Domestic Abuse FORENSIC COGNITION VIOLENCE AND VICTIMS THURSDAY

Domestic Abuse FORENSIC COGNITION VIOLENCE AND VICTIMS THURSDAY 18 TH MAY 2017

Today… Tracy Allen-Lea: CYP Services Manager Listening Ear Psychological harm/ impact that DA has on children and young people Charlotte Watkinson: Teaching and Research Fellow LJMU Victims and perpetrators

Quiz What is our perception of domestic abuse?

Definition The UK government’s definition of domestic violence is: “Any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are, or have been, intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality. The abuse can encompass, but is not limited to psychological, physical, sexual, financial, emotional. ” (Safe Lives, 2016).

Facts… Each year around 2. 1 m people suffer some form of domestic abuse. 1. 4 million women (8. 5% of total population) and 700, 000 men (4. 5% of total population) (ONS, 2015). Domestic abuse costs society an estimated £ 15. 7 billion per year (HMIC, 2014). Around 100, 000 people are at high immediate risk of being killed or seriously injured as a result of domestic abuse (Safe Lives, 2015). 7 women a month, on average, are killed by a current or former partner (ONS, 2015). 95% of victims at MARAC and accessing IDVA services are women (Safe Lives, 2015). On average high-risk victims live with domestic abuse for 2. 3 years before getting help (Safe Lives, 2015).

A growing problem? 10, 918 12000 10000 7, 022 8000 6000 4, 908 55% increase 4000 2000 0 2013 2014 Total 2015

What is being done about DA? Clares Law This is Abuse campaign IDVAs MARACs DVPN/Os Specialist domestic abuse courts Risk Assessments

Clare’s law Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme The right to ask, the right to know! Under the scheme individuals can ask the police to check if a partner has an abusive past. If records show that an individual may be at risk of domestic violence from a partner, the police will consider disclosing this information. Agencies can apply for disclosure if they believe an individual is at risk. See Fitz-Gibbon and Walklate (2016) “The efficacy of Clare’s Law in domestic violence law reform in England Wales”

‘This is abuse’ campaign Campaign aims: Prevent teenagers from becoming victims and perpetrators of abusive relationships. By encouraging teenagers to re-think their views of violence, abuse and controlling behaviours within their relationships and direct them to places for help and advice Campaign objectives: Raise awareness of the issue of relationship abuse, improve understanding of what constitutes relationship abuse (not just physical it can also be emotional abuse and controlling behaviour as well), empower teenagers to identify, challenge and report abusive behaviours.

Independent domestic violence advocates (idva) “IDVAs help keep victims and their children safe from harm from violent partners or family. Serving as a victim’s primary point of contact, IDVAs normally work with their clients from the point of crisis, to assess the level of risk. They: discuss the range of suitable options develop plans for immediate safety – including practical steps for victims to protect themselves and their children develop plans for longer-term safety represent their clients at the MARAC help apply sanctions and remedies available through the criminal and civil courts, including housing options These plans address immediate safety, including practical steps for victims to protect themselves and their children, as well as longer-term solutions. ” (Gov UK, 2016).

Multi agency risk assessment conference (Marac) “The role of MARAC coordinators and administrators is to: help to establish communication between all parties give information to partner agencies about the MARAC process, where appropriate work with the chair to identify agency gaps establish links with these agencies to enable them to take part in the MARAC” (Gov UK, 2016). The MARAC model was first developed in Cardiff in 2003, in response to the lack of systematic risk assessment amongst agencies responding to domestic violence and the need for a forum for local agencies to share information about victims experiencing extremely serious levels of abuse (Robinson & Tredigda, 2005). Steel et al. (2011) “Supporting high-risk victims of domestic violence: a review of Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conferences (MARACs)”.

How IDVAs & MARACs work…

Domestic violence protection notices/orders (dvpn/o) In March 2009 Chief Constable Moore (Wiltshire Police) was asked to undertake a full review of what additional powers the Criminal Justice Service (CJS) might need to control the activities of perpetrators of gender based violence, including domestic violence and in particular serial offenders. The review, entitled ‘Tackling Perpetrators of Violence against Women and Girls’, identified a number of proposals one of which relates to Domestic Violence Protection Notices (DVPNs). There was a gap in readily available, affordable and timely orders in the immediate aftermath of domestic violence. A Domestic Violence Protection Notice and Order is aimed at perpetrators who present an on-going risk of violence to the victim with the objective of securing a co-ordinated approach across agencies for the protection of victims and the management of perpetrators. Domestic Violence Protection Notice (DVPN) – A DVPN is the initial notice of immediate emergency protection that is issued by a police force. Domestic Violence Protection Order (DVPO) – a DVPO is an order made by the magistrates’ court after a DVPN has been issued. A DVPO may be in force for between 14 -28 days, beginning on the date it is made by the magistrates’ court. Gov UK, 2011

