--- title: "Durham MATAC Reducing Harm in the Medium Risk Cohort of Domestic Abuse Offenders" type: "pdf" year: "2020" canonical: "/projects/373" --- # Goldstein Submission 2021 # Table of Contents - [Goldstein Submission 2021](#goldstein-submission-2021) - [https://popcenter.asu.edu/content/goldstein-awards](#httpspopcenterasueducontentgoldstein-awards) - [Durham MATAC - Reducing harm in the Medium Risk Cohort of Domestic Abuse Offenders.](#durham-matac-reducing-harm-in-the-medium-risk-cohort-of-domestic-abuse-offenders) - [Assessment](#assessment) - [2. Description (3962 words)](#2-description-3962-words) - [A. Scanning:](#a-scanning) - [Increasing Domestic Abuse](#increasing-domestic-abuse) - [Risk Categories](#risk-categories) - [Perpetrator Programme Research](#perpetrator-programme-research) - [B: Analysis](#b-analysis) - [Wider problem-solving and Problem Analysis Triangle (PAT)](#wider-problem-solving-and-problem-analysis-triangle-pat) - [Analysis to create a Target Cohort](#analysis-to-create-a-target-cohort) - [C: Response](#c-response) - [Structure](#structure) - [D: Assessment](#d-assessment) - [Reduction in Safeguarding Forms](#reduction-in-safeguarding-forms) - [Domestic Abuse Typology](#domestic-abuse-typology) - [Critical Pathways](#critical-pathways) - [Reduction in Recorded Crimes](#reduction-in-recorded-crimes) - [Reduction in RFGV](#reduction-in-rfgv) - [Case Studies](#case-studies) - [Diffusion of Benefit](#diffusion-of-benefit) - [Cost-efficiency](#cost-efficiency) - [Effectiveness](#effectiveness) - [3. Agency and Officer Information:](#3-agency-and-officer-information) - [Appendix 3 Understanding hidden victims of domestic abuse](#appendix-3-understanding-hidden-victims-of-domestic-abuse) - [Appendix 4 The prevalence of domestic abuse from CSEW data](#appendix-4-the-prevalence-of-domestic-abuse-from-csew-data) - [Appendix 5 Regional Rates of Domestic Abuse in the UK](#appendix-5-regional-rates-of-domestic-abuse-in-the-uk) - [Appendix 6: Promoting Problem Analysis Triangle Approach to Domestic Abuse - Examples](#appendix-6-promoting-problem-analysis-triangle-approach-to-domestic-abuse-examples) - [Consider VICTIM](#consider-victim) - [Consider CHILDREN](#consider-children) - [CONSESTIC ABUSE PERPETRATORS IN CUSTODY?](#consestic-abuse-perpetrators-in-custody) - [Consider LOCATION](#consider-location) - [Consider LOCATION](#consider-location) - [Appendix 8: MATAC Structure and Process](#appendix-8-matac-structure-and-process) - [MATAC COHORT](#matac-cohort) - [Appendix 9: MATAC Toolkit for offender approaches](#appendix-9-matac-toolkit-for-offender-approaches) - [Appendix 10: Age gender for MATAC and Red Sigma Target samples which illustrates comparable groups.](#appendix-10-age-gender-for-matac-and-red-sigma-target-samples-which-illustrates-comparable-groups) - [MATAC COHORT AGE-GENDER](#matac-cohort-age-gender) - [RS PROFILE AGE-GENDER](#rs-profile-age-gender) - [MATAC COHORT AGE-GENDER](#matac-cohort-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER](#rspher-age-gender) - [RSPHER AGE-GENDER | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 |](#rspher-age-gender-21-25-26-30-31-40) - [Appendix 12: Safeguarding reports (SAF) pre and post MATAC interventions](#appendix-12-safeguarding-reports-saf-pre-and-post-matac-interventions) - [Appendix 13: Safeguarding reports (SAF) pre and post Red Sigma Profile interventions](#appendix-13-safeguarding-reports-saf-pre-and-post-red-sigma-profile-interventions) - [Appendix 14: Number /count of crimes pre and post MATAC interventions](#appendix-14-number-count-of-crimes-pre-and-post-matac-interventions) - [Appendix 15: Harm levels (Crime Severity Score (CSS)) pre and post MATAC interventions](#appendix-15-harm-levels-crime-severity-score-css-pre-and-post-matac-interventions) - [Appendix 16: Recency Frequency Gravity Victim (RFGV) Scores pre and post MATAC interventions](#appendix-16-recency-frequency-gravity-victim-rfgv-scores-pre-and-post-matac-interventions) - [Appendix 17: Unit costs of domestic abuse in England and Wales for 2016/17](#appendix-17-unit-costs-of-domestic-abuse-in-england-and-wales-for-201617) - [Appendix 18: Case Studies](#appendix-18-case-studies) - [References](#references) ## https://popcenter.asu.edu/content/goldstein-awards ## Durham MATAC - Reducing harm in the Medium Risk Cohort of Domestic Abuse Offenders. 1. Summary (400 words) Problem This project addressed the increasing rate of domestic abuse reports in the Durham Constabulary area, particularly in the medium risk category, reflecting increasing harm to victims and increased demand on services. Scanning Domestic abuse is estimated to cost over $£ 66$ billion in England and Wales including costs to health services ( $£ 2.3$ billion) and the police ( $£ 1.3$ billion) (Home Office 2019). The human cost to victim-survivors through physical /emotional harm, damage to children and families is significant. When year on year rising levels of domestic abuse were broken down in Durham Constabulary, the increase in medium risk reports per month (from 627 in 2016-17 to 928 in 2019-20) was prominent. Preventing domestic abuse is important to reduce harm and reduce pressure on a strained criminal justice system, exacerbated by court back logs caused by COVID restrictions. Analysis Durham Constabulary has promoted a problem analysis triangle approach to reducing domestic abuse and were recognised as taking innovative approaches to reducing domestic abuse outside of the criminal justice system (Gibbs 2018). Although, sometimes politically less popular than taking a victim-focussed approach to domestic abuse, implementing an offender approach is a vital aspect of preventing harm to victims and children. Statistical based processes were used to rank order offenders on the basis of the harm they caused, the recency and frequency of their offending and the number of their victims. Response An innovative approach was taken in combining Offender Management techniques of addressing criminogenic needs through individual attention of selected nominals with parallel safeguarding for the victim. This differed from other models which relied upon traditional meeting and review structures. It enabled continuity and close working through a single offender manager who steered the offender to appropriate services. This built trust and reduced opportunities for offenders to play off one professional against another. # Assessment Evaluation demonstrated the effectiveness of offender-based interventions: - a reduction in domestic abuse safeguarding forms (SAFs) by $36 \%$ for SAFs at all risk levels, reduction by $42 \%$ of medium risk SAFs; - a reduction in the number of domestic abuse related crimes committed from a mean of 5 crimes to 3 crimes after the intervention; - a reduction in the harm incurred by those offences reducing from mean $=416.9$ to mean $=286.4$ after the intervention; - a reduction in RFGV scores by $12 \%$. This offender management model was therefore effective. The learning from the project is very relevant to other law enforcement and social agencies. ## 2. Description (3962 words) Durham MATAC: Reducing harm and demand in the medium risk cohort of domestic abuse offenders. ## A. Scanning: Problem