Issuu

Kansas Domestic Battery Offender Intervention Program Survey 2012

Fort Hays State University 600 Park Street Hays, KS 67601

This executive summary was reprinted with the ﬁnancial support of Jana’s Campaign, Inc.

Kansas Domestic Battery Offender Intervention Program Survey 2012 Report Prepared by: Lou Zhai, M.S. Research Associate Christie Brungardt, Ph. D Director, Women’s Leadership Project Curt Brungardt, Ph. D Executive Director, Center for Civic Leadership Women’s Leadership Project Center for Civic Leadership Fort Hays State University Hays, Kansas 67601

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Women’s Leadership Project at Fort Hays State University conducted a survey of 700 targeted respondents who serve as judges, prosecuting attorneys, court service ofﬁcers and community correction professionals. The purpose of this survey research was to study the Kansas criminal justice system and learn about its knowledge, expectations, system procedures of intervention programs, and how these programs were utilized when a domestic violence (DV) offender is convicted or accepts diversion for the crime of domestic battery. Five intervention programs were studied in this survey research: Anger Management, Drug/Alcohol Counseling, Batterer Intervention Programming, Individual Counseling and Couples/Marriage Counseling. The ﬁrst research objective was to identify types of intervention programs being utilized when an offender is convicted or accepts a diversion for the crime of domestic battery. •According to survey respondents, Anger Management and Drug/Alcohol Counseling were the most used intervention programs when a diversion is ordered and when a sentence is required. •Least utilized intervention program for both diversion and sentencing requirements was Couples/Marriage Counseling. •Batterer Intervention Programming was the third most used intervention program. Under diversion over 25% of the respondents selected always or very often utilized and nearly 31% with sentencing requirements. •However, 24.6% (diversion) and 19.5% (sentencing requirement) of respondents said they never utilize Batterer Intervention Programming. •The most frequent comments under the open ended questions stated that the intervention program type ordered was “based on domestic violence assessment and evaluation.” •Some respondents said they utilized very short-term domestic violence awareness/prevention programs as an intervention strategy (1 day to 13 week). The second research objective was to assess general knowledge of intervention programs. The survey research shows that: •Respondents recorded their highest degree of knowledge about Drug/Alcohol Counseling and Anger Management. •Batterer Intervention Programming showed the least degree of knowledge. •When examining the number of trainings received, none and 1 – 4 trainings were the most popular responses for all types of intervention programs. Respondents received the highest number of trainings on Drug/Alcohol Counseling, while over 90% of respondents received few or no trainings on Batterer Intervention Programming. •Of the additional DV related topics, the most popular trainings were: dynamics of domestic violence; arrest, investigation, or other law enforcement to DV; victim services; impact on children; and prosecution of DV cases. The topics of lethality/dangerous assessment and safety planning received the fewest responses.

•When asked about the Kansas Attorney General’s effort to expand and approve batterer intervention programs, very few respondents (5.4%) felt they have substantial knowledge and another 41.5% felt they have some knowledge about batterer intervention programs. However, over half of the respondents (53.1%) felt they had little or no knowledge. The third research objective was to describe expectations of intervention and treatment program outcomes. The survey results show that: •Batterer Intervention Programming illustrated the highest confidence level (10.5%) that respondents had in reducing repeat domestic offenses. However, Batterer Intervention Programming also showed a high response rate of 37.1% who selected “don’t know”. •When examining respondent expectations of program outcomes, Batterer Intervention Programming received the highest overall expectation on all program outcomes. Drug/Alcohol Counseling showed the least expectations with all DV related program outcomes. •“Accountability for violence” and “responsible ways of treating partners” were the most popular outcomes by all program types. The fourth research objective was to understand what court system processes and procedures are used to track offenders in treatment programs. The survey research reveals that: •Drug/Alcohol Counseling had the most contact with the criminal justice system as compared to the other intervention program types. •The largest response for number of contacts for all types of intervention programs was “none”. •Fax reporting as a method of contact received the largest response with all intervention programs. Face-to-face contact was more common with Drug/Alcohol Counseling and Batterer Intervention Programming. •Topics most discussed between criminal justice personnel and the intervention providers of program types included: attendance, level of participation and failure to progress. Interestingly, “new acts of violence” was reported as the least popular response. Additional survey questions were requested by members of the Kansas Attorney General’s Batterer Intervention Program Advisory Board and Unit. The first of these questions became the fifth research objective. Respondents discussed their challenges to engaging offenders in intervention programs. The survey research showed that: •Economic/financial difficulty was overwhelmingly cited (93.5%) as the biggest challenge to engaging offenders in intervention programs. Second most mentioned was geographic distance (63.3%). The final research objective was to discern respondents’ understanding and involvement with coordinated community response to domestic violence in their own communities. The research with respect to this objective shows that:

•Over 47% of respondents said that their community does have a coordinated community response team that focused on domestic violence. •Of those who said their community does not have a DV coordinated community response team, nearly 74% believed such a team is needed. •Lack of funding and time, lack of collaboration among community entities and geographic challenges in rural areas were most frequently cited as reasons why some communities do not have a DV coordinated community response team. •When asked who should be included in a DV coordinated community response team, respondents most often listed law enforcement, prosecutors, advocacy agencies and mental health professionals.

Final Conclusion and Recommendations Several major themes of the research emerged. First, Anger Management and Drug/Alcohol Counseling were the most utilized and the best understood. However, respondents show little confidence that these intervention programs would have the desired outcome in reducing domestic violence. Second, Batterer Intervention Programming, when utilized, has the highest level of confidence and expectation (by respondents) that it will reduce repeat domestic offenses. Third, over half of the respondents have little or no knowledge of Batterer Intervention Programming. Fourth, another concern is the lack of training for lethality/dangerous assessment and safety planning. Finally, over half of the respondents said their community does not have a DV coordinated community response team. Of these respondents, the vast majority believe such a team is needed. The researchers of this study suggest the following recommendations: •Where available, Batterer Intervention Programming should be utilized in cases involving domestic violence. •It is encouraged that the Kansas Attorney General’s Office continues its work to expand and approve batterer intervention programs throughout the state. •It is recommended that the Kansas Attorney General’s Office expands its training on batterer intervention programs for all those associated with the Kansas criminal justice system. •Due to the lack of funding and the difficulty of geographic distance, innovative ways to deliver both training and intervention programs to rural areas must be developed (i.e. online; mobile units). •It is further recommended that lethality/dangerous assessment and safety planning be included in statewide DV trainings. •Updated technology is needed to speed communication among all entities in monitoring offenders. •The development of coordinated community response teams and improved communication, cooperation and collaboration is highly recommended for Kansas communities.

To view the full report see the websites below: www.womensleadershipproject.org/events ag.ks.gov/public-safety/domestic-violence/resources