Effectiveness of a Domestic Abuse Program for Australian Indigenous Offenders

• Author: Matthew Willis,Chris Blatch,Jane Goodman-Delahunty,Kevin O’Sullivan,Jordan J. Delaney
• DOI: 10.1177/0306624X19900979
• Published date: 01 December 2020
• Date: 01 December 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X19900979

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2020, Vol. 64(16) 1639 –1673

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X19900979

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Article

Effectiveness of a Domestic

Abuse Program for Australian

Indigenous Offenders

Chris Blatch1, Kevin O’Sullivan2,

Jane Goodman-Delahunty3, Matthew Willis4,

and Jordan J. Delaney1

Abstract

The subject of this study is to assess the effectiveness of a culture-neutral domestic

abuse program (DAP) developed for offenders with domestic and family violence

histories, when used for Australian Indigenous offenders, serving community-

based supervised orders. The study employed a retrospective quasi-experimental

research design and intention-to-treat program definition for 953 DAP-treated men

and propensity score–matched controls, from diverse cultural, religious, and racial

backgrounds, 19% being Indigenous Australians. Outcomes measured were program

completion, time to first reconviction, and reconviction rates. Indigenous men

completed the program similar to non-Indigenous men (58% vs. 63%; NS), although

significantly more dropped out (22% vs. 18%); 63% of Indigenous DAP-treated men,

remained reconviction free versus 49% of Indigenous controls. Significant therapeutic

benefits required program completion, 73% Indigenous and 74% of non-Indigenous

men remained reconviction free. Indigenous DAP participants, relative to controls,

took significantly longer to first reconviction. Survival was associated with prior

criminal histories, but not with rural or remote domiciles. Reconviction rates were

predicted by Level of Service Inventory–Revised actuarial risk scores and by DAP

completion, but not by Indigenous status. Program effect size was d = .477, mean

reconvictions for Indigenous DAP enrollees being 50% lower than controls. Generic

domestic violence interventions utilising evidence-based theoretical principles can be

1NSW Department of Communities and Justice, Sydney, Australia

2University of NSW, Sydney, Australia

3Charles Sturt University, Manly, New South Wales, Australia

4Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra City, Australian Capital Territory, Australia

Corresponding Author:

Chris Blatch, Offender Services and Programs Branch, Corrective Services New South Wales, NSW

Department of Communities and Justice, 20 Lee Street Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia.

Email: chris.blatch@justice.nsw.gov.au

900979IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X19900979International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyBlatch et al.

research-article2020

1640 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 64(16)

effective for Indigenous offenders, despite an absence of specific Indigenous cultural,

or healing content, and delivery by Indigenous facilitators or Elders.

Keywords

domestic violence, group intervention, aboriginal, Indigenous, offender rehabilitation,

program evaluation, recidivism, reconviction rates, risk factors, survival

Indigenous Australians (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples) are more

likely to be victims of violence than any other ethnic group in Australia (Gordon

et al., 2002; Wild & Anderson, 2007) with higher rates of contact with the criminal

justice system than non-Indigenous Australians (Australian Law Reform Commission

[ALRC], 2017). In New South Wales [NSW], Australia, Indigenous people comprise

3.4% of the general population but 29% of prison and community-based populations

(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2018a). NSW Indigenous offenders are estimated to

be 1.5 times more likely than non-Indigenous offenders to reoffend after release

from prison (NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research [BOCSAR], 2019).

Domestic and family violence offenders represented 21% of all those serving super-

vised community-based orders with Corrective Services NSW (Corben, 2011;

CSNSW, 2010). To meet the rehabilitative needs of this significant offender popula-

tion, a generic domestic abuse program (DAP) was implemented in August 2007,

initially for offenders serving community-based orders and subsequently for offend-

ers in custody. Overall outcomes of this program were described in Blatch et al.,

2016.

Assessing the effectiveness of the DAP for Indigenous men is the subject of this

study.