identification: An increasing rate of domestic abuse reports, particularly in the medium risk category, reflecting increasing harm to victims and increased demand on services. ## Increasing Domestic Abuse Overall, a steady there has been a steady increase in Domestic Abuse reports received by the Constabulary. Reports of domestic abuse are recorded using a domestic abuse 'qualifier'. During reporting year 2016-17, the monthly average volume of incidents was just under 1300, with this average stabilising around the 1500 mark over 2018-19 and 2019-20. Most incidents result in a safeguarding form (SAF) submitted by an officer, with the average proportion of incidents with SAFs in 2016-17 was $85 \%$, stabilising at $88 \%$ over the last two full reporting years. During reporting years 2016-17 to 2019/20, there was an increasing trend in the number of domestic abuse SAFs submitted which was mainly driven at the medium risk level, with an increase from 627 in 2016-17 to 928 medium risk domestic abuse incidents in 2019-20 (Appendix 1). Long range forecasting suggests an increasing trend over the next 4 years, with a predicted $14.4 \%$ volume increase from 2019/20 $(18,363)$ to $2023 / 24(21,010)$ (Appendix 2). # Risk Categories The main driver for the overall increase in demand was at the 'medium' risk level, but this level did not receive a default response, other than when officers considered additional tactics, such as creating a problem profile on the force operating database, Red Sigma. Domestic Abuse Stalking and Harassment and honour-based violence (DASH) is a nationally recognised risk assessment model used across agencies in the UK (Wire and Myhill 2018). This results in a risk grading applied to each domestic abuse incident. High risk domestic abuse SAFs trigger a referral to the MultiAgency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) by default. MARACs stem from research conducted by Cardiff University (Robinson 2006) with the Women's Safety Unit in Wales set up funded by the Home Office to provide support victims of domestic abuse. MARACs are primarily a victim-focused information sharing and risk management meeting attended by a range of agencies. SAFs at the low or 'standard' risk level were stable to decreasing in terms of volume over the same period. Against this background, the medium risk cohort was highlighted as a focus in order to address the overall increase in harm and demand in domestic abuse rates, particularly as there was no structural response in place for this cohort. Targeting Offenders within Durham Constabulary \& MATAC Developments During 2017/18, experimentation to general offender targeting was being conducted within the Constabulary, involving the use of statistical techniques to identify the most appropriate offenders for targeting. Funding was also made available by the Home Office to set up Multi-Agency Tasking \& Coordination (MATAC) partnership programmes to target serial perpetrators of domestic abuse. MATAC was developed in response to the national 'Violence against Women \& Girls' (VAWG) strategy as a result of a successful funding bid from a neighbouring agency, Northumbria Police. Operationalised during 2015-16, Northumbria's MATAC was designed to identify serial perpetrators of domestic abuse and deliver a combination of support, diversion, disruption and enforcement through a range of police and partnership agency-led interventions using a similar model to the MARAC multi agency meeting structures with a focus on the perpetrator rather than the victim. Initially, the authorities in Northumbria attempted to bolt MATAC onto existing MARAC arrangements, but capacity issues suggested this wasn't sustainable and the Northumbria MATAC finalised as a stand-alone project. Together, these developments provided impetus to a develop a Durham approach to MATAC. # Perpetrator Programme Research Perpetrator programmes had been used in the Durham Constabulary area over the previous 13 years. Research into domestic abuse perpetrator programmes shows two prominent types: mandatory programmes delivered by Probation and Prisons Service to those referred by the courts; and Voluntary programmes usually delivered by voluntary sector or partnership arrangements, which accept referrals from external agencies, as well as self-referrals. Two models of treatment for perpetrators that became predominant since the 1990s (Butters et al 2020) were: (i) The Duluth Model - comprises psychoeducational groups aiming to confront male perpetrators' attitudes to women, particularly the normalisation and controlling behaviours towards women. The original model does not address intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetrated by females or LGBTQ couples because the focus is on gender roles and male-derived abuses of power. (ii) The Cognitive-Behavioural (CBT) Model - is a therapeutic approach performed in either individual or group settings that seeks to change unhelpful thoughts and behaviours and improve skills to enhance functioning. Whilst the Duluth model relies on a coordinated criminal justice response, CBT offers an alternative to incarceration, prosecution, and associated costs. However, meta-analysis of these two approaches found that they produce small treatment effects, with both forms of intervention generally having limited clinical utility in treating male IPV perpetrators. Specifically, these models ignore treatment need factors such as 'emotional dysregulation' and relationship dynamics such as bidirectional intimate partner violence, sometimes termed 'situational couple violence' in the literature (Bates et al 2017). Research has suggested that these 'blanket' approaches to treating domestic abuse offenders lack utility because they fail to account for their individual characteristics, backgrounds, and co-occurring needs and have lacked effective empirical evaluation. This may partly be due to underlying political and ideological pressures (Donovan and Griffiths 2015). Therefore, this highlighted the importance of developing an offender management model in Durham which addressed individual needs and behaviours. # B: Analysis Objectives of this POP initiative were: (i) To identify and rank order Medium Risk domestic abuse cases to prioritise where interventions will have the most impact. (ii) To reduce the levels of harm in the Medium Risk domestic abuse cohort. (iii) To reduce the demand posed by offenders subject to MATAC interventions. Additionally, the overarching safeguarding objectives were to adopt a multi-agency approach to: (iv) Reduce re-offending and change behaviour of domestic abuse Perpetrators. (v) Safeguard adults and children at risk of domestic abuse. Hidden Harm Domestic abuse is under-reported and remains hidden within society causing chronic harm to individuals, families and communities. Analysis assists in understanding the extent of this issue (appendix 3). The Crime Survey of England \& Wales (CSEW) suggests that about half of all domestic abuse incidents that actually occur are reported to the police (appendix 4). Analysis of Durham Constabulary data demonstrated that in 2019-20, there were just over 18,000 incidents of domestic abuse reported to the police and this