How effective are men's non-violence programmes?

TVNZ Chief Correspondent John Campbell dug into the efficacy of non-violence programmes for men, looking to find out what "effectiveness" really means in preventing recidivism and how it can be measured.

A male non-violence programme provider in Manukau has been described by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) as "well-established and respected," but when two attendees claimed lives in their reoffending.

Ten days ago, on a bustling Britomart morning, Matu Reid brought a gun to a construction site, killing two people and being killed himself.

Sean Mason, Acting National Commissioner for the Department of Corrections, released a statement saying the 24-year-old was "actively" engaged in a non-violence programme in relation to prior family violence charges, but as 1News discovered, he had enrolled himself in a separate yet similar programme three years earlier.

Friendship House Trust in Manukau oversaw Reid back then, with the MoJ having held a contract with them since 2014 "for the delivery of non-violence programmes for perpetrators of family violence".

Reid is not the only individual who attended a non-violence programme at Friendship House to make headlines - 1News understands Jesse Kempson, who would go on to murder Grace Millane in 2018, also attended a programme.

The trust's chief executive Neil Denny could not directly comment on Reid or Kempson's time with Friendship House.

The MoJ said it has confidence in the efficacy of Friendship House's non-violence programme for men and that it is "satisfied with the quality of services delivered to clients referred by the court".

The trust manages one of the longest-running non-violence programmes for men in the country, and the workload they carry is revealingly high.

"Anywhere between 500, 600, sometimes up to a thousand men a year coming through our door. They are men who have used violence," Denny said.

In the past five years - beginning in July 2018 - the trust saw an average of 439 offenders referred to them each year by the Ministry.

Nationally, there are 48 MoJ-approved providers of courses for men, the Courts alone referring over 6000 people to programmes each year.

MoJ Acting Chief Operating Officer Tracey Baguley said providers are required to submit quarterly reports to the ministry "detailing provider capacity to deliver, client demographics, and how the programme sessions and assessments are delivered in a way that is best suited to the individual’s learning style, abilities, cultural background, and language".

"Participant files are checked regularly to ensure that thorough risk assessments are being conducted and that detailed notes are maintained, describing participant engagement during the programme, and checking that the appropriate forms are submitted to the court in a timely manner," she said.

Even with broad external checks on providers, are the programmes they provide still effective?

"How do you define efficacy?" Denny pondered when asked to provide success rates.

"We define it, at present, about completion. And that’s not the best way to define efficacy."

A 2016 report provided to 1News by the New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse, the National Centre for Family and Whānau Violence Research and Information, found responses to perpetrators of family violence are “piecemeal and insufficient” and that non-violence programmes “are relatively short with limited scope for tailoring to the heterogeneity of perpetrators”.

One measure of their success is the percentage of men who finish the programmes.

But Women’s Refuge CEO Dr Ang Jury says while they “absolutely do feel that programmes should exist to help men address their violent behaviour”, it’s important to acknowledge that “attendance does not equate behaviour change, especially when a reduced sentence hangs in the balance”.

The missing piece of the puzzle is what happens when attendees leave and if lessons learned through a programme continue to echo through their actions.

"While they’re here, they’re mandated by the Courts or mandated by Corrections. Once they’re finished the programme, the mandate is finished," Denny explained.

"That last bit of the equation, how well did we do, what impact did we have on the community, is really difficult to discover."

Baguley said the MoJ was "not aware of any concerns" with Friendship House's ability to manage risks associated with people referred to non-violence programmes.

When asked how we know that we're getting non-violence programmes right, Neil Denny contemplated the question — "How do we know?"

Again, the measure is programme completion.

Jury says completion is only a start.

"However well-intentioned or designed, there is no real mechanism for evaluating whether the change has been achieved and sustained," she said in a written statement to 1News.

"Currently, during legal proceedings, attendance of an 8-week programme alone is seen as a measure of rehabilitation. We know this is certainly not enough time to achieve real change, with a large body of research telling us 20 weeks minimum is required."

If it means a smaller sentence, referred people committing to attend a short course is to be expected, but observing long-term attitude changes is a separate and much more difficult task.

Newly-placed Justice Minister Ginny Andersen said she is "keen" on an overview of the delivery of contracted non-violence programmes.

"I’ve currently asked for the Ministry of Justice to update me on all non-violence programmes that are being delivered and funded," she said.

"I’m also interested in getting additional information about what the rate of recidivism of those individuals who’ve completed the courses."

Reid and Kempson are clear outliers, but when it comes to safety at home and in public, more effective non-violence courses will increase public safety. After all, that's their point.

Additional reporting by Devin Pike