Factors Associated With Family Violence

Family violence victimisation is 2 to 5 times higher among Indigenous than non-

Indigenous Australians and many more times likely to result in hospitalisation

(Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety [ANROWS], 2018;

Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision [SCRGSP],

2016). Patterns of victimisation also differ, with assaults on both male and female

Indigenous persons much more likely to be perpetrated by a spouse, partner, or other

family member than is the case for non-Indigenous persons (Pointer, 2019). Research

on the factors associated with violence and victimisation in Indigenous communities

suggests no single factor predicts the likelihood that an individual perpetrates vio-

lence, but predictive factors are multidimensional, with many fundamental anteced-

ents shared with a range of other health and social problems (Anderson, 2002). Many

authors posit that family violence in Indigenous communities can only be understood

in the context of the historical impacts of colonisation and marginalisation (Blair

et al., 2014); family separation, through the large-scale removal of Indigenous people

Blatch et al. 1641

into institutions (Gordon et al., 2002; Smallacombe, 2004); and detrimental intergen-

erational impacts resulting from the stolen generation and changes in the social roles

of men and women (Cheers et al., 2006; Cripps, 2007; Davis & Taylor, 2002; Day

et al., 2012). These significant historical impacts caused breakdowns of traditional

culture and kinship practices, disconnection from cultural roots (ANROWS, 2016),

which undermined social norms (Memmott et al., 2001). Other authors contend that

ongoing contemporary political and socioeconomic disadvantage issues (Al-Yaman

et al., 2006; Anderson, 2002; Gordon et al., 2002) also contribute to community vio-

lence, the most significant being basic housing, education, employment, and health

(Memmott et al., 2009; Weatherburn, 2014; Widders, 2003; Wundersitz, 2010).

Socioeconomic stressors beyond the control of the offenders have been inextricably

linked to reoffending (Allan & Dawson, 2004; Weatherburn, 2014).

An assessment of theories of Indigenous violence (Snowball & Weatherburn,

2008) found little support for anomie theories that linked violence to a loss of social

and cultural meaning, value and purpose resulting from the impacts of colonisation,

and only moderate support for social disorganisation theories linking the impacts of

colonisation to a breakdown of Indigenous social structures. In a later work examin-

ing ways of reducing Indigenous incarceration, Weatherburn (2014) asserted that the

impacts of colonisation do not adequately explain continuing high rates of Indigenous

overrepresentation as imprisonment rates did not increase until after the processes of

colonisation had largely been completed. He also highlighted what he saw as a lack

of evidence that systemic bias and racism were a factor in Indigenous overrepresenta-

tion. These conclusions have been criticised by Indigenous academics including

Guthrie (2015) and Williams (2016), for failing to take into account the full body of

evidence on these factors, leading to selective and inadequate conclusions. In the

view of these other academics, colonisation and dispossession cannot be dismissed as

factors contributing to Indigenous offending—including violent offending—and con-

tact with the criminal justice system.

Less controversially, Snowball and Weatherburn (2008) found some support for

social deprivation theories that see economic and social disadvantage as directly con-

tributing to violence. Their study found the strongest support for lifestyle/routine

activity theories, mainly resulting from high-risk alcohol assumption emerging as the

strongest single predictor of engagement in violence (Snowball & Weatherburn, 2008).

Lifestyle and routine activity factors such as living in a problematic neighbourhood,

substance misuse, having a disability, and residing with someone who has been

charged with an offence were less strong but still significant predictors of Indigenous

violence (Snowball & Weatherburn, 2008).

The misuse of alcohol has been identified in other studies as one of the strongest

predictors of an Indigenous person being arrested and charged for any offence

(Chan, 2005; Hunter, 2001; Ramamoorthi et al., 2014; Weatherburn et al., 2006,

2008) and has been specifically identified as a significant contributor to violent

offending and victimisation (Bryant & Willis, 2008; Macklin & Gilbert, 2011;

Memmott, 2010; Weatherburn, 2014; Weatherburn et al., 2006). Other studies have

also noted the contribution to Indigenous violence of lifestyle factors such as illicit