represents a prevalence rate of about 3\%. Comparing this reported rate with the prevalence rate nationally at around $6 \%$, which has been consistent over time since 2010, it is estimated that half of domestic abuse is reported to the police in the Durham Constabulary area. The most common reason for not reporting such abuse to the police is that the victims may not recognise themselves as abused and/or they are fearful of retaliation from their abuser. Furthermore, Durham Constabulary sits within the North East region of England which currently has the highest rate of domestic abuse-related crime, at 19 per 1000 population compared to 10 per 1000 population nationally (see appendix 5). Therefore, initiatives to proactively identify and reduce domestic abuse are essential. # Wider problem-solving and Problem Analysis Triangle (PAT) From an organisational perspective, Durham Constabulary had embedded its approaches to domestic abuse in a problem-solving framework. This was presented at their annual Constabulary POP awards highlighting the importance of using the PAT to consider immediate and long-term approaches. This was reinforced through victim-survivors speaking at the POP conference as to the positive and negative experiences of repeated interaction with local officers. This made explicit the human cost, misery, distress, injury and danger suffered as a result of domestic abuse. The use of POP infographics summarising these approaches are illustrated in Appendix 6. This wider analysis helped reflect the range of approaches required to respond effectively to Domestic Abuse and provided a context for the development of a bespoke MATAC programme in Durham. # Analysis to create a Target Cohort Analysis was used to identify a MATAC cohort using two methodologies, one succeeding the other. (i) RFH Model Initially, a modified statistical routine in an application known as SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). The routine uses 'medium' risk domestic abuse reports (SAF) data to establish those nominals who are, on average, the most recent, frequent and harmful (RFH) over the previous 6-months. 'Harm' was calculated on the basis of whether a recorded crime is linked to each medium risk DA SAF, and the harm value for each crime is identified using a 'crime harm index', the Office of National Statistics Crime Severity Score (ONS CSS 2016). The methodology behind this metric is basically that each crime is weighted according to the sentencing tariff for the offence and the CSS is weighted to reflect these proportions accordingly. Following 12 months of using the RFH model, a review identified that the RFH model would be replaced by the Recency-Frequency-Gravity of offending-serial Victim (RFGV) model. The benefits the RFGV model included the analysis of data over a two year period and improvements in identifying 'serial perpetrators' (offenders who had committed offences against more than one victim). The RFGV model had also been implemented in other forces, allowing for wider comparison work. (ii) RFGV model Following 12 months of using the RFH model consultation with Northumbria Police and a wider evaluation of the MATAC schemes across participating forces, resulted in a move to using the Recency-Frequency-Gravity of offending-serial Victim (RFGV) model. Incidents of domestic abuse reported to Durham Constabulary are logged onto police systems, a proportion of which will also have a SAF submitted (with risk level assigned to it). The analysis starts with each SAF over the previous 24-months aggregated to each nominal, so that a score for how 'recent' and 'frequent' the domestic abuse episodes are can be calculated. If a crime is recorded in connection with the SAF, then this will contribute using the 'gravity of offending' score. Using the aggregated SAFs over the same 24-month period, the number of separate victims is calculated and this will determine the score for the 'serial victim' component (appendix 7). The RFGV methodology doesn't discriminate on the basis of risk, i.e. all SAFs at all risk levels are counted. Perpetrators are identified via the RFGV analytical process, in which an algorithm is used to generate a score of up to 100 for each perpetrator, based on the recency, frequency and gravity of their offending and the number of known victims against which they have offended. This can also be supplemented by information from partners. The higher the overall RFGV score, the more recent, frequent, and harmful the nominal, and the score will also reflect the number of victims. # C: Response The Durham MATAC project was therefore implemented from June 2018 to address a large and increasing volume of domestic abuse referrals at the 'medium' risk level. MATAC would target high demand offender nominals at this risk level with a view to complementing the existing provision of services by MARAC to the high-risk domestic abuse cohort. - Phase 1 of the project resulted in two tranches of offenders taken on in June and October 2018, using co-opted resources into the Durham Offender Management Unit (OMU). - During Phase 2, Further funding was made available mid-2019, and resulting in the recruitment of two new MATAC Offender Managers. These resources enabled further large in-takes of nominals in August and December 2019, and more case flow throughout 2020. # Structure Monthly MATAC Reviews are chaired by a Detective Inspector from Safeguarding with attendance from MATAC Offender Managers, Domestic Abuse Innovation Officers (DAIOs) from the police Safeguarding department, local Safeguarding Police Supervisors, representatives from Domestic Outreach Support services, housing services, offender manager services and alcohol and drug services. Other services such as mental health or social care were involved through ongoing liaison (Appendix 8). Engagement with offenders lasts typically about 5 months. They are removed from the MATAC cohort once agreed by the Detective Inspector confirming there is sufficient evidence of reduction in offending and risk levels. Strategic MATAC meetings review progress and implementation issues and are attended by senior police managers, with this group then reporting into the local Strategic Multi-Agency Partnership for Domestic Abuse. Selecting the MATAC Cohort The Detective Inspector (Safeguarding) reviews the list of nominated offenders, as exemplified in Appendix 7 selection, in consultation with the Offender Managers, and Domestic Abuse Innovation Officers (DAIOs) and divides them between the North and South areas of the force. Process: Victim Offender Simultaneous Risk Assessment and Engagement Offenders are engaged by Offender Managers whilst engagement with any potential victims is undertaken by Domestic Abuse Innovation Officers (DAIOs). This was an important element, not seen in other projects and mitigates risks associated, for example, with the offender blaming the victim for interventions. DAIOs would offer a point of contact, referral to support services, safety advice and share information through the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme (Clare's Law). Establishing the engagement of the offender is an important first step and is mainly down to the skill and