drug (AOD) criminogenic needs, serving custodial sentences in New South Wales, between 2007 and 2011, who participated in the Getting SMART and/or the SMART Recovery® programs.

Design/methodology/approach

A quasi-experimental research design utilized data from 2,343 offenders attending Getting SMART; 233 attending SMART Recovery© and 306 attending both programs, compared to a propensity score-matched control group of 2,882 offenders. Cox and Poisson regression techniques determined survival times to first reconviction and rates of reconvictions, adjusting for time at risk.

Findings

Getting SMART participation was significantly associated with improved odds of time to first reconviction by 8 percent and to first violent reconviction by 13 percent, compared to controls. Participants attending both programs (Getting SMART and SMART Recovery©), had significantly lower reconviction rate ratios for both general (21 percent) and violent (42 percent) crime, relative to controls. Getting SMART attendance was associated with significant reductions in reconviction rates of 19 percent, and the reduction for SMART Recovery© attendance (alone) was 15 percent, the latter figure being non-significant. In all, 20 hours in either SMART program (ten sessions) was required to detect a significant therapeutic effect.

Practical implications

Criminal justice jurisdictions could implement this two SMART program intervention model, knowing a therapeutic effect is more likely if Getting SMART (12 sessions of cognitive-restructuring and motivation) is followed by SMART Recovery© for ongoing AOD therapeutic maintenance and behavioral change consolidation. SMART Recovery©, a not-for-profit proprietary program, is widely available internationally.

Originality/value

Getting SMART and SMART Recovery© have not previously been rigorously evaluated. This innovative two-program model contributes to best practice for treating higher risk offenders with AOD needs, suggesting achievable reductions in both violent and general reoffending.

Details

Journal of Forensic Practice, vol. 18 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 2050-8794

Keywords

Available. Content available
Article
Publication date: 11 January 2016

Jane L Ireland and Robert J. Cramer

151

Abstract

Details

Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, vol. 8 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1759-6599

1 – 4 of 4
Per page
102050