Effectiveness of a Prison-Based Treatment Program for Male Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence: A Quasi-Experimental Study of Criminal Recidivism

Abstract

Despite increasing interest in programming for perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV), the literature provides weak support for the effectiveness of these interventions. However, there are few studies that evaluate programs offered to felony IPV offenders who are serving prison sentences. This study uses a quasi-experimental design to evaluate the effectiveness of a prison-based implementation of a popular IPV intervention in reducing general and offense-specific recidivism among 169 men released from state prison in 2017. Because recidivism data were collected through early March 2019, the average follow-up period was approximately 20 months for both the control group and experimental group. Observable selection bias was minimized by using propensity score matching to create a comparison group of 169 nonparticipants released in 2017 who were not significantly different from the program participants. Cox regression models were used to predict general rearrest, reconviction, reincarceration, and supervised release revocation, as well as rearrest and reconviction for any violent offenses and rearrest and reconviction for domestic violence offenses in particular. No significant differences in any type of recidivism were found between the comparison group and those who participated in treatment, regardless of whether the participant completed or failed to complete the program. The findings suggest that the intervention is no more successful when offered within prisons than when offered in the community. The study concludes by making recommendations for increasing the effectiveness of prison-based domestic violence programming.

The Effects of Vocational Education on Recidivism and Employment Among Individuals Released Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…Table 1 presents the logistic regression model predicting vocational program completion. Consistent with prior research on self-selection (e.g., Butler et al, 2022; Duwe, 2015a; McNeeley, 2021, 2022), several of the control variables were significantly related to completing a vocational certificate or diploma. Completion was more likely among White ( b = −0.131, p < .01) and younger individuals ( b = −0.012, p < .001), those with more prior convictions ( b = 0.007, p < .001), those committed for release violations ( b = −0.329, p < .001), those who had been in prison longer ( b = 0.008, p < .001), those who completed other treatment programs ( b = 0.091, p < .01), and those who received more visits ( b = 0.001, p < .001).…”

“…Importantly, there have been few evaluations that correct for differences in those who self-select into educational programming. Prior research suggests program participation varies by a number of personal characteristics such as gender, age, time served, criminal history, offense type prison visitation, other treatment participation (e.g., Butler et al, 2022;Duwe, 2015a;McNeeley, 2021McNeeley, , 2022. However, only a handful of studies have attempted to account for self-selection (see Jonas-van Dijk et al, 2020).…”

Implementation and Effectiveness of In-Prison Programs for Intimate Partner Violence Perpetrators: Evidence From Spain

“…Much of this evidence refers to the court-mandated programs for perpetrators receiving community sanctions. The few evaluations of programs for incarcerated perpetrators (McNeeley, 2019; Mennicke et al, 2015; Millana, 2011; Pascual-Leone et al, 2011) suggest that their efficacy is higher (Ferrer-Perez & Bosch-Fiol, 2018), perhaps because, as noted above, they are voluntary and not seen as punishments. Most of this evidence cannot be generalized because the programs being evaluated differ in content, formats, and clients, and because the evaluations examine different outcomes and use different methods.…”

“…Thus, many studies apply quasi-experimental designs for assessing IPV programs’ efficacy in which participants are not randomly allocated to groups. Most do not statistically correct for selection effects—for exceptions in the prison setting, see McNeeley (2019), Mennicke et al (2015) and Pascual-Leone et al (2011). Selection effects are common when allocation to programs is voluntary, as among the incarcerated, because the users choosing them may differ from the nonusers refusing or not qualifying to do it (McNeeley, 2019).…”

“…Most do not statistically correct for selection effects—for exceptions in the prison setting, see McNeeley (2019), Mennicke et al (2015) and Pascual-Leone et al (2011). Selection effects are common when allocation to programs is voluntary, as among the incarcerated, because the users choosing them may differ from the nonusers refusing or not qualifying to do it (McNeeley, 2019). They also affect RCTs with high rates of attrition (low program compliance), which may also be a function of perpetrators’ traits (Babcock et al, 2016; Gondolf, 2012).…”