Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:23 am
Time: 1:23 am
Results for victim support
2 results foundAuthor: Mazerolle, Lorraine Title: Criminal Justice Responses to Domestic and Family Violence: A Rapid Review of the Evaluation Literature: Final Report Summary: Executive Summary Background This report provides a systematic and comprehensive review of the impact evaluation evidence base of criminal justice system responses to domestic and family violence (DFV). The review aimed to (1) systematically identify impact evaluation evidence that addressed ways to improve the engagement of domestic and family violence victims with the criminal justice system; (2) identify best practice approaches to improve the identification of, and responses to, high risk recidivist perpetrators of domestic and family violence within the criminal justice system. Search Methods We used systematic review methodologies to identify eligible studies that met the following criteria. The study had to: (1) Include a quantitative impact evaluation of a criminal justice response to domestic and family violence. Eligible study designs included systematic reviews, randomised control trials and high quality quasi-experimental studies; (2) Be conducted or published between 1997 and 2017; (3) Be focused on a population of offenders, victims or staff working within the criminal justice system; (4) Take place in a high income country; (5) Be written in English. No limitations were placed on the type of outcome variable used to evaluate intervention effectiveness. The initial search produced 13,383 records. First stage title and abstract screening eliminated 10,846 records due to their being non-criminal justice system responses to DFV (n = 5,311), duplicate records (n = 4,517), and for other reasons outside of our eligibility criteria (e.g., not from a high income country, prior to 1997). Second stage full text systematic screening and coding of 2,537 remaining records produced a population of 193 studies (41 systematic reviews, 30 RCTs and 122 quasi-experiments) that met our review criteria plus an additional four systematic reviews that brought together a range of criminal justice interventions targeting DFV. This level of attrition is common in systematic reviews of evaluation evidence in the crime and justice arena, reflective of the dearth of high quality evaluations in criminal justice interventions in the world. Systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses (the most robust forms of evidence) were prioritised in the written syntheses of evidence. Results Police-Focused Responses - 26 police-focused studies are included in the review; however, a number of police-led or police involved interventions were included as multi-/inter-agency responses. - Higher staffing levels are linked to a lower risk of DFV homicide. - The use of body worn cameras during DFV incidents and the collection of photographic evidence can positively impact court outcomes. - Proactive policing practices showed promising results regarding victim understanding of violent behaviours, understanding of no-contact orders, and help-seeking behaviours. - Mixed support is found for specialised domestic violence units. - Conditional cautioning practices reduce the severity of subsequent crimes for offenders. - Mandatory arrest policies are not associated with reductions in homicide or repeat victimisation. Evidence suggests that mandatory arrest can create further harm to victims, particularly for racial minorities. - Police training in evidence-based practices do not increase the length of time officers spend with victims at DFV incidents or improve conviction rates. Courts-Focused Responses - 36 courts-focused studies are included in the review. - Legal advocacy is associated with greater social support, better quality of life, reduced likelihood of further abuse, and greater access to community resources. - Restorative justice approaches uncovered mixed results with some studies suggesting fewer emergency visits to home and improvements in perpetrator empathy and self-esteem. - We found no evidence to support mandatory prosecution policies in terms of recidivist offending. - The impact of judicial monitoring on batterer intervention attendance and completion is mixed and difficult to disentangle, as is the evidence on specialised domestic violence courts. The increased supervision of offenders in these interventions is often linked to higher rates of recidivism when drawing on official reports. However these findings may reflect an increased ability to detect recidivism rather than the intervention causing greater abuse. Corrections-Focused Responses - 58 corrections-focused studies are included in the review. - Motivational interviewing techniques can increase offender motivation and readiness to change, increase program completion rates, and reduce domestic violence recidivism. - Incarcerated batterers in therapeutic community programs are less likely to be rearrested and re-incarcerated than non-treated offenders. - Treating concurrent risk factors – such as substance abuse problems – can help reduce reoffending. - Batterer programs which draw on multiple frameworks such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and Duluth are associated with lower reconviction rates. - Evidence was found to support specialised domestic violence probation programs. Multi-agency/Inter-agency Responses - 69 multi-/inter-agency studies are included in the review, with many involving police as intervention partners. - Initiatives that pair police and victim advocates (other than second responder programs) were associated with increased service uptake, lower homicide rates and greater police contact. - Second responder programs were not associated with a reduction in repeat victimisation. They did, however, appear to improve victim confidence in disclosing incidents to police. - Multi-agency centres for victim support are shown to effectively assist victims of DFV and improve conviction rates. - Legislative responses such as banning firearm possession for known DFV offenders is found to significantly decrease the number of DFV homicides by firearm. - Death Review Boards are shown to be effective in implementing system change although they are not associated with reductions in DFV homicides. - GPS monitoring of DFV offenders while on bail shows some promise in reducing the likelihood that offenders will enter exclusion zones of victim contact. - Intensive bail supervision is an effective deterrent. Concluding Observations - This review only covers studies that include robust impact evaluations of criminal justice interventions that address DFV and met our other inclusion criteria. The review of impact evaluation studies does not include studies that offer research into the causes and correlates of DFV, process evaluations, or qualitative or exploratory studies about DFV. - Of the 193 studies in our review, we identified a dearth of impact evaluation studies from Australia that met our eligibility criteria. -The evidence gap maps have identified where we have quite a bit of knowledge and, at the same time, a range of significant absences of impact evaluation knowledge. - From our review of police responses to DFV, we know quite a bit about the backfire effects of mandatory