Program Profile: Explore, Question, Understand, Investigate and Practice, Plan, Succeed (EQUIPS) Domestic Abuse Program (New South Wales, Australia)

This program targets behavior changes in men who have committed a domestic violence offense, to reduce their risk of reoffending. The program is rated Promising. Men in the treatment group had statistically significant reductions in their rate of reconvictions and time to both their first violent and general reconvictions, compared with men in the control group. There were no statistically significant differences between groups in general or domestic violence reoffending within 12 months.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

Program Goals

Nearly one in four Australian women report being a victim of partner violence since the age of 15 (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2017). Therefore, domestic violence has become an important policy area in Australia, with a focus on the need to identify helpful responses and interventions to reduce domestic violence reoffending and its impact on victims, families, and the community. One such rehabilitative program in New South Wales, Australia, is EQUIPS (which stands for Explore, Question, Understand, Investigate and Practice, Plan, Succeed) Domestic Abuse Program. This is a behavior change program offered to medium- to high-risk men who are serving custodial or community-based sanctions and have a current intimate partner violence offense or a history of such offenses. The goal is to reduce domestic violence reoffending in this population.

Program Components/Target Population

The EQUIPS Domestic Abuse Program is offered by the Corrective Services of New South Wales. It targets men who score as medium to high risk on the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (Andrews and Bonta 1996) who have no current substantial drug, alcohol, intellectual deficits, or mental health issues preventing meaningful participation in a group program, and who have a case history of domestic abuse and/or related convictions. The program involves 20, two-hour sessions (40 hours total), grouped into five modules and delivered weekly or biweekly, in a closed group-based setting by trained facilitators approved by the Corrective Services of New South Wales. The five modules are based in empirically supported interventions and components known to reduce reoffending. These include 1) identifying abuse contains psycho-educational material to develop participants’ knowledge of abuse and cognitive–behavioral therapy techniques to challenge antisocial and proviolent cognitions (Thakker and Gannon 2010); 2) managing emotions, beliefs, and attitudes to challenge participants’ cognitions, feelings, and behaviors associated with the promotion or maintenance of violent behaviors (Polaschek 2011; Thakker and Gannon 2011; Hatcher et al. 2008); 3) offense mapping using behavior chain analysis to identify offending antecedents, warning signs, and high-risk situations (Polaschek 2011; Thakker and Gannon 2010); 4) introducing psycho-educational and Duluth-style material (Miller 2010) to address victim empathy and impact issues; and 5) discussing sexual respect, relationship skills, and safety strategies to model conflict management, communication skills, and dispute resolution techniques. The program content is highly structured, and program integrity is maintained through regular supervision and mentoring provided by the program coordinator. Session attendance and participant engagement and understanding are recorded. The last session of each module is less structured to promote therapeutic engagement and to address group process issues.

The EQUIPS Domestic Abuse Program began in 2015 to replace an earlier version, the Domestic Abuse Program, which was offered by the Corrective Services of New South Wales. While the original Domestic Abuse Program and EQUIPS are similar in terms of the core modules delivered, EQUIPS is an offense-specific program and is part of a larger suite of EQUIPS programs offered to individuals under the supervision of community corrections (Corrective Services NSW 2016).

Key Personnel

The EQUIPS Domestic Abuse Program is facilitated by two staff members, including one male and one female. Facilitators are specialist program facilitators, Community Corrections Officers (formerly Probation and Parole Officers) or trained external facilitators. All facilitators receive training in group work (O’Sullivan, Blatch, and Toh 2014), which includes working with individuals who have committed domestic violence offenses, motivational interviewing techniques, cognitive–behavioral therapy, and a two-day specific training in the Domestic Abuse Program delivery (Blatch et al. 2016).

Program Theory

The EQUIPS Domestic Abuse Program is based on several theoretical approaches, including risk, needs, and responsivity (Andrews and Bonta 2010); cognitive–behavioral therapy principles (Polaschek, 2011; Thakker and Gannon, 2011; Hatcher et al. 2008); and the Duluth Model (Miller 2010). The program targets medium- to high-risk men, and the five modules address individual criminogenic needs. Elements of cognitive–behavioral therapy (e.g., offense mapping; managing emotions, beliefs, and attitudes) are incorporated into the modules so participants can take responsibility for their actions. The Duluth model addresses power and control issues (e.g., role stereotyping, victim and family impacts, nurturing children and sexual respect) and one module of the program contains Duluth-style, feminist-based material (e.g., sexual respect and relationship skills, identifying abuse).

