Tracking Repeat Victimisation After Domestic Abuse Cases Are Heard With and Without Independent Domestic Violence Advisors (IDVAs) in an English Magistrate’s Court

Author:

Ross John,Sebire Jaqueline,Strang Heather

Abstract

Abstract Research Question Do cases heard in a specialist domestic abuse (SDA) court on days when Independent Domestic Violence Advisors (IDVAs) are present to engage with victims, compared to cases heard on days when no IDVAs are present, result in more convictions, or less frequency or severity of repeat victimisation? Data This analysis included all 559 trials in one SDA court from June 2016 to December 2018, including 514 unique victims. IDVAs were present on the starting day of 84% of the trials, leaving 16% (90) cases to start on days when no IDVAs were present. Methods The treatment and comparison cases were compared for similarity of 23 characteristics, with only one difference of over 20%. The analysis proceeded as appropriate for a Level 4 (Sherman et al., Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising: A report to the United States Congress, National Institute of Justice, 1997) quasi-experimental comparison between the treatment and comparison cases. Findings IPA trials in the IDVA treatment group were 12% less likely than those in the comparison group to result in a conviction (RR=0.88, 95% CI 0.74-1.05). Trials in the IDVA treatment group had a 96% higher risk of being followed by a repeat domestic abuse incident in the 18 months after trial than trials in the no-IDVA comparison group (RR = 1.96, 95% CI 1.19–3.23). Treatment group victims experienced a mean harm score for repeat victimisation in the 18 months post-trial eight times higher than the comparison group (80 compared with ten). Conclusions The provision of Independent Domestic Violence Advisors in a specialist domestic abuse court was clearly correlated with higher rates of repeat victimisation, as well as higher levels of harm in repeat offences and lower rates of conviction. This correlation could well be causal, but only a randomised controlled trial can rule out that possibility.

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

General Medicine

Reference20 articles.

1. Barrow-Grint, K. (2016). Attrition rates in domestic abuse: Time for a change? An application of temporal sequencing theory. Policing, 10(3), 250–263.

2. Burton, M., Evans, R., & Sanders, A. (2006). An evaluation of the use of special measures for vulnerable and intimidated witnesses. Home Office Findings, 270, 1–4.

3. Chopin, J., & Aebi, M. F. (2020). (2018) ‘The level of attrition in domestic violence: A valid indicator if the efficiency of a criminal justice system?’ European Journal of Criminology, 17(3), 269–287.

4. CPS. (2020). Domestic abuse guidelines for prosecutors. Retrieved 15th July 2020 from https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/domestic-abuse-guidelines-prosecutors.

5. Davis, R. C., Weisburd, D., & Taylor, B. (2008). Effects of second responder programs on repeat incidents of family abuse. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2008, 15.

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3