Specialist Domestic violence courts SDVCs are where perpetrators of domestic abuse ae fast-tracked through the criminal justice system. Magistrates are specially trained and will ensure that offenders are dealt with swiftly and robustly. Liverpool SDVC (now includes Knowsley cases) Sefton SDVC St Helens SDVC Wirral SDVC Victims retracting statements is a key issue for the specialist courts. Half the victims in Robinson and Cook (2006) study retracted their statements. Of those retracting, almost half of victims retracted before trial (44%), and more than one-third (35%) retracted before the defendant entered a plea. Seven victims (7%) retracted on the day of the trial. The most common reason given was that the couple had reconciled (27%).

Risk assessments A 2014 HMIC inspection nationally examining the police response to domestic abuse, uncovered disappointing results. HMIC argued “Tackling domestic abuse and keeping its victims safe is both vitally important, and incredibly complicated. The police service needs to have the right tools, resources, training and partnerships in place to help it identify victims and keep them safe” (HMIC, 2014). Very often the police take the majority of the criticism as they are often the first response with the expectation to tackle domestic abuse placed on them (Monckton-Smith et al, 2014). Hoyle (2008) examines this idea in relation to the risk assessments police forces use. She notes that the risk management techniques used are solely directed firmly at focussing on victims to reduce their risk of victimisation, leaving little encouragement for offenders to take responsibility or challenge for their behaviour. Trujillo and Ross (2008) examined police use of risk assessments in domestic abuse finding that the majority of officers ranked risk in the middle category, ensuring some support was given. CAADA DASH VS Me. RIT

Agencies involved in the management of domestic abuse Police Local Authori ty Health Domesti c Abuse Third Sector Support Agencies Crown Prosecution Service Probatio n/CRC

Listening Ear – Tracy Allen-Lea

Offenders

Who are domestic abuse offenders? Male convictions (2014/15): 85, 687 63, 675 (74. 3%) convicted 22, 012 (25. 7%) unsuccessful Female conviction 2014/15: 7, 013 5, 641 (70. 6%) convicted 2, 351 (29. 4%) unsuccessful Why such a difference?

Who are domestic abuse offenders? Risk factors; witnessing domestic violence in childhood, disrupted attachment patterns, high levels of interpersonal dependency and jealousy, attitudes condoning domestic violence and lack of empathy. Criminogenic needs; antisocial attitudes, drug dependency, low level education and poor, vocational, cognitive and interpersonal skills contribute directly to criminal behaviour. Two types of domestic violence offender: Borderline/emotionally dependent offenders: they had high levels of jealousy, intense relationships, high level of interpersonal dependency, anger and low self-esteem. Anti-social/Narcissistic offenders: they tended to have hostile attitudes towards women, low empathy and had the highest rate of alcohol dependence and previous convictions. Gilchrist et al (2003)

Domestic abuse by women against men Stalans (1996) 2/3 of police callout are to female victims and male perpetrators of domestic abuse. Women were more likely than men to have experienced intimate violence across all headline types of abuse asked about, for example, 2. 7% of women and 0. 7% of men had experienced some form of sexual assault (including attempts) in the last year (ONS, 2016). Straus has a different view… In US family surveys, the results found that domestic abuse by women against men was as common as domestic abuse by men against women – why don’t statistics reflect this? ‘Husband battering’

Serial DA Offenders Domestic abuse has a higher rate of repeat victimization than any other crime, accounting for 76% of all incidents (Smith, Flatley, & Coleman, 2010). Research demonstrates that the majority of male domestic abuse perpetrators are repeat offenders, with English research producing a figure of 83% within a six-year period (Hester, 2013) The idea of the “serial domestic abuser” has emerged in recent years to typify the most dangerous type of domestic abuser. There an estimated 25, 000 serial abusers in contact with the police at any one time in the United Kingdom. Richard’s (2004) research found of 400 serious domestic abusers evidence of significant reoffending, this included serial offenders who go from one abusive relationship to the next. Hester and Westmarland (2007) study of 692 perps, found 50% to reoffend within the 3 year follow up.

