Cost-benefits of a domestic abuse program for Australian offenders

Published date13 March 2017
Pages61-74
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1108/JCRPP-10-2016-0026
Date13 March 2017
AuthorChris Blatch,Andrew Webber,Kevin O’Sullivan,Gerard van Doorn
Subject MatterHealth & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology
Cost-benefits of a domestic abuse
program for Australian offenders
Chris Blatch, Andrew Webber, Kevin OSullivan and Gerard van Doorn
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to determine recidivism costs and benefits for 1,030 community-
based male offenders enrolled in a domestic abuse program (DAP) compared to an untreated control group
(n ¼1,030) matched on risk factors.
Design/methodology/approach The study time frame was October 1, 2007-June 30, 2010 with
reconvictions measured to December 31, 2010. Follow up averaged 19 months. Controls received standard
community supervision, but no domestic violence group interventions. Follow up measures included court costs
for violent and non-violent reconvictions; re-incarcerations and community-based orderscosts measured in days.
Findings Adjusting for time at risk, DAP enrollees had 29 percent fewer reconvictions, 46 percent fewer
violentreconvictions, 34 percentfewer custodial days, but 23 percentmore days on communityorders. Costs:
DAP enrollment avoided $2.52M in custodial costs, but higher community correction costs (+$773 K) and
court costs (+$5.8 K), reducing the DAPs criminal justice system cost savings to $1.754M ($8.92 M for the
DAP groupcompared to $10.67M forcontrols). Cost benefits:when the 64 DAP program costswere deducted
($602K), the net benefit to the New South Wales criminaljustice system was $1,141M, or $1,108 per enrollee,
providing a net benefit/cost ratio of 2.89.If the DAP was completed, the net benefitwas $1,820 per offender.
These results compares favorably to economic evaluations of othercommunity-based interventions.
Practical implications Group interventions for domestically violent (DV) offenders can provide good
investment returns to tax payers and government by reducing demand on scarce criminal justice system
resources. The study provides insights into justice costs for DV offenders; a methodological template to
determine cost benefits for offender programs and a contribution to cost-effective evidence-based crime
reduction interventions.
Originality/value Using a rigorousmethodology, officialcourt, custodial and communitycorrection services
costing data, thisis the first Australian cost benefit analysis of a domestic violencegroup intervention, and the
first to justify program expenditure by demonstrating substantial savings to the criminal justice system.
Keywords Programme evaluation, Recidivism, Domestic violence, Cost benefit analysis,
Cost benefit methodology, Cost benefit ratios, Domestic abuse programme, DV, DV interventions,
Programme cost effectiveness
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
In 2004, the financial cost of domestic violence in Australia was estimated to be approximately
8.1 billion dollars a year, with the majority of costs impacting victims (Access Economics, 2004).
In the state of New South Wales (NSW) domestically violent (DV) offenders represent 21 percent
of all serving community-based orders with a case management plan (Corrective Services NSW,
2010). To rehabilitate this significant population, a domestic abuse program (DAP) was
developed by Corrective Services NSW (CSNSW), piloted and rolled out in September 2007 to
offenders serving community-based orders. Over this time the DAP was also made available to
offenders in some correctional centers in NSW.
The development of correctional programs requires a commitment to evidence-based practice
and a responsibility to determine program efficacy by measuring recidivism outcomes.
Comprehensive evaluations are required to identify program merits and limitations, in order to
inform ongoing modifications and improvements to criminal justice interventions (Cohen, 2000).
Cost effectiveness studies are required to justify scarce criminal justice resources.
Received 14 October 2016
Revised 14 November 2016
Accepted 14 November 2016
Chris Blatch is a Senior
Coordinator Policy and
Projects at Offender Services
and Programs Branch,
Corrective Services NSW,
Sydney, Australia.
Andrew Webberis an
Economistat NSW Department
of Education,Centre for
Education Statistics and
Evaluation, Sydney, Australia.
Kevin OSullivan is a Clinical
Associate at the School of
Psychology, University of
New South Wales, Sydney,
Australia.
Gerard van Doorn is a Senior
Data Systems Analyst at
Corporate Research Evaluation
and Statistics, Corrective
Services NSW, Sydney,
Australia.
DOI 10.1108/JCRPP-10-2016-0026 VOL. 3 NO. 1 2017, pp.61-74, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 2056-3841
j
JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGICALRESEARCH, POLICYAND PRACTICE
j
PAGE 6 1

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT