Effectiveness of a Domestic Abuse Program for Australian Indigenous Offenders

Abstract

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.

Dropout among perpetrators of intimate partner violence attending an intervention program

“…Regarding sociodemographic variables, literature revealed that younger, unemployed, and single perpetrators, belonging to a racial/ethnic minority, less educated, and with a lower income tend to be more likely to dropout from intervention (e.g., Askeland & Heir, 2013;Blatch et al, 2020;Cantos et al, 2015;LaPosta et al, 2019;Timko et al, 2015). On the opposite, older, employed, married, Caucasian, with higher income, and more educated perpetrators (e.g., Askeland & Heir, 2013;Bowen & Gilchrist, 2006;Catlett et al, 2010;Gover et al, 2011) demonstrate lower dropout rates.…”

Developing youth justice policy and programme design in Australia

“…However, significant concerns have been expressed about adopting a narrow knowledge‐driven approach to evidenced‐based justice policy from those in colonised countries such as Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand, and Canada (Blagg & Anthony, 2019; Dudgeon & Milroy, 2014). For example, it has been argued that offender rehabilitation policy and programmes are rooted within a ‘medical model’ (Freiberg & Carson, 2010, p. 155) of criminal behaviour, and rely on deficit‐based, universal, and reductionist approaches which separate offending behaviour from both context and environment (see also Blatch et al, 2020; Weatherburn, 2014). This has led, it is argued, to a research policy and programme environment that is grounded in ethnocentric and colonial practices, supported by knowledge production that is owned and legitimised through Western institutions (Tauri, 2017; Teo, 2015).…”