The Power Few (Sherman, 2007) A category of offenders who take up a large amount of police resources and create the greatest amount of harm overall to victims. The theory is to provide an unequal investment of resources in that specific category of offenders, therefore providing higher levels of resources to respond to the ‘power few’. The concept is based on the notion that concentrating resources on the ‘power few’ will reduce the amount of overall harm in the long term, rather than spreading resources too thinly to respond to all domestic abuse perpetrators equally. 80 -20 rule (Pareto Principle)

The Power Few 20% offenders 80% of harm 80% offenders 20% of harm The ‘power few’ are often the hardest ‘nuts to crack’ but if you leave them unchecked, those offenders will carry on to create the majority of the harm.

The Power Few Bland Ariel (2015) examined 36, 000 police records of domestic abuse between 2009 and 2014 recorded by Suffolk Constabulary in the east of England. The study used the CCHI to unpick if the severity of domestic abuse incidents increases with the frequency of incidents. The results of their study conclude that whilst there is no significant indication of escalation in relation to the severity of abuse, the research did find that 2% of the offenders in their cohort accounted for 80% of the domestic abuse harm as measured by the severity of the abuse inflicted (ibid). Bland Ariel (2015) in their study of those that accounted for 80% of the harm, identified three subcategories; offenders with only one reported case, offenders with one reported case but no more than five and; offenders with more than five reported cases - the ‘chronic’ domestic abuse offender.

The Criminal Justice Response The criminal justice response as a whole in England Wales has also received intense criticism from academics and women’s advocates since the 1970’s (Taylor-Dunn, 2016). Since the 1980’s there have been various research projects, that have influenced the criminal justice response to domestic abuse. However, many of these are largely contradictory and inconclusive to the most effective interventions for domestic abuse.

Sherman and berk – Minneapolis study (1984) 315 cases of misdemeanour domestic abuse incidents. Randomly assigned one of three possible outcomes; arrest, 8 hour separation or advice/mediation at scene. The study believed arrest to be the most effective policing intervention. Because of the immediacy and visibility of arrest, it was believed that this deterred the arrested person and send a message to potential abusers (Hagemann-White et al, 2015). The implementation of mandatory and pro-arrest laws for domestic abuse globally.

Flawed? Out of date? Is arrest still the most effective?

Felson et al (2005) argue that the Minneapolis study was substantially flawed. The research ignored a large number of domestic abuse incidents that are of significant interest and importance – those unreported to the police. Longitudinal study drawing upon data from the National Crime Victimisation Survey (NCVS) with a focus upon reporting and effects of arrest on repeat offences. Police involvement did have a strong deterrent effect on domestic abuse. The effect of arrest was small and statistically insignificant.

Today… Still largely inconclusive… Klein and Tobin (2008) argue that they found that 60% of DV offenders reoffended within 10 years following law enforcement intervention. Arrests for domestic violence, across entire populations, can produce small reductions in short-term repeat offending (Maxwell et al. 2003). As a result of these studies, the police have become the primary first responder for domestic abuse (Horwitz et al, 2011). Very often the police take the majority of the criticism as they are often the first response with the expectation to tackle domestic abuse placed on them (Monckton-Smith et al, 2014).

Alternatives…

Project CARA A partnership between Hampton Trust, CAADA, Hampshire Constabulary, CPS and University of Cambridge. Project CARA deals with standard & medium risk offending, perpetrators with little or no previous offending history. The project aims to provide a timely intervention to prevent further DA offending. 82% report that workshop has improved attitude towards their partner 84% report that workshop has prompted reflection of their own behaviour 91% report that workshop has assisted with issues within the relationship

Domestic Violence Perpetrator Programmes (DVPPs) What are they? DVPP is a group programme for perpetrators to develop their skills and understanding, enabling them to: Improve their relationship with their ex-partner and where relevant, their current partner Ensure, as far as is possible, their use of violence and abusive behaviour towards a partner is not repeated Develop safe, positive parenting Increase their awareness of themselves and the effect of the domestic abuse on their ex-partner and children Resolve conflicts in intimate relationships non-abusively DVPP groups are of between 8 -12 participants, take place outside working time and weekly sessions last for between 2 and 2. 5 hours over about six months. Every DVPP has a parallel service that supports partners and ex-partners at risk from domestic abuse and this service is offered to the partner and ex-partner of any person assessed for the DVPP providers will assess an individual’s suitability for the programme.

Domestic Violence Perpetrator Programmes (DVPPs) Despite the growing focus on domestic abuse perpetrator programmes nationally, little research has been conducted regarding how offenders use techniques in such programmes to change their behaviour (Wistow et al, 2016). During the 1980’s vastly concluded that perpetrator programmes were ineffective in impacting on violent and abusive behaviour, with further little effect on offenders verbal, psychological and other forms of abuse (Eisikovits and Edleson, 1989).

