{"title":"Integrated case management of repeated intimate partner violence: a randomized, controlled trial","authors":"Jonathan Goosey, L. Sherman, P. Neyroud","doi":"10.17863/CAM.12120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research QuestionCan integrated case management by a multi-agency partnership of the relations between offenders and victims with repeated incidents of intimate partner violence (IPV) reduce the frequency or severity of harm from that violence?DataThree batches of 60 IPV dyads were enrolled in a trial, with data collected on services delivered to them and police records for 2 years before and 2 years after random assignment to treatment and control groups.MethodsThe study measured the delivery of all three elements of treatment offered: (1) victim support through Berkshire Women’s Aid, (2) one-to-one perpetrator counselling through motivational interviewing techniques and (3) follow-up visits to the home addresses of perpetrators and victims. The outcomes for each couple in severity of harm were compared in a before-after, difference-of-differences analysis of Cambridge Crime Harm Index scores. After-only frequency of non-criminal domestic conflict events was also compared.FindingsDelivery of programme elements was highly variable, but more intense in the treatment group than in control, especially in terms of police visits to offenders (T = 60%, C = zero). Mean difference between 24 months of post-random assignment and the 24 months baseline period for C cases was an increase of 4.15 Cambridge Crime Harm Index (CHI) prison days, while T cases had a mean change of 8.85 fewer CHI days in prison in post-assignment than in baseline. This difference was significant with outliers removed, but not with two control group baseline cases included. There was also a substantially higher rate of frequency of non-crime events in the 24 months after random assignment in T (112) than in C (85).ConclusionsThe overall effect of the programme appeared to have been beneficial, as measured by the Crime Harm Index. The evidence cannot specify how much of that benefit was caused by the more consistent police visits to offenders versus other elements of the programme for both victims and offenders.","PeriodicalId":217468,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.12120","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
Abstract
Research QuestionCan integrated case management by a multi-agency partnership of the relations between offenders and victims with repeated incidents of intimate partner violence (IPV) reduce the frequency or severity of harm from that violence?DataThree batches of 60 IPV dyads were enrolled in a trial, with data collected on services delivered to them and police records for 2 years before and 2 years after random assignment to treatment and control groups.MethodsThe study measured the delivery of all three elements of treatment offered: (1) victim support through Berkshire Women’s Aid, (2) one-to-one perpetrator counselling through motivational interviewing techniques and (3) follow-up visits to the home addresses of perpetrators and victims. The outcomes for each couple in severity of harm were compared in a before-after, difference-of-differences analysis of Cambridge Crime Harm Index scores. After-only frequency of non-criminal domestic conflict events was also compared.FindingsDelivery of programme elements was highly variable, but more intense in the treatment group than in control, especially in terms of police visits to offenders (T = 60%, C = zero). Mean difference between 24 months of post-random assignment and the 24 months baseline period for C cases was an increase of 4.15 Cambridge Crime Harm Index (CHI) prison days, while T cases had a mean change of 8.85 fewer CHI days in prison in post-assignment than in baseline. This difference was significant with outliers removed, but not with two control group baseline cases included. There was also a substantially higher rate of frequency of non-crime events in the 24 months after random assignment in T (112) than in C (85).ConclusionsThe overall effect of the programme appeared to have been beneficial, as measured by the Crime Harm Index. The evidence cannot specify how much of that benefit was caused by the more consistent police visits to offenders versus other elements of the programme for both victims and offenders.
研究问题:通过多机构伙伴关系对反复发生亲密伴侣暴力事件的犯罪者和受害者之间的关系进行综合案件管理,能否减少这种暴力造成伤害的频率或严重程度?三批60名IPV患者参加了一项试验,收集了随机分配到治疗组和对照组之前和之后两年向他们提供服务的数据和警察记录。方法本研究测量了所提供治疗的所有三个要素的提供情况:(1)通过伯克郡妇女援助为受害者提供支持;(2)通过动机性访谈技术为加害者提供一对一的咨询;(3)对加害者和受害者的家庭住址进行随访。在剑桥犯罪伤害指数得分的前后差异分析中,对每对夫妇伤害严重程度的结果进行了比较。事后非刑事家庭冲突事件的发生频率也进行了比较。研究结果:方案要素的实施变化很大,但治疗组比对照组更强烈,特别是在警察探访罪犯方面(T = 60%, C =零)。C例随机分配后24个月与24个月基线期的平均差异是增加4.15剑桥犯罪危害指数(CHI)监禁日,而T例随机分配后的CHI监禁日比基线期平均减少8.85。这种差异在剔除异常值后是显著的,但在包括两个对照组基线病例时则不显著。在随机分配后的24个月内,T(112)的非犯罪事件频率也明显高于C(85)。从犯罪危害指数来看,该计划的总体效果似乎是有益的。证据无法明确指出,这种好处有多少是由于警察更经常地探访罪犯,而不是由于该方案对受害者和罪犯的其他部分。