persistence of the Offender Manager. If the offender engages, their criminogenic needs (or critical pathways) are assessed, and they are offered support to address these needs. Initial contact with the offender would be supplemented by a letter outlining the purpose of the programme giving information about specific services and support available. The letter also warns of potential action that may be taken if the offender does not change their behaviour. The assessment with the offender is recorded in the COMET application, an offender management database, and on the force's main operating system, Red Sigma, where a profile is accessible to all operational staff. The Offender Manager then works with the offender to facilitate arrangements with locally commissioned and specialist services to support the offender with the issues they have identified. Durham MATAC has a toolkit which is made available via the Offender Management tile on the force intranet homepage. There are essentially two 'routes' that the perpetrator can take: (i) The Therapeutic route (green boxes in Appendix 9) for those that engage with the scheme; and (ii) The Criminal Justice route (red boxes Appendix 9) for those that do not engage. # D: Assessment A comprehensive assessment of Durham MATAC was conducted in June 2020 by an experienced Constabulary Analyst, showing that the initiative was providing an effective intervention which can impact upon the demand of policing services. The methodology behind establishing whether a change had occurred was premised on the period pre- and post- starting MATAC, demonstrating post intervention: - a reduction in domestic abuse safeguarding forms (SAFs), - a reduction in the number of domestic abuse related crimes committed, - a reduction in the harm incurred by those offences, and - a reduction in Recency-Frequency-Gravity-Victim (RFGV) scores. The assessment only considered those nominals who had at least 6-months follow-up with symmetrical periods for each nominal for pre-start and post-start periods. # Reduction in Safeguarding Forms The aim of reducing the volume of 'medium' risk domestic abuse safeguarding forms was achieved when comparing pre- and post-start of MATAC intervention, and this change was statistically significant and of a meaningful magnitude. Whilst the reduction was just over $\mathbf{3 6 \%}$ when considering SAFs at all risk levels, the reduction was highest at the medium risk (down 42\%) (see Appendix 12). As part of this assessment, a number of problem profiles for domestic abuse cases not linked to MATAC were identified. It was possible to extract exactly the same data for these nominals, who were verified as domestic abuse offenders and RFGV analysis identified their scores over time. Whilst not a 'control' group, these Red Sigma problem profiles provided a comparison cohort. In comparison, Red Sigma problem profiles remained open for much longer periods of time, saw no meaningful change at the 'medium' risk SAF level. None of the Red Sigma profile results were statistically significant. Whilst it is acknowledged that before interventions were implemented for either cohort, the level of demand and risk posed by the Red Sigma evaluation cohort was lower and less problematic than the MATAC cohort, this nevertheless highlights the impressive reduction in the MATAC cohort. A total of 94 perpetrators subject to the MATAC process were subject to evaluation. On average, each perpetrator subjected to the MATAC process remained in the programme for 4 months and 26 days. A total of 44 nominals were included in the Red Sigma problem profile cohort. The average those profiles that are currently 'active' in Red Sigma is 14 months and 15 days. An analysis of age and gender is illustrated in appendix 10 which illustrates comparable groups. # Domestic Abuse Typology Both the MATAC and RS profile cohorts were assessed to establish whether the case was 'intimate partner abuse' (IPV) or 'family-related violence' (FRV). Of the 94 MATAC offender cohort, 81 (86\%) were involved in IPV, whilst the remainder 12 (13\%) were involved in FRV (one nominal didn't fit either). Analysis shows that the proportion of SAFs attributed to the smaller FRV cohort is proportional. However, when looking at the harm metrics, the FRV cohort is less harmful compared to the IPV cohort and post-MATAC reductions in crime and harm were greater in the FRV cohort compared to the IPV cohort. Of the 44 Red Sigma problem profiles, 41 (93\%) are IPV and 4 profiles are FRV (one profile involved a perpetrator of abuse against two victims, an ex-partner and her mother). ## Critical Pathways Of the 94 MATAC cohort, 32 'short-needs' assessments were available from the COMET system that can be matched with the evaluation cohort. Appendix 11 illustrates the prevalence and clustering of each pathway: whilst the 'relationships' pathway is almost a default for this cohort, 'mental health' forms something a backdrop to all the other pathways, notably alcohol. It is worth highlighting that 'alcohol' and 'substance misuse' (or drugs) rarely coincide, suggesting that it is one of the two rather than both concurrently that afflicts the MATAC cohort. ## Reduction in Recorded Crimes An analysis of how much domestic abuse crime has been committed by the MATAC cohort included all crime references from the SAFs pre- and post-starting for the MATAC and Red Sigma profile cohorts. On this basis, it is also possible to identify the Office of National Statistics 'crime severity score' (ONS CSS) for each recorded crime. - Crime count - The results shown in appendix 14 that the volume of domestic-related recorded crime post-start MATAC reduces from a mean of 5.3 to 3.0 after the MATAC intervention. - Harm - The mean values tested in appendix 15 represent the average of the CSS sum totals for each nominal. A significant reduction in harm (CCS total) was found reducing from mean=416.9 to mean=286.4 after the MATAC intervention. # Reduction in RFGV The 'first RFGV score' of the nominal was compared to the last score is taken as the most recent calculated available, i.e. June 2020. For some, the difference between their first score and their score in Jun-20 will be as much as two years, whilst for others it could be only six months. The change in scores represented in appendix 16 is the average across the whole MATAC cohort included in the analysis (with the same methodology applied to the RS problem profile cohort for comparison). The results show that the last calculated RFGV score has reduced by almost $12 \%$ from mean=33.8 to mean=29.8, easily achieving statistical significance and with a small to medium effect size. ## Case Studies Three case studies have been included in the appendix 18 illustrating the benefits of MATAC. - Paul, 19 years, experienced extensive domestic abuse between his parents. He left home and became involved in drugs and crime, returning home periodically where he would use violence to obtain money from his parents. Following 37 reports of him as an offender in the 4 years prior, he engaged in MATAC and was assisted with accommodation, training for employment and kicking his drugs habit which has assisted in stopping his offending behaviour with one minor