arrest, yet we know very little about the impacts of conditional cautioning, risk assessment, police contact, proactive policing, quality of police investigative methods and sole versus dual arrest strategies in relation to DFV. We have some emerging promising evidence around the use of body worn cameras. We have very few studies with outcome measures such as self-reported recidivism, official victimization, perpetrator psycho-social indicators and practitioner outcomes. Most of the policing impact evaluations used official recidivism as the primary outcome measure. - From our review of court responses to DFV, we have quite a bit of mixed evidence on specialised DFV courts and restorative justice interventions. We know very little about legal advocacy, although what we do know appears promising. Most of the courts-focused impact evaluations used official recidivism, self-reported victimisation, victim psycho-social indicators and court processing measures as the primary outcome measures. We uncovered no studies about court interventions that used self-reported recidivism, death/homicide or practitioner outcomes to assess effectiveness. - From our review of correctional responses to DFV, we have quite a bit of evidence pertaining to various types of treatment approaches (including integrative, mind-body, Duluth and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy), but far less evidence around culturally sensitive, substance abuse and group therapeutic responses. More research is also needed around assessing the effectiveness of computerised interventions and risk–needs–responsivity. The corpus of corrections-focused studies presented a wide variety of outcome measures, yet focused heavily on official and self-reported recidivism as well as perpetrator and victim psycho-social outcomes. No studies included official victimisation or death/homicide as outcome measures. - From our review of multi-/inter-agency responses to DFV, we observed a wide range of outcome measures used to assess the effectiveness of interventions. The main outcome measures used were official recidivism and victim psycho-social indicators. Most of the evaluation evidence focused on interventions such as second responder programs, partnerships around victim advocates, protection orders and multi-agency teams. Much less is known about effectiveness of practitioner training, Death Review Boards, victim help-seeking interventions, and multi-agency centres. Recommendations 1. This review – particularly the Evidence and Gap Maps – provides a guide to policymakers to carefully plan and prioritise a program of evaluations of interventions of CJS responses to DFV in Queensland. 2. Police interventions that are worthwhile for further consideration and a priority for evaluation include a. Programs that explicitly include follow up with DFV victims b. Proactive policing interventions that increase victim understanding of violent behaviours, no-contact orders and help seeking options c. Police use of body worn cameras during attendance at DFV incidents. 3. Court interventions that are worthwhile for further consideration and a priority for evaluation include a. legal advocacy b. enforcement of “no contact” orders c. restorative justice d. specialist and/or integrated DFV courts 4. Correctional interventions that are worthwhile for further consideration and a priority for evaluation include a. Computerised delivery of suitable programs (such as WORTH and online courses for those under correctional orders) b. Motivational interviewing accompanying various intervention programs (particularly therapeutic programs) to increase perpetrator participation and completion c. Specialised probation programs d. Substance abuse treatment programs for perpetrators e. Integrative treatment and mind-body bridging programs f. House of Hope (a therapeutic community program). 5. Multi-/Inter-agency interventions that are worthwhile for further consideration and a priority for evaluation include a. Second responder programs, particularly given the mixed evidence for these programs b. Collaborative multi-agency teams and centres to support victim help seeking c. GPS monitoring of DFV offenders while on bail d. Intensive bail supervision e. Electronic training for DFV responders about legislative reforms. 6. Across all criminal justice system responses to DFV, explore ways to include motivational interviewing into programs that target perpetrators as a way to increase perpetrator program participation and completion. 7. Examine the impact of programs beyond physical violence and official recidivism to include clear outcome measures of coercive behaviour and control (such as respectful communication, control and the well-being of children) in measuring effectiveness of DFV interventions. 8. Robust evaluations of DFV interventions with minority group representation (e.g. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people) should be prioritised. 9. DFV training of CJS practitioners, particularly using electronic and blended learning methods, is worthwhile for further testing and evaluating. Details: St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia: University of Queensland, 2018. 160p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 14, 2019 at: https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/586185/systematic-review-of-criminal-justice-responses-to-domestic-and-family-violence.pdf Year: 2018 Country: International URL: https://researchers.uq.edu.au/researcher/1074 Shelf Number: 154169 Keywords: Batterer Programs Body Worn Cameras Death Review Boards Domestic Violence Family Violence Impact Evaluation Legal Advocacy Mandatory Arrest Policies Physical Violence Quantitative Study Restorative Justice Systematic Review Victim Support |
Author: Strickland, Pat Title: Rights of Victims of Crime Summary: A Westminster Hall debate on Rights of victims of crime is scheduled for Tuesday 13 March 2018 at 2.30pm. The Member leading the debate is Alex Sobel MP. Currently victims’ rights are set out in the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime. This sets out what victims should expect from various criminal justice agencies. Although the Code is a statutory one, provided for in the Domestic Violence Crime and Victims Act 2004, failure to comply with it does not of itself make a person liable to criminal or civil proceedings. Courts can take such failure into account in other proceedings however. Some argue that the "rights" in the code are not sufficiently enforceable. The Victims Commissioner and Victim Support have pointed to problems with victims being given their rights under the Code. In the run up to the 2015 and the 2017 General Elections, various political parties including the Conservatives promised legislation on victims’ rights. The Government has said it will publish a strategy for victims "by the summer". Details: London, UK: Parliament, House of Commons, 2018. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 21, 2019 at: https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0066#fullreport Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2018-0066#fullreport Shelf Number: 154333 Keywords: Code of PracticeDomestic Violence Crime and Victims Act 2004Rights of VictimsUnited KingdomVictim AssistanceVictim SupportVictims of Crime |