Domestic Violence Perpetrator Programmes (DVPPs) Dobash et al (1996) research concluded that women whose partners participated behaviour had improved. Findings which are encouraging. Gondolf (2002) conducted an extensive evaluation exploring four ‘batterer programs’ in the US. The results were generally positive, as re-assault rates and women’s perceptions were more positive than before the program, with the majority of men becoming violence free in the 30 month follow up. However, there is now a pressure upon agencies to provide perpetrator programmes that are evidence based and also accredited (Morran, 2010).

Project Mirabal A mixed-methods, longitudinal study of domestic violence perpetrator programmes. The aim of the project was to investigate the effectiveness in such programmes reducing abuse and increasing safety, well-being and freedom for victims. Rather than looking at whether programmes ‘work’ to decrease violence. The project found that domestic abuse perpetrator programmes can have an impact on changing offender behaviour. Project Mirabal suggests that the length and depth of programmes has the impact on deeper behaviour changes, with group work deemed to be a technique to stimulate such change. Physical and sexual violence reduced significantly and in some cases ended Kelly and Westmarland (2015)

Task… Reading Kelly and Westmarland’s summary of Project Mirabal, answer the following questions… 1. What are your views on domestic abuse perpetrator programmes? 2. Examining the research conducted for Project Mirabal, do you think perpetrator programmes can be effective to reduce domestic abuse offending? 3. What are some of the limitations of domestic abuse perpetrator programmes? 4. Considering serial domestic abusers, do you think perpetrator programmes can be; 1. Suitable? 2. Effective?

Victims

Victims of domestic abuse “The support needs of victims of domestic abuse are complex and dependent upon individual circumstances. However, early identification of all individuals at risk and provision of timely, effective support are critical in breaking the cycles of abuse and protecting the wellbeing of victim/survivors” (NWPHO, 2012).

Male victims In 2014/15, 2. 8% of men (equivalent to 500, 000) and 6. 5% of women (equivalent to 1. 1 million) experienced partner abuse: For every three victims of partner abuse, two will be female and one will be male. In 2014/15 6. 6% of men aged 16 -19 were victims of domestic abuse. Of those that suffered partner abuse in 2014/15, a higher proportion of men suffered from force (37%) than women (29%). For emotional and psychological abuse the proportions were 61% and 63% respectively. Male victims (29%) are over twice as likely than women (12%) to not tell anyone about the partner abuse they are suffering from. Only 10% of male victims will tell the police (26% women), only 23% will tell a person in an official position (43% women) and only 11% (23% women) will tell a health professional. The number of women convicted of perpetrating domestic abuse has more than quadrupled in the past ten years from 806 (2004/05) to 4, 866 (2014/15). Only 18 services nationally provide refuge to men, in comparison to the 400 available to women and children.

Male victims

Task… Read the executive summary of Dempsey (pages 6 -11) and answer the following questions… 1. Why is there an under-reporting from male victims of domestic abuse? 2. What are the most common types of abuse reported by men? 3. What examples of good practice are available to responding to male victims of domestic abuse?

Taken from Dr Ben Hine

Support services The Police also have the opportunity to risk assess and refer individuals to domestic abuse support services. Outreach Support-found to be effective in supporting victims (Humphreys and Thiara, 2002), in particular, when group activities that use a self-help approach are used (Bossy and Coleman, 2000). Refuge Accommodation / Resettlement services- little evaluation, however, time spent in a women’s shelter has been associated with increased feelings of safety, a reduction in depression, and greater levels of hope. Sanctuary Schemes-effective at supporting victims to stay in their own home, reducing repeat incidents and preventing homelessness (CLG, 2006). Victim Support Groups- well documented that women often draw strength and benefit from such specialist services, due both to their interaction with other survivors of abuse, and to the one-to-one support from trained staff or volunteers. Restorative Justice- (Restorative Justice Council, 2014) (Pelikan 2009)

Victims Attrition rates Fewer than one in four people who suffer abuse at the hands of their partner report it to the police (Home Office, 2014). Mac. Queen and Norris (2016) argue that in spite of the raft of activity around supporting victims of domestic abuse, they remain the least likely group to report their victimisation to the police. Grauwiler (2008) interviewed 20 female victims, who viewed their experiences of the police, legal intervention and social services as negative. Hoyle and Sanders (2000) argue that many women do not call the police or seek criminal sanctions because of how unlikely the process is to help end the abuse. The women in their study who did want their partners to be arrested (31/53) often wanted no prosecution but arrest to act as a lesson or to remove the immediate risk posed to them (ibid). Robinson (2015) argues also that when children are involved in a relationship, the victim is more likely to want to stay in that relationship.