relapse. - Andrew, 29 years, was living with his partner and was a perpetrator of abuse on 23 occasions in nine months prior to engagement. Whilst in prison for 19 weeks, MATAC identified his issues included mental health problems, alcohol/drug misuse, problems with relationships and anger management. Upon release, Andrew was referred to several support programmes closely supervised by the Offender Manager. He fully engaged and despite some use of alcohol and drugs in the early stages, he obtained his own accommodation. Domestic abuse incidents did not reoccur. Andrew stated that the support, counselling, advice and direction from MATAC has changed the way he lives and how he treats and reacts with other people. - John, 38 years, lived with his partner and two children until they separated due to the domestic abuse between them. There were 36 safeguarding reports over 26 months, including violence, harassment, stalking and malicious communications. John was imprisoned for a short period after breaching an order. He was placed on a Community Order and worked with MATAC following his release. He received support for mental health, drug/alcohol abuse, anger and relationship issues. John was helped to get a job with a local building firm. Despite unwanted contact from his ex-partner, he reported these matters to the police rather than taking matters into his own hands. There have been no reported domestic related incidents since. John stated without the help, support and guidance from MATAC he would not be drug free, working and living in his own house. # Diffusion of Benefit There was a 'diffusion of benefit' where discernible reductions in levels of SAFs, crimes and harm were also seen in cases where a letter was delivered but the offender refused to engage in the process following their visit by the Offender Manager. Possible reasons for this include the knowledge of being 'targeted' is sufficient to change behaviours. Secondly, even though the offender may not be engaging, there is likely to be an impact of the DAIO working with the victim. The combination of the two may have brought about this 'diffusion of benefit' but the ramifications should not be under-estimated as they highlighted an efficient tactic. This encourages the continued use of visits and letters even where the offender then fails to engage. # Cost-efficiency The sustainability of the Durham MATAC model is supported by an evaluation of financial costings. The Home Office has estimated the individual unit cost for police responding to a domestic abuse crime to be $£ 645$ as outlined in appendix 17 (Home Office 2019). The crimes committed by the cohort of 94 offenders subject to this evaluation reduced on average from 5 to 3 crimes, indicating 188 less crimes at a cost-saving of $£ 121,260$ p.a. Alternatively, Safeguarding referrals reduced by 303. Considering typical referral-crime ratios ( $69 \%$ of referrals have a crime associated) indicates 209 less crimes at a cost-saving of $£ 134,805$ p.a. There is therefore value in the continued annual employment costs for two MATAC Offender Managers of $£ 28,500$ each ( $£ 57,000$ total), more so when it is plausible to work with 50-60 offenders each year. The wider cost-savings to other agencies are also significant. For example, 209 less crimes would result in $£ 250,800$ cost-saving to Health Services and $£ 35,530$ cost savings to criminal legal services. Strikingly, according to Home Office data, the estimated cost saving in financial terms of the physical and emotional harm upon the victim as a consequence of the crime would be $£ 5,078,700$. These costings have assisted in securing the MATAC Offenders as permanent posts within Durham Constabulary with considerations for further roles being created. ## Effectiveness Therefore, this offender management model of MATAC has shown to be effective. The learning from the project has been made available to other police and interested agencies through an independent evaluation of MATAC schemes in May 2020 (Cordis Bright Domestic Abuse Whole System Approach evaluation, not published but available on request). # 3. Agency and Officer Information: Durham Constabulary, UK Key Project Team Members - David Ashton - John Cooper - Ian Waslin - Karen Naunton - Andy Crowe Project Contact Person. Name: David Ashton Position/Rank: Detective Superintendent, Head of Safeguarding Address: Durham City Police Office, New Elvet, Durham City, Durham City/State/Postal code: DH1 3AQ Phone: 07736084347 (+447736084347) Email: david.ashton@durham.police.uk 1. Appendices: Appendix 1: | DA SAFI® Monthly Average | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | 2019-20 | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Standard | 415 | 396 | 340 | 315 | | Medium | 627 | 773 | 917 | 928 | | High | 59 | 70 | 80 | 79 | | Total | 1101 | 1239 | 1336 | 1322 | Appendix 2: Forecasted Domestic Abuse Demand in Durham Constabulary ![img-0.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/durham_constabulary_domestic_abuse_offenders_2021/img-0.jpeg) # Appendix 3 Understanding hidden victims of domestic abuse ![img-1.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/durham_constabulary_domestic_abuse_offenders_2021/img-1.jpeg) ## Appendix 4 The prevalence of domestic abuse from CSEW data Prevalence of domestic abuse in the last year for adults aged 16 to 59 years, England and Wales, year ending March 2005 to year ending March 2019 ![img-2.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/durham_constabulary_domestic_abuse_offenders_2021/img-2.jpeg) Source: Office for National Statistics - Crime Survey for England and Wales # Appendix 5 Regional Rates of Domestic Abuse in the UK Rate of domestic abuse-related crimes recorded by the police, by region, England and Wales, year ending March 2019 ![img-3.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/durham_constabulary_domestic_abuse_offenders_2021/img-3.jpeg) # Appendix 6: Promoting Problem Analysis Triangle Approach to Domestic Abuse - Examples ![img-4.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/durham_constabulary_domestic_abuse_offenders_2021/img-4.jpeg) ## Consider VICTIM POSITIVE ACTION Ictible Evidence led Prosecutions, gain accounts via BIAV VICTIM ROX ASSESSMENTS Ensure DASH/TIMEVE have been completed and are accurate. Consider if Threats to $V B$ assessment required? SAFETY FLAW Complete/update Problem profiles on Red Signos. Provision of mobile phone/ Tre303// basic security advice/ Establish support network via friends/family CRITICAL PATHWAYS - address underlying issues and make relevant referral for support; drugs/alcohol/ mental/ A physical health/health/illness/accommodation OUTREACH SUPPORT - DASS/SIVA/horbour to speak to victim whilst suspect is in custody. Seek consent to share SAF. Discuss service provision and Freedom Programme CLAW'S LAW DISCLOSURE - if urgent disclosure is needed contact MASH or Safeguarding D/Spl CIVIL ORDERS - referral to family law specialist for non medication orders/ occupation order/prohibited steps order/ Child arrangements order ## Consider CHILDREN THROUGH THE EYES OF A CHILD - Private children recorded on SAF, and child's voice is heard and fully documented on DASH risk assessment. CONSIDER