Study

Rahman and Poynton (2018) used a quasi-experimental design to assess the effect of the EQUIPS Domestic Abuse Program on both general and domestic violence recidivism after 12 months for men in New South Wales, Australia.

The cohort of interest was all males who had committed an offense and were referred to the program in 2015. Details for all individuals who were referred to the program in 2015 were extracted from the Corrective Services of New South Wales Offender Information Management System, and additional data were provided on all individuals referred to the program between 2008 and 2014. As individuals could be referred more than once between 2008 and 2015, each individual’s earliest referral to the EQUIPS Domestic Abuse Program was selected. This resulted in a sample of 1,312 unique individuals referred in 2015. This dataset was then linked to the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics Research Re-Offending Database to obtain demographic, offending, and reoffending data, and information on all court appearances finalized by March 31, 2017. The index appearance was identified by choosing the closest index appearance to the earliest sentence date on all active supervised orders that the individual was on at the time of referral to the program.

The treatment group comprised individuals who had committed an offense and who started the program within 12 months of referral (n = 487). The CrimeSolutions review of this study focused on outcomes for individuals who started the program within six months of referral, where starting was defined as completing four or more sessions. The treatment group received the EQUIPS Domestic Abuse Program as described in the Program Description. Individuals who were referred but did not start the program within 12 months comprised the control group (n = 786).

An instrumental variables approach was used to separate the effect of treatment on offending from the effect of other factors that were correlated with treatment participation. The instrumental variable reflected the EQUIPS Domestic Abuse Program commencement rate at the same time and location at which an individual was referred to the program (referred to as the peer non-commencement rate). This measured the availability of other eligible individuals to start the program at the time of a participant’s referral to the program. Location fixed effects (which would be relatively stable over the time period examined) were also included in the instrumental variable models to account for confounding effects. A range of variables that could potentially influence treatment allocation (referral to the program) and/or the likelihood of reoffending were considered for inclusion in the instrumental variable model. These included characteristics of the individuals, including age; Indigenous status; socioeconomic disadvantage categorized into quartiles (quartile 1 was the most disadvantaged, and quartile 4 was the least disadvantaged); remoteness of residence of the individual (categorized into major cities, inner regional, outer regional or remote or very remote, or unknown); and the Level of Service Inventory-Revised score in the most recent risk category (low or medium-low, medium, medium-high or high, or unknown). Other control variables included the characteristics of index finalization, prior criminal history, and characteristics of the participants’ active supervised orders.

Men in the treatment group were mostly in the 25–34 age group (38.6 percent) and the 35–44 age group (29.6 percent), had non-Indigenous or unknown status (63.2 percent) and scored in the medium-risk category on the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (62.4 percent). In terms of socioeconomic disadvantage, 29 percent of men in the treatment group were quartile 1, most disadvantaged; and 34.9 percent were quartile 2, disadvantaged. Men in the treatment group had an average of 3.62 proven concurrent charges at index contact (including principal offense). The control group men were mostly in the 25–34 age group (37.3 percent) and the 35-44 age group (30.5 percent), had non-Indigenous or unknown status (60.3 percent) and scored in the medium-risk category on the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (56.6 percent). In terms of socioeconomic disadvantage, 31.9 percent of men in the control group were in quartile 1, most disadvantaged; and 33.6 percent were in quartile 2, disadvantaged. Men in the control group had an average of 4.05 proven concurrent charges at index contact (including principal offense). There were statistically significant differences between groups on demographic characteristics (age, socioeconomic disadvantage, and remoteness of residence), Level of Service Inventory-Revised risk category, the number of proven concurrent charges at index contact, the time remaining on supervised orders, the number of finalized court appearances (with proven offense/s) as a juvenile or adult, and the penalties received in the five years prior to finalization. These differences were controlled for in the analysis.

Recidivism was the outcome examined and was defined as any new proven offense or a proven domestic violence-related offense committed after the program referral date and prior to December 31, 2016, which allowed for a minimum of 12 months of follow up after the recorded referral date for all individuals in the sample and a 3-month lag for new offenses to be finalized in court. The referral date was used as the starting date for measuring reoffending as it was available for individuals in both the treatment and control groups.

