Program Profile: Second Responder Program for Men (Ontario, Canada)

This is a program for moderate- and high-risk males accused of assaulting their intimate partners. The program is rated Promising. Compared with the comparison group, program participants had a statistically significant lower likelihood of being charged with any new domestic, property, or administrative offense and of having contact with the police. There was no statistically significant difference between groups on likelihood of being charged with a new violent offense.

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/Target Population

This Second Responder Program is an RNR (Risk, Needs, and Responsivity) program for men in Ontario, Canada, who are accused of assaulting their intimate partners and categorized as being at moderate-to-high risk of reoffending. The goal of the program is to identify and address the needs most closely related to the men’s offenses, and is centered on identified criminogenic needs (Andrews and Bonta 2006) and dynamic risk factors for domestic violence offending (Capaldi et al. 2012) in areas such as relationships, school or work, and antisocial cognitions and behaviors.

Services Provided

Participants attend individual appointments with therapists at a local service provider that specializes in domestic violence. The initial appointment is dedicated to completing the Brief Spousal Assault Form for the Evaluation of Risk (Kropp and Hart 2004) to assess the participants’ dynamic risk for domestic violence offending. Based on the results, they receive direct feedback on their assessed level of risk and on the areas of dynamic risk that contribute the most to their assessment. Examples of targeted risk factors include 1) their responses to recent separation from their victim (i.e., spouse, family member) and children (relationships); 2) fear of losing their job, 3) the financial stress of potential unemployment (work); and 4) exhibiting jealousy, possessiveness, disrespect of women, disrespect of legal authority, and minimization or denial of abusive behavior (antisocial cognitions). Other targeted risk factors include substance use, abuse, and dependency; a tendency to become angry or violent when using substances; depression; desperation; and hopelessness.

After the assessment, the men are invited to attend individual sessions with therapists to further address their dynamic risk factors while awaiting their court dates. These additional sessions provide them with connections to other community resources such as housing or legal aid, referrals to substance use treatment or mental health services, access to local food banks or shelters, and short-term, cognitive–behavioral therapy.

Program Theory

Second responder programs were originally established in the late 1980s and early 1990s to help women who were victims of domestic violence. The programs generally involve home visits and/or follow-up phone contact by social workers or specialized police teams. These second responder programs are designed to provide an immediate, short-term intervention to help women protect themselves from future victimization. The intent of the intervention is to enable victims to access social services, mental health, and advocacy resources, to reduce their risk for future victimization.

This version of the second responder intervention is targeted toward males who commit domestic violence (rather than victims) who are assessed as being at higher risk for reoffending. The intervention is tailored to each participant and focuses on immediate, practical actions they can take to reduce their dynamic risk for reoffending.

Study

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.

Subgroup Analysis

For the study by Scott and colleagues (2015), the police administrative data that were used to measure recidivism were not linked over time; therefore, the analysis of outcomes for the first year was treated independently from the analysis of outcomes for the second year. Below are the results from the first year (results from the second year are reported in Outcome Evidence).

The results showed that 1 year after participation, the Second Responder program participants were less likely than comparison group participants to have any charges that were domestic in nature (29.3 percent versus 65.9 percent, respectively), one or more charges (45.5 percent versus 85.0 percent, respectively), one or more violent charges (10.0 percent versus 52.5 percent, respectively), any administrative offense charges (20.0 percent versus 50.0 percent, respectively), and any general occurrences of police involvement (60.0 percent versus 95.0 percent, respectively). These differences were all statistically significant. There were, however, no statistically significant differences in property offense charges between program group participants and comparison group participants 1 year after the intervention.

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

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

Andrews, D.A., and James Bonta. 2006. The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (Fourth Edition). Newark, N.J.: LexisNexis/Matthew Bender.

Capaldi, Deborah M., Naomi B. Knoble, Joann Wu Shortt, and Hyoun K. Kim. 2012. “A Systematic Review of Risk Factors for Intimate Partner Violence.” Partner Abuse 3:231–80.

Kropp, P.R., and S.D. Hart. 2004. The Development of the Brief Spousal Assault Form for the Evaluation of Risk (B-SAFER): A Tool for Criminal Justice Professionals. Government of Canada, Department of Justice. Retrieved from