STRATEGY MEETING - discussion with Safeguarding DSI/Children's Services/EST where child is considered at significant risk. OPERATION ENCOMPASS - details on SAF to ensure schools are updated ## CONSESTIC ABUSE PERPETRATORS IN CUSTODY? Make best use of their time in custody... ## Consider LOCATION ## Consider LOCATION CRITICAL PATHWAYS - address underlying issues and offer referral for support drugs/alcohol/ mental \& physical health/illness/accommodation - link to with Liaison \& Diversion services /DASS/MAYAC Offender Managers CUSTODY MANAGEMENT - appropriate use of remand application or bail conditions DUPACIS - ensure SAF updated re applications - both when granted and refused - include conditions on SAF. Ensure Problem profile completed. CONTACT DETAILS - ensure up to date and accurate CHECKPOINT - an alternative to prosecution \& offers interventions to address the underlying reasons for committing the crime. VIP NAVIGATOR works with adults who have needs that require multi-agency support. COMMUNITY PIZER MENTOR - reduce the pressure on frontline services by engaging with those who make frequent calls. DA PREVENTION PROGRAMMES Refresher change programmes for offenders who have used violence and abuse towards their (ex) partners - referral via Horbour. Appendix 7: Selection using Recency Frequency Gravity Victim (RFGV) Score | Person URN | Gravity Score | Victim Score | Frequency | Recency | RFGV Score | Victim Count | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | PER00015782 | 75 | 150 | 200 | 20 | 74 | 6 | | PER00024012 | 85 | 200 | 75 | 30 | 65 | 9 | | PER00007850 | 85 | 100 | 150 | 20 | 59 | 5 | | PER00005579 | 85 | 30 | 200 | 30 | 58 | 2 | | PER00002454 | 28 | 150 | 150 | 10 | 56 | 6 | | PER00009847 | 85 | 50 | 150 | 50 | 56 | 3 | | PER00022666 | 85 | 30 | 200 | 20 | 56 | 2 | | PER00037073 | 85 | 75 | 150 | 20 | 55 | 4 | | PER00093235 | 75 | 75 | 150 | 30 | 55 | 4 | | PER00086061 | 75 | 75 | 150 | 20 | 53 | 4 | | PER00016304 | 75 | 15 | 200 | 20 | 52 | 1 | | PER00027501 | 75 | 15 | 200 | 20 | 52 | 1 | | PER00036774 | 75 | 15 | 200 | 20 | 52 | 1 | | PER00189573 | 70 | 30 | 150 | 50 | 50 | 2 | | PER00003433 | 85 | 30 | 150 | 30 | 49 | 2 | # Appendix 8: MATAC Structure and Process ![img-5.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/durham_constabulary_domestic_abuse_offenders_2021/img-5.jpeg) ## MATAC COHORT ![img-6.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/durham_constabulary_domestic_abuse_offenders_2021/img-6.jpeg) # Appendix 9: MATAC Toolkit for offender approaches ![img-7.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/durham_constabulary_domestic_abuse_offenders_2021/img-7.jpeg) ![img-8.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/durham_constabulary_domestic_abuse_offenders_2021/img-8.jpeg) # Appendix 10: Age gender for MATAC and Red Sigma Target samples which illustrates comparable groups. ## MATAC COHORT AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | 31-40 | 41-50 | | over 50 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RS PROFILE AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | 31-40 | 41-50 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## MATAC COHORT AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | 31-40 | 41-50 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | 31-40 | 41-50 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | Age Group | Male | Female | | --- | --- | --- | | 18-20 | 21-25 | 26-30 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | over 50 | over 50 | ## RSPHER AGE-GENDER | | 21-25 | 26-30 | 31-40 | | 26-30 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 26-30 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 26-30 | 31-40 | 26-30 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 26-30 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31-40 | 31 Appendix 11: Critical Pathways / Criminogenic Needs for MATAC offenders ![img-9.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/durham_constabulary_domestic_abuse_offenders_2021/img-9.jpeg) # Appendix 12: Safeguarding reports (SAF) pre and post MATAC interventions | MATAC cohort | Nominal count (pre) | pre-start of MATAC | pre RATE | Nominal count (post) | post-start of MATAC | post RATE | \% change (SAFs) | | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | Standard | 18 | 23 | 1.3 | 10 | 11 | 1.1 | $-52.2 \%$ | | Medium | 94 | 782 | 8.3 | 79 | 455 | 5.8 | $-41.8 \%$ | | High | 42 | 32 | 0.8 | 34 | 67 | 2.0 | $109.4 \%$ | | Cohort stats. | 94 | 837 | 8.9 | 94 | 534 | 5.7 | $-36.2 \%$ | Not only did the volume of medium risk SAFs reduce by almost $42 \%$ when comparing pre-start to post-start MATAC, but the number of nominals responsible for these SAFs reduced from the entire cohort of 94 pre-start to 79 post-start. The results show that the volume of SAFs post-start MATAC is lower (mean=5.7, SD=6.5) than during pre-start MATAC (mean=8.9, SD=6.2), and a repeated-measures t-test found this difference to be significant, $\mathbf{t ( 9 4 ) = 5 . 3 4 , p < 0 . 0 0 0 1 ,}$ with a Cohen's d of $\mathbf{0 . 5 1}$ suggesting a medium effect size (see appendices for SPSS output tables). For comparison purposes, a similar analysis of SAFs pre- and post-starting a Red Sigma problem profile is shown in appendix 13 using exactly the same methodology the results for SAFs submitted prestart RS profile (mean=3, SD=3.1) are slightly higher than post-start RS profile (mean=2.6, SD=3.7), although a repeated-measures t-test did not find this difference to be significant, $\mathbf{t ( 4 3 ) = 0 . 6 5 ,} \mathbf{p = 0 . 5 2}$. ## Appendix 13: Safeguarding reports (SAF) pre and post Red Sigma Profile interventions | Red Sigma Profiles | Nominal count (pre) | Pre-start of RS profile | pre- RATE | Nominal count (post) | Post-start of RS profile | post- RATE | \% change (SAFs) | | :-- | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | Standard | 11 | 15 | 1.4 | 3 | 3 | 1.0 | $-80.0 \%$ | | Medium | 27 | 77 | 2.9 | 30 | 87 | 2.9 | $13.0 \%$ | | High | 22 | 40 | 1.8 | 16 | 26 | 1.6 | $-35.0 \%$ | | Cohort stats. | 44 | 132 | 3.0 | 44 | 116 | 2.6 | $-12.1 \%$ | For comparison purposes, a similar analysis of SAFs pre- and post-starting a Red Sigma problem profile is shown in the above table using exactly the same methodology the results for SAFs submitted pre-start RS profile (mean=3, SD=3.1) are slightly higher than post-start RS profile (mean=2.6, SD=3.7), although a repeatedmeasures t-test did not find this difference to be significant, $\mathbf{t ( 4 3 ) = 0 . 6 5 ,} \mathbf{p = 0 . 5 2}$. ## Appendix 14: Number /count of crimes pre and post MATAC interventions | Crime Count | Paired Samples Statistics | Mean | N | Std. Deviation | t-test p-value | Cohen's d | Effect Size | | :-- | :-- | --: | --: | --: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | Pair 1 | Pre-start MATAC | 5.3 | 94 | 3.13 | p<0.0001 | 0.71 | Medium to Large | | | Post-start MATAC | 3.0 | 94 | 3.35 | | | | | Pair 2 | Pre-start RS Profile | 1.9 | 44 | 2.06 | p=0.26 | 0.21 | Small | | | Post-start RS Profile | 1.5 | 44 | 2.05 | | | | The volume of domestic-related recorded crime post-start MATAC is lower (mean=3.0, SD=3.3) than during the pre-start MATAC period (mean=5.3, SD=3.1), and a repeated-measures t-test found this difference to be significant, $\mathbf{t ( 9 3 ) = 6 . 