No 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.

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.

The subject of this study is to assess the effectiveness of a culture-neutral domestic abuse program (DAP) developed for offenders with domestic and family violence histories, when used for Australian Indigenous offenders, serving community-based supervised orders. The study employed a retrospective quasi-experimental research design and intention-to-treat program definition for 953 DAP-treated men and propensity score–matched controls, from diverse cultural, religious, and racial backgrounds, 19% being Indigenous Australians. Outcomes measured were program completion, time to first reconviction, and reconviction rates. Indigenous men completed the program similar to non-Indigenous men (58% vs. 63%; NS), although significantly more dropped out (22% vs. 18%); 63% of Indigenous DAP-treated men, remained reconviction free versus 49% of Indigenous controls. Significant therapeutic benefits required program completion, 73% Indigenous and 74% of non-Indigenous men remained reconviction free. Indigenous DAP participants, relative to controls, took significantly longer to first reconviction. Survival was associated with prior criminal histories, but not with rural or remote domiciles. Reconviction rates were predicted by Level of Service Inventory–Revised actuarial risk scores and by DAP completion, but not by Indigenous status. Program effect size was d = .477, mean reconvictions for Indigenous DAP enrollees being 50% lower than controls. Generic domestic violence interventions utilising evidence-based theoretical principles can be effective for Indigenous offenders, despite an absence of specific Indigenous cultural, or healing content, and delivery by Indigenous facilitators or Elders.