Evaluation of European Domestic Violence Perpetrator Programmes: Toward a Model for Designing and Reporting Evaluations Related to Perpetrator Treatment Interventions

• Date: 01 March 2018
• Author: William Turner,Sarah-Jane Lilley-Walker,Marianne Hester
• Published date: 01 March 2018
• DOI: 10.1177/0306624X16673853
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X16673853

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2018, Vol. 62(4) 868 –884

© The Author(s) 2016

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X16673853

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Article

Evaluation of European

Domestic Violence

Perpetrator Programmes:

Toward a Model for Designing

and Reporting Evaluations

Related to Perpetrator

Treatment Interventions

Sarah-Jane Lilley-Walker1, Marianne Hester1,

and William Turner1

Abstract

This article is based on a review of 60 evaluations (published and unpublished) relating

to European domestic violence perpetrator programmes, involving 7,212 programme

participants across 12 countries. The purpose of the review, part of the “IMPACT:

Evaluation of European Perpetrator Programmes” project funded by the European

Commission (Daphne III Programme), was to provide detailed knowledge about the

range of European evaluation studies with particular emphasis on the design, methods,

input, output, and outcome measures used in order to identify the possibilities

and challenges of a multicountry, Europe-wide evaluation methodology that could

be used to assess perpetrator programmes in the future. We provide a model to

standardise the reporting of evaluation studies and to ensure attention is paid to what

information is being collected at different time points so as to understand what and

how the behaviour and attitudes of perpetrators might change throughout the course

of the programme.

Keywords

domestic violence perpetrators, perpetrator programmes, Europe, evaluation

1University of Bristol, UK

Corresponding Author:

Sarah-Jane Lilley-Walker, Centre for Gender and Violence Research, School for Policy Studies, University

of Bristol, 8 Priory Road, Bristol BS8 1TZ, UK.

Email: ptsjl@bristol.ac.uk

673853IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X16673853International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyLilley et al.

research-article2016

Lilley et al. 869

Introduction

This article looks at evaluation studies of domestic violence perpetrator programmes

carried out across Europe to explore the possibilities of providing a model that enables

standard reporting and could be used to assess and compare perpetrator programmes

in the future. Across Europe, rehabilitative work with domestic violence perpetrators

exists largely in the form of behavioural change “treatment” interventions, based on

the principle that men must take responsibility for their abusive behaviour and that

such behaviour can be unlearned. Domestic violence perpetrator programmes (DVPPs)

in Europe are characterised by a wide range of approaches subscribing primarily to a

cognitive-behavioural or psychoeducational model or a combination of approaches,

influenced by the Duluth model (one of the first to operationalise work with perpetra-

tors advocating a victim-safety centred and coordinated community approach, holding

perpetrators accountable while offering them an opportunity to change; Pence &

Paymar, 1993), by systemic or family therapy, and/or psychodynamic models of inter-

vention (Geldschläger, Ginés, Nax, & Ponce, 2014). The use and efficacy of pro-

grammes to tackle domestic violence perpetration remains a controversial issue with a

series of published systematic reviews suggesting that, in the main, the evidence on

“what works” in reducing or stopping domestic violence remains inconsistent and

inconclusive (e.g., Akoensi, Koehler, Lösel, & Humphreys, 2013; Arias, Arce, &

Vilarino, 2013; Babcock, Green, & Robie, 2004; Feder, Hester, Williamson, & Dunn,

2008; MacMillan & Wathen, 2001; Smedslund, Dalsbø, Steiro, Winsvold, & Clench-

Aas, 2011). Evaluations of European DVPPs, however, do not feature heavily in the

international debate about “what works,” which is largely based on evidence from

North American studies. We found just four published reviews that included European

studies (k = 15; Akoensi et al., 2013; Arias et al., 2013; Feder et al., 2008; National

Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE], 2014). Different perpetrator popula-

tions, legal frameworks, and treatment approaches can have unique implications for

the delivery of such programmes. Thus, as relatively little is known about how

European DVPPs might compare with approaches used and studies conducted else-

where, caution must be applied when attempting to generalise the existing evidence to

a European context (Akoensi et al., 2013).

Existing Evidence From Europe

Arias et al. (2013) examined 19 Spanish- and English-language studies measuring

recidivism rates of programme completers and found that while perpetrator interven-

tion can have a positive (but nonsignificant) effect on recidivism, some treatments

may actually have considerably negative effects. Feder et al. (2008) reviewed 31

experimental or quasi-experimental outcome studies and found no differences in

effectiveness between Duluth-based and other cognitive-behavioural interventions,

suggesting that such interventions had minimal impact beyond the effect of being

arrested. Hence, evidence from reviews that include European evaluations supports

the findings reported elsewhere, that is, that evaluations of domestic abuse perpetrator