0}, \mathbf{p}<\mathbf{0 . 0 0 0 1}$, with a Cohen's d of $\mathbf{0 . 7 1}$ suggesting a medium to large effect size. Repeated measures t-test for the difference in domestic-related recorded crime pre-start to post-start for RS profiles was not found to be significant, $t44=1.2, p=0.26$. # Appendix 15: Harm levels (Crime Severity Score (CSS)) pre and post MATAC interventions The table summarises the results for both MATAC and Red Sigma profile cohorts: | CSS (log. per nominal) | Paired Samples Statistics | Mean | N | Std. Deviation | t-test p-value | Cohen's d | Effect Size | | :-- | :-- | --: | --: | --: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | Pair 1 | Pre-start MATAC | 416.9 | 94 | 536.89 | p=0.11 | 0.24 | Small | | | Post-start MATAC | 286.4 | 94 | 546.51 | | | | | Pair 2 | Pre-start RS Profile | 298.4 | 44 | 580.59 | p=0.31 | 0.23 | Small | | | Post-start RS Profile | 173.3 | 44 | 516.79 | | | | The sum of crime severity scores for each nominal was considered here, i.e. if a nominal has committed 3 offences in the post-start period, each with a harm crime severity score (CSS) value of 10 , then the CSS sum for that nominal will be 30 , and so on. The repeated-measures t-test found a sizeable reduction in the sum of CSS values post-start MATAC (mean=286.4, SD=546.5) compared to pre-start (mean=416.9, SD=536.9), although the statistical test did not find this difference to be significant, $t93=1.6, p=0.11$, with Cohen's $d=0.24$ representing a small effect size.Repeated measures t-test for the RS profile cohort did not find the difference in the sum of CSS values pre-start to post-start to be significant, $t44=1.2, p=0.26$. Whilst not statistically significant, there was a large reduction in the average CSS per nominal in the MATAC cohort. When this was broken down to domestic abuse type demonstrated a higher reduction in harm (average CSS) in the FRV group when compared to the IPV group. The repeated-measures t-test found a sizeable reduction in the sum of CSS values post-start MATAC (mean=286.4, SD=546.5) compared to pre-start (mean=416.9, SD=536.9), although the statistical test did not find this difference to be significant. ## Appendix 16: Recency Frequency Gravity Victim (RFGV) Scores pre and post MATAC interventions | RFGV | Paired Samples Statistics | Mean | N | Std. Deviation | t-test p-value | Cohen's d | Effect Size | | :-- | :-- | --: | --: | --: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | Pair 1 | First MATAC RFGV score | 33.8 | 94 | 8.91 | p<0.0001 | 0.37 | Small to Medium | | | Last MATAC RFGV score | 29.8 | 94 | 12.45 | | | | | Pair 2 | First RS Profile RFGV score | 24.7 | 42 | 9.55 | p=0.19 | 0.23 | Small | | | Last RS Profile RFGV score | 22.6 | 42 | 8.78 | | | | The results show that the last calculated RFGV score has reduced (mean=29.8, SD=12.5) in comparison to the RFGV score upon entry to MATAC (mean=33.8, SD=8.9), and a repeated measures t-test found this difference to be significant, $\mathbf{t}93=\mathbf{3 . 6}, \mathbf{p = 0 . 0 0 0 1}$, with a Cohen's d of $\mathbf{0 . 3 7}$ suggesting a small to medium effect siz ## Appendix 17: Unit costs of domestic abuse in England and Wales for 2016/17 | Costs in Anticipation | Costs as a consequence | | | | Costs in response | | | | Total | | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | | Physical and emotional harm | Lost output | Health services | Urban services | Police costs | General legal | Civil legal | Other | | | £5 | £24,300 | £7,245 | £1,200 | £370 | £645 | £170 | £70 | £5 | £34,015 | Source: Home Office 2019 The economic and social costs of domestic abuse. Research Report 10 # Appendix 18: Case Studies Case Study 1 -Paul lived with his Family: Mother, Father and two children (younger brother and sister). Paul witnessed his mother and father fighting and arguing, has a result Paul's mother took to alcohol. Paul started to leave the home address and spend a lot of time on the streets associating with the wrong people, committing crime and taking drugs. Paul used to return to the family home when he needed food and shelter. Paul would have arguments with his mother and father in front of his brother and sister about money for drugs. Paul would damage property, steal money and assault his parents to get what he wanted. The police were always called but the family never give a statement/evidence against Paul. Paul was located in the cells after a domestic abuse incident, interviewed by the MATAC Offender Manager. Paul agreed to engage and was assessed. The following critical pathways were identified: Mental Health, Drug/Alcohol abuse, anger and relationship issues, Financial issues, accommodation (NFA) and problems with reading and writing. The first problem was to get Paul somewhere to live, Paul's father's sister agreed to accommodate Paul on a short-term basis providing he stayed away from his parents address and his associates on the streets. The Offender Manager spoke with Paul and agreed the way forward which included the following interventions: a referral was made in respect of a Domestic Abuse Perpetrators Program. A mental health assessment was conducted by Paul's General Practitioner and a treatment program was discussed and implemented. Paul was referred to an alcohol and drugs misuse service. One to One work was conducted because Paul would not work in a group. A staying Cool course was organised and attended by Paul to help him with his anger issues. Paul was referred to the local job centre and advice service to organise his benefits and sort his finances. The partner of where Paul was accommodated worked on a building site for a local building firm. He said that he could get Paul a job if he past his health and Safety Course. A CSCS (Health and Safety Course) was discussed and obtained to allow Paul to get a job with a local building firm. Paul was closely supervised by the Offender Manager to ensure he attended. Contact was maintained on a nearly daily basis in the early stages, then when Paul passed his CSCS course and started to work for a local building firm contact was maintained via telephone. Paul stayed on track with the critical pathways for six weeks before he went back to his old ways. Paul stole a Tablet from the daughter where he was being accommodated and then went missing for a week. During this time, he went back to his mother's address and set fire to the shed because she would not give Paul any money. Paul was arrested and spent the weekend in the cells. He re-engaged with Offender manager and continued with his critical pathways. Paul re-engaged and his relationship and trust increased with the Offender Manager. He fully passed the CSCS course and is trying to get his own accommodation. Other than the incident when Paul stole the Tablet, there were no further reported domestic incidents. MATAC has contributed to this change through education, building trust, controlled engagement and supervision. Paul's alcohol use has reduced and in the case of drugs has stopped which has improved his mental and physical health. He continues to see his family without incident. Paul stated without the help, support and guidance from MATAC he would not be drug free, working and looking for his own house. Pre engagement, there were 52 safeguarding reports involving Paul over a 4 year period. 