The models were estimated as follows: first, a two-stage least-squares estimation method was used for the instrumental variables analysis. The instrumental variable (the number of program starters, by peer non-commencement rate) was included in a first-stage linear regression (the treatment equation), to obtain the predicted probability of starting the program for those in the referral group. These predicted probabilities were then used in place of starting the program in a second-stage linear regression predicting reoffending (the outcome equation). A recursive bivariate probit approach was also used. Both models were estimated using clustered standard errors for the community correction offices from which individuals were referred, to take into account any possible correlation in reoffending rates within sites. No subgroup analysis was conducted.

Study

Blatch and colleagues (2016) conducted a quasi-experimental design with propensity score matching to assess the effect of the Corrective Services of New South Wales’s Domestic Abuse Program on time to reconviction and reconviction rates for participating men after approximately 33 months.

All individuals were eligible for treatment if they were referred to the Domestic Abuse Program at a Corrective Services of New South Wales community corrections office from October 1, 2007, until June 30, 2010 (known as the “census date,” the final date for observation of potential reoffending). The treatment group of 953 program participants was identified from the Corrective Services of New South Wales electronic Offender Information Management System, and a pool of potential control group individuals was also extracted from this database using the following criteria: considered eligible for referral; identified in case notes as having domestic abuse or violence as a treatment need due to past behaviors, convictions, or family reports; had not been previously enrolled in a domestic abuse program; and served a community supervision or parole order between July 1, 2007, and the census date of June 30, 2010. The final pool was 5,734 potentially eligible controls for the propensity score matching procedure. Risk factors empirically associated with reoffending were modeled using binary logistic regression to predict membership of the treatment group. Nine significant risk factors were identified, including type of order (community service, parole, supervision); most serious offense committed (other, assault or homicide, property damage, regulatory offenses/order breaches); custodial sentences and conviction counts in the previous five years; and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status. Using a stepwise logistic regression model, these risk factors, including age, were used to calculate a single propensity score (between 0 and 1) for each participant. A nearest neighbor, one-to-one matching procedure without replacement was employed. The list of treated participants was sorted randomly and matched in sequence to the control group member with a propensity score closest to their own, leaving a final matched cohort of 953 in each group. The treatment group received the EQUIPS Domestic Abuse Program as described in the Program Description, and the control group did not participate in the program during the study period.

In the matched sample, men in the treatment group were an average of 33.4 years old, had a mean total Level of Service Inventory-Revised score of 23.8, and 19 percent were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. Men in the treatment group had an average of 0.66 times in custody in the last five years, 76 percent had an assault or homicide as their most serious offense, and 81 percent were on supervision for their order type. Men in the control group were an average of 33.5 years old, had a mean total Level of Service Inventory-Revised score of 23.8, and 19 percent were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. Men in the control group had an average of 0.65 times in custody over the last five years, 76 percent had an assault or homicide as their most serious offense, and 80 percent were on supervision for their order type. After matching, there were no statistically significant differences between the treatment and control groups.

Prior convictions and reconviction data for all potential study participants, before matching, came from the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research Re-Offending database, which recorded details of all convictions and sentences. Reconvictions were counted up to December 31, 2010, allowing six months after the study census date of June 30, 2010, for any outstanding charges to be finalized. The “follow-up start date” was defined as the start date of the supervised order, associated with the most serious offense active at the time of Domestic Abuse Program enrollment. For individuals on supervised parole, the release date from custody defined their follow-up start date. For men in the control group, the follow-up start date was also the start date of the supervision order during which they were identified as having a domestic violence treatment need from their Offender Information Management System case management plan. “Days at risk” were calculated from an individual’s follow-up start date to the study census date, subtracting any days spent in custody or police cells, to provide an accurate measure of the number of days free in the community for any reoffending to occur. Finalized convictions for each individual, from their order start date up to December 30, 2010, were totaled to determine the reconviction rate. If several charges were finalized on the same date, only the most serious offense was recorded. Some of the treatment cohort reoffended before receiving treatment, and these reconvictions were included to ensure equivalent follow-up start date definitions for both the treatment and control groups.

An intent-to-treat design was used in the analysis. Cox regressions and one Poisson regression model, fitted with risk factors associated with reoffending fitted as covariates, were run. These included Level of Service Inventory-Revised risk scores; age (at start of order); most serious offense of current order; Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander status; and most serious offense and number of incarcerations in the five years prior to the order date, with concurrent sentences counted as one custodial episode. Cox regressions were used to compare survival time to first general reconviction (which included all types of crime) and first violent reconviction (violent offenses were classified using the Australian Standard Offence Classification Codes and included homicide, assaults against a person, sexual assault, or violence order breaches). Poisson regression compared the number of finalized reconvictions (most serious offense only) in the follow-up period, adjusted for time at risk, with those of controls. Poisson regression analysis was also conducted for time to first reconviction by program completion status.

