Study 1
Scott and colleagues (2015) conducted a quasi-experimental study to evaluate the efficacy of a second responder program on reoffending for men accused of assaulting their intimate partners. The study was conducted in London, Ontario, which is a midsized city in Canada. Eligible men were 18 years of age or older, charged by the London Police Service (LPS) with committing a domestic violence offense, were determined to be at moderate-to-high risk of domestic violence reoffending, ineligible for early intervention or domestic violence services, and not in custody.
The LPS used a domestic-violence risk assessment screening tool (Domestic Violence Supplementary Report) to assist in making decisions regarding bail eligibility and conditions and where to place the accused in terms of prosecution. There are two streams of prosecution for individuals arrested and charged with domestic-violence-related offenses. The first stream is for lower risk people who are eligible for a diversion program (called Early Intervention). The second stream is for those who present a moderate-to-high risk of recidivism (called Enhanced Prosecution). Men who are assessed as at moderate-to-high risk of domestic violence reoffending either remain in custody or are released on bail on the condition that they not associate with their victim(s). During this waiting period, the those who are ineligible for domestic violence intervention and are screened out of most mental health and addiction services; thus, they typically receive no intervention between the time they are released on bail and the time their cases are heard in court. The sample for this study consisted of men in the second prosecution stream.
Over a 4-month study period (September to December 2010), 229 eligible men met the study criteria. These men received letters outlining the study and inviting them to participate in the second responder program. The men were asked to contact the Family Consultant/Victim Services Unit (FC/VSU) of the LPS for support services. They received follow-up telephone calls from a police-based clinician in the FC/VSU. Telephone contact was made for 63 of the men, 48 consented to participate, and 40 attended at least one appointment. The men could attend as many sessions as required until their charges were heard in front of the court. During this study period, the typical wait time for cases to be heard in court was 6 months to 1 year. Because this study was not designed to provide any feedback to the court process, the men were clearly informed that their participation would not lead to any leniency in sentencing. The comparison group was created by randomly selecting 40 men who had not been contacted by the police and who received policing and prosecution services as usual.
The intervention group consisted of men in their 30s (average age of 34.8), most of whom were employed (60.6 percent) or in school (18.2 percent) and in committed relationships (i.e., married or common law as opposed to dating or separated) at the time of the index offense (61.0 percent). The comparison group consisted of men in their 30s (average age of 32.8), most of whom were employed (57.6 percent) or in school (18.2 percent) and in committed relationships at the time of the index offense (78.0 percent). In terms of prior police involvement, both the intervention and comparison groups had similar involvement for any charge or arrest within the last 8 months prior to the index offense (92.5 versus 95 percent, respectively). In addition, both comparison and intervention group participants showed similar levels of risk of reoffending across 22 risk factors.
There were two statistically significant differences between the groups at baseline. First, victims of those in the intervention group were more likely to report that the accused had ever demonstrated jealousy or obsessive behavior (87.9 percent), compared with the victims of those in the comparison group (66.7 percent). Second, intervention group participants were less likely (25.0 percent) than comparison group participants (54.2 percent) to have ever breached a court-imposed condition. Given that the differences were few (i.e., 2 out of 24) and in opposite directions, no variables were controlled for in the study analyses.
The outcome of interest was recidivism, which was measured as rearrests by the LPS during the first year following intervention (i.e., from January to December 2011) and the second year following intervention (i.e., from January to December 2012). Because the LPS administrative data used for recidivism were not linked over time, the analysis of outcomes for the first year was treated separately from the analysis of outcomes for the second year. The CrimeSolutions review focused on the recidivism outcomes for the second year following the intervention. Offenses were classified as violent (if the offense was violent in nature, and violence was directed at a person), property (if the offense consisted of damage to or theft of property), and administration of justice (if the offense was a breach of process related to the administration of the criminal justice system). Domestic violence offenses were constructed through a manual review of police reports, to determine if any included a current or former intimate partner as a victim. In addition to rearrests, the study authors examined the amount of contact between the police and the men in the intervention and comparison groups. General occurrences of contact were determined by the nature of the complaint (i.e., any call for service received by police concerning a person’s welfare, criminal activity, neighborhood problem, or motor vehicle accident).
Between-group comparisons were done using Fisher’s Exact test (when expected cell sizes were small), chi-square (for analyses with more balanced categorical data), and unpaired t tests (for continuous data). The study authors did not conduct subgroup analyses.