UN campaign – 16 days of action (25/11/1610/12/16)

Domestic abuse myths… Match the myths with the facts.

Conclusion Domestic abuse is a societal issue, for both men and women. Evidence tells us that there is a category of serial domestic abuse offenders Alternative actions are being favoured in order to reduce domestic abuse The ‘power few’ Domestic violence perpetrator programmes Current societal myths contribute to the stereotypical image of domestic abuse

Reading list Ariza, J. J. M. , Robinson, A. and Myhill, A. (2016) “Cheaper, Faster, Better: Expectations and Achievements in Police Risk Assessment of Domestic Abuse”, Policing, 1 -10 Clark, S. , Burt, M. R. , Schulte, M. M. and Maguire, K. (1996) Coordinated Community Responses to Domestic Violence in Six Communities. Beyond the Justice System (Report to the Urban Institute for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Planning and Evaluation) (available online at http: //aspe. hhs. gov/hsp/cyp/domvilnz. htm [accessed on; 05/09/2016]). Eley, S. (2005) ‘Changing Practices: The Specialised Domestic Violence Court Process’, Criminal Justice, 44, (2), 11 -124 Felson, R. B. et al. (2005) ‘Police intervention and the repeat of domestic assault’, U. S Department of Justice. Gov UK (2011) ‘Interim Guidance Document for Police Regional Pilot Schemes June 2011 – June 2012’, https: //www. gov. uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/97864/DV-protection-orders. pdf Griffith, R. (2016) ‘Understanding the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme’, British Journal of Midwifery, 24, (4), 298 -299 Hagemann-White et al. (2015) ‘Overview of current policies on arrest, prosecution, and protection by the police and the justice system as responses to domestic violence’ in Johnson, H. et al. (eds. ), ‘Critical issues on violence against women: International perspectives and promising strategies’, London: Routledge HMIC (2014) https: //www. justiceinspectorates. gov. uk/hmic/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/merseyside-approach-to-tackling-domestic-abuse. pdf Howarth, E. , Stimpson, L. , Barran, D. , & Robinson, A. L. (2009). Safety in numbers: A multisite evaluation of independent domestic violence advisor services. London, UK: The Henry Smith Charity. Retrieved from http: //www. caada. org. uk/research/Safety_in_Numbers_full_report. pdf Horwitz, S. H. et al. (2011) ‘An inside view of police officers’ experience with domestic violence’, Journal Family Violence, 26, 617 -625 Keeling, J. and Fisher, C. (2015) ‘Health Professionals’ Responses to Women’s Disclosure of Domestic Violence’, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, (13), 2363– 2378

Reading list Kelly, L. and Westmarland, N. (2015) Domestic Violence Perpetrator Programmes: Steps Towards Change. Project Mirabal Final report, London and Durham: London Metropolitan University and Durham University. Klein, A. R. and Tobin, T. (2008) “A longitudinal study of arrested batterers, 1995 -2005: career criminals”, Violence Against Women, 14, (2), 136 -157 Monckton-Smith, J. et al. (2014) Domestic Abuse, Homicide and Gender, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan Myhill, A. and Johnson, K. (2015) ‘Police use of discretion in response to domestic violence’, Criminology & Criminal Justice, 16, (1), 3 -20 Robinson, A. and Cook, D. (2006) ‘Understanding Victim Retraction in Cases of Domestic Violence: Specialist Courts, Government Policy, and Victim. Centred Justice’, Contemporary Justice Review, 9, (2), 189 -213 Robinson, A. and Howarth, E. (2012) ‘Judging Risk: Key Determinants in British Domestic Violence Cases’, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, (8), 1489– 1518 Robinson, A. and Tregidga, J. (2005) ‘Domestic Violence MARACs for Very High-Risk Victims in Cardiff, Wales: Views from the Victims’. Cardiff: Cardiff University. Robinson, A. and Tregidga, J. (2007) ‘The Perceptions of High-Risk Victims of Domestic Violence to a Coordinated Community Response in Cardiff, Wales’, Violence Against Women, 13, (11), 1130 -1148 Sherman, L. W. and Berk, R. A. (1984) ‘The Specific Deterrent Effects of Arrest for Domestic Assault’, American Sociological Review, 49, (2), 261 -272 Steel, N. et al. (2011) “Supporting high-risk victims of domestic violence: a review of Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conferences (MARACs)” Home Office Taylor-Dunn, h. (2016) ‘The impact of victim advocacy on the prosecution of domestic violence offences: Lessons from a Realistic Evaluation’, Criminology and Criminal Justice, 16, (1), 21 -39