Study

Blatch and colleagues (2020) used the full dataset from Study 2 (Blatch et al. 2016) with a retrospective quasi-experimental design, to assess the effectiveness of the Domestic Abuse Program on reconviction rates. While this study aimed to examine outcomes specifically for the subgroup of Australian Indigenous men, the authors included results for the full sample, which was the focus for this CrimeSolutions review.

The methodology was the same as described in Study 2 (Blatch et al. 2016). In the propensity score matching procedure, 10 significant factors predicted membership in the Domestic Abuse Program treatment group: Level of Service Inventory-Revised risk score, type of supervision order (community service, parole, or supervision), most serious offense type (other, assault or homicide, property damage, regulatory offenses/order breaches), Indigenous status, and the number of custodial sentences in the five years preceding the index offense. Using stepwise logistic regression, these risk factors were used to calculate a single propensity score (between 0 and 1) for the 957 men in the treatment group and all potential (untreated) controls (n = 5,734), resulting in a matched sample of 953 in each group. As in Study 2, after matching there were no statistically significant differences between the treatment and control groups.

The outcome of interest was reconvictions, summed from the index offense date for participants on community orders, or the custody release date for participants released on supervised parole, up to December 31, 2010, six months after the final observation date of June 30, 2010, to allow offenses committed before that date to be prosecuted and finalized. Treated participants’ reconvictions before the program start date were included to ensure equivalent reconviction start dates for the treatment (which included nonstarters and dropouts) and control groups. Cohen’s d determined effects size for the full treatment and control groups, using standardized mean reconviction differences. A subgroup analysis was conducted by Australian Indigenous status.

Blatch and colleagues (2017) conducted a cost–benefit analysis of the Corrective Services of New South Wales Domestic Abuse Program. They found that the total cost of selecting, interviewing, and assessing individuals who had offended, and implementing the program was $602,869 or $585 per individual enrolled, and the total net benefit of the program (after deducting the cost of program delivery from comparative savings between the program treatment and control groups) was $1,141,397 to the New South Wales criminal justice system, which includes the courts, community, and custodial jurisdictions.

Blatch and colleagues (2016) (Study 2) conducted a subgroup analysis (Poisson regression analysis) by Domestic Abuse Program completion status and found no statistically significant differences in time to first general reconviction for program non-starters (those who enrolled but failed to attend any program sessions) and noncompleters (those who attended fewer than 16 sessions), compared with those in the control group. Blatch and colleagues (2020) conducted a subgroup analysis by Australian Indigenous status and found that Indigenous men who participated in the Domestic Abuse Program had about 50 percent fewer reconvictions than Indigenous men in the control group who did not participate in the program. This difference was statistically significant.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Interventions for Persons Who Committed Intimate-Partner Violence: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

The practice includes interventions that are designed to reduce partner violence by identifying and changing the thought processes leading to violent acts and teaching new skills to control and change their behavior. These interventions use cognitive behavioral therapy as applied in a domestic violence setting. The practice is rated Ineffective in recidivism outcomes for violent offenses and ineffective in reducing victimization.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Crime & Delinquency - Violent offenses
	Victimization - Domestic/intimate partner/family violence

Interventions for Persons Who Committed Intimate-Partner Violence: Duluth Model

This practice employs a feminist psychoeducational approach with group-facilitated exercises to change abusive and threatening behavior in males who engage in domestic violence. The practice is rated Effective for reducing recidivism with respect to violent offenses and Promising in reducing victimization. The results found fewer partner reports of violence in the intervention group relative to the comparison groups.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Crime & Delinquency - Violent offenses
	Victimization - Domestic/intimate partner/family violence

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) for Adults at Moderate- and High-Risk of Offending

This is a problem-focused, therapeutic approach that attempts to help people identify and change dysfunctional beliefs, thoughts, and patterns of behavior that contribute to their problems. For adults, CBT teaches them how cognitive deficits, distortion, and flawed thinking processes can lead to criminal behavior. The practice is rated Promising for reducing crime committed by moderate- and high-risk adults.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?