37 of these reports involved Paul as the suspect/offender including domestic abuse, controlling, threatening behaviour, violence, harassment, malicious communications, theft, criminal damage and Arson. There has only been one report (theft of Tablet) since engagement. Case Study 2: Andrew 29 yrs, lives with his partner, they have two children who have both been adopted. There are 23 Safeguarding Reports in a nine-month period prior to engagement. The domestic abuse is controlling, threatening behaviour and minor assaults. Andrew attended Crown Court for the offence of assaulting an emergency worker and pleaded guilty resulting in 19 weeks imprisonment. The MATAC programme identified Andrew's offending via the RFH model and he was assessed in prison by the MATAC Offender Manager. Andrew's main issues were: mental health problems, alcohol/drug misuse, problems with relationships and anger management. Once Andrew was released from prison, Andrew agreed to engage with a view of getting his life together. The Offender Manager in-company with Andrew's Probation Officer agreed the way forward which included the following interventions: a referral was made in respect of a Domestic Abuse Perpetrators Program; a mental health assessment was conducted by a psychiatric services and a treatment program was discussed and implemented. Andrew was referred to an alcohol and drugs misuse service. One to One work was conducted re: relationships, red flag triggers and stability. A Staying Cool course was organised and attended by Andrew to help him with his anger issues. Andrew was closely supervised by the probation officer and the Offender Manager to ensure he attended and understood what and why he was there. Contact was maintained on a nearly daily basis. Andrew was referred to a local charity that helps with one to one support from specialist health trainers and financial coaches, access training and vocational courses to help improve confidence and learn new skills and guidance, support and advice on any area that the client feels will help make a positive change in their life. Andrew engaged fully with all services, however in the early stages of engagement Andrew continued to abuse alcohol and occasionally used controlled drugs. This reduced as time passed and Andrew's relationship and trust increased with the Offender Manager. Andrew alcohol and drug use has reduced and in the case of drugs has stopped which has improved his mental and physical health. Andrew has obtained his own accommodation and is living separately to his partner which has reduced domestic abuse incidents to zero. Andrew learnt to understand the problem areas within his relationship and in the main to walk away and calm down, he has used this principle on a number of occasions. Andrew has learnt to communicate and discuss with his partner the problem areas without losing his temper. This awareness was due to the in-put by MATAC and other partners. The two of them are still in a relationship, spending time at each other's house. Andrew stated that the support, counselling, advice and direction from MATAC has changed the way he lives and how he treats and reacts with other people. The use of the MATAC warning letter was very successful in making Andrew understand that he was a perpetrator of domestic abuse and therefore had the effect of reducing their offending. Case Study 3: John, 38yrs, lived with his partner and two children until they separated due to the domestic abuse between them. There were 36 safeguarding reports over 26 months, including violence, harassment, stalking and malicious communications. A Protection from Harassment Order was put in place against John who breached the Order and was sent to prison. On leaving prison John was placed on a Community Order with probation. John has complied with the community order and worked with MATAC since he was released from prison. John was assessed by the Offender Manager and the following critical pathways were identified: Mental Health, Drug/Alcohol abuse, anger and relationship issues. A CSCS (Health and Safety Course) was discussed and obtained to allow John to get a job with a local building firm. A referral was made to Harbour in respect of a Domestic Abuse Perpetrators Program. A mental health assessment was conducted by Probation's CPN and a treatment program was discussed and implemented. He was referred to an alcohol and drugs misuse service. One to one work was conducted re: relationships, Red flag triggers and stability. A Staying Cool course was organised and attended by John to help him with his anger issues. John did not return to his partner. He understands his triggers and is managing them well. His ex-partner has been contacting him via social media causing him stress and harassment. John has contacted the police and reported malicious communications which is the correct process, in the past John would have taken the matter into his own hands. There have been No reported domestic incidents since. John stated without the help, support and guidance from MATAC he would not be drug free, working and living in his own house. John stated that some of the training took a long period of time to be allocated for example, a domestic abuse service provider's perpetrator programme was six weeks after assessment before the start of the course. # References Bates, E. A., Graham-Kevan, N., Bolam, L. T., \& Thornton, A. J. 2017. A review of domestic violence perpetrator programs in the United Kingdom. Partner Abuse, 81, 3-46 Butters, R.P., Droubay, B.A., Seawright, J.L. et al.2020 Intimate Partner Violence Perpetrator Treatment: Tailoring Interventions to Individual Needs. Clinical Social Work Journal, available online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-020-00763-y Cooper, J. 2020 Multi-Agency Tasking and Coordination (MATAC) Project Evaluation. Durham Constabulary RIR 10420 Donovan, C., \& Griffiths, S. 2015. Domestic violence and voluntary perpetrator programmes: Engaging men in the pre-commencement phase. British Journal of Social Work, 454, 1155-1171. Gibbs, P., 2018. Love, fear and control—does the criminal justice system reduce domestic abuse? Home Office 2019 The economic and social costs of domestic abuse. Research Report 107 Home Office (updated 2021)https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/call-to-end-violence-against-women-and-girls-strategic-vision Office National Statistics 2016 (ONS2016)https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/resea rchoutputsdevelopingacrimeseverityscoreforenglandandwalesusingdataoncrimesrecordedbythepoli ce/2016-11-29 Robinson, A. L. 2006. Reducing Repeat Victimization among High-Risk Victims of Domestic Violence: The Benefits of a Coordinated Community Response in Cardiff, Wales. Violence against Women, 128, 761-788. Wire, J. \& Myhill, A. 2018 Piloting a new approach to domestic abuse frontline risk assessment. Evaluation report for the College of Policing, available on line: https://whatworks.college.police.uk/Research/Documents/DA_risk_assessment_pilot.pdf