Snapshot

Intervention Police officers are teamed with ‘second responders’ to conduct follow-up visits following callouts for intimate partner violence

Key populations Adult victims and survivors and perpetrators of intimate partner violence

Outcomes studied Gender-based violence, Detection of violence, screening and support, Wellbeing and emotions, Health, Relationships

Impact of the intervention One systematic review and meta-analysis provides initial impact results for IPV and victim use of services

Australian Evidence 0 studies presented findings from Australia and 0 studies reported on the experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples

Risk of bias Classification pending

Intervention description

What are the key characteristics of the intervention?

Second responder programs involve police partnering with second responders to co-respond to callouts for intimate partner violence. Second responders are usually practitioners employed in social services, counselling, or advocacy roles. These practitioners usually provide the victim and survivor with support and resources around access to services like mental health, legal assistance, housing, or safety planning. They may refer a victim and survivor to other services or facilitate initial contact for them. The aim of the intervention is to address repeat violence.

What does the intervention involve?

Where is the intervention set? Delivered via home visits during or after the police callout, with some using telephone contacts

How is the intervention delivered? By police officers and second responder practitioners, usually face-to-face

How frequently is the intervention delivered? Second responders usually make contact with victims and survivors within 24 hours to one week of police contact. Duration of this contact ranges from 10 to 45 minutes

What resources and costs are involved? One study commented on the costs associated with the intervention

Theory of change

How is the intervention designed or theorised to work?

Second responder interventions are based on the theory that victims and survivors of domestic and family violence may be more receptive to future prevention opportunities such as safety planning or support service engagement immediately after an incident of violence has occurred. Most interventions focused on educating victims and survivors to understand the cyclical pattern of domestic and family violence and providing referrals to support services.

A few studies broadened the scope of participants to include families who were victims and survivors, rather than focusing on individuals. Further, a couple of studies focused on providing recovery opportunities to perpetrators of domestic and family violence. Despite the different populations, all studies anticipated a recent incident of domestic and family violence could act as a catalyst for greater recovery efforts.

Impact

This section speaks to the effectiveness of the studies.

The outcomes measured by the included studies include intimate partner violence and use of services. Findings in the impact table below draw from one high-quality systematic review and meta-analysis of the included studies.

✅ = Most systematic reviews and studies show effectiveness
🟢 = Most studies show effectiveness
🟨= Most systematic reviews and studies show no effect
🟡 = Most studies show no effect
⛔= Potentially harmful
🔵 = Mixed evidence
✖ = Insufficient causal evidence
🕓 = Not yet rated

Key Populations

Has the impact of this intervention been tested with certain key populations?

This Intervention Review assessed the impact of second responder programs aimed at responding to intimate partner violence. The populations predominantly focused on adult women victims and survivors without targeting any specific sexual orientation. There were thirteen studies that considered perpetration, these studies focused on either male perpetrators of intimate partner violence or family groups. Only three studies focused explicitly on heterosexual relationships. The intervention was not designed for any specific cultural or ethnic groups, people with physical or mental disabilities, or health conditions.

The table below gives an overview of whether or not the intervention was examined with some key populations. The inclusion of these populations was guided by the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032 and the Australian National Research Agenda to End Violence against Women and Children: 2023-2028.

🔴 = no studies
🟡 = at least 1 study mentions that population, but effectiveness wasn't tested with that population
🟢 = at least 1 study tests effectiveness with the population

Population	What do we know about this group?	Degree of knowledge
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities	0 studies examine the effectiveness of the intervention with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Therefore, we cannot confirm the applicability of this intervention to this population.
Sexuality and gender diverse / LGBTIQA+	0 studies examine the effectiveness of the intervention with sexuality and gender diverse/LGBTIQA+. Therefore, we cannot confirm the applicability of this intervention to this population.
Specific age groups (including older people, children and young people)	0 studies examine the effectiveness of the intervention with specific age groups. Therefore, we cannot confirm the applicability of this intervention to this population.
Culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) groups	0 studies examine the effectiveness of the intervention with these populations. Therefore, we cannot confirm the applicability of this intervention to this population.
Migrants and refugees	0 studies examine the effectiveness of the intervention with migrant and refugee communities. Therefore, we cannot confirm the applicability of this intervention to this population.
People with disability	0 studies examine the effectiveness of the intervention with disabilities. Therefore, we cannot confirm the applicability of this intervention to this population.

Key considerations

This section summarises factors that may contribute to study results, factors that may be considered to facilitate better outcomes, and the transferability of the intervention to an Australian context.

What do we know about the intervention in Australia?

• No studies presented findings from Australia. Most studies were based in the United States, with some from the United Kingdom and one from Canada. Further research is required to determine effectiveness and acceptability in an Australian context.
• It is important to consider the differences in law enforcement agencies between jurisdictions. Australian policing is more centralised than the municipally based structure in the United States and often spans across vast territories.
• While findings may indicate an increase in the recurrence of police-reported intimate partner violence, this could be due to an increased willingness for victims and survivors to contact police. However, more research is needed to establish whether second responder programs increase willingness to report violence.

What should Australian stakeholders consider?

• All interventions were facilitated predominantly by police officers, with some interventions facilitated by community workers. All facilitators, regardless of occupation, had been trained in, or held specialised knowledge of, domestic and family violence.
• All second responder programs were delivered either face-to-face or via telephone. There are no studies that consider the delivery of these programs through other means (such as technology-facilitated secondary responder interventions).
• All interventions included the provision of information resources to participants. These included leaflets, posters and/or educational materials on domestic and family violence as well as local resources and support service information.
• Most studies did not indicate the costs of secondary responder interventions. One study from the United Kingdom estimated that the program cost £45,300 over a six-month period, averaging a cost of £174 per victim who engaged with the intervention. These costs were recorded in 2017 and therefore may not be reflective of present-day costs.
• Initial research indicates the time between an incident of domestic and family violence and initial second responder contact may impact the effectiveness of the intervention. The time between initiating second responses varied between studies from 24 hours to 5 days from the initiating violent incident. A decrease in the recurrence of domestic and family violence incidents may be greater in interventions when the secondary response occurred within 72 hours.

Included studies

Characteristics of primary studies included in the Intervention Review

Study and location	Design	Intervention	Sample	Outcome categories
Casey et al. (2007) United States	Quasi-experimental study Comparison: Treatment as usual, police services Qualitative data: No	Second responder programs Duration and format: Individual, face-to-face delivered by police and social workers Setting: Home Costs: Not provided Duration and format: Individual, delivered by social workers and police Setting: Home Costs: Not provided	Adult women victims/survivors	Gender-based violence
Davis et al. (2007; 2010) United States	Randomised controlled trial Comparison: No treatment Qualitative data: No	Second responder program Duration and format: Individual, 30-45 minute visit within 24hrs of DV incident, delivered by police including a trained female domestic violence detective Setting: Home Costs: Not reported	NExp = 74, NComp = 76 Adult women victims/survivors	Gender-based violence, Detection of violence, screening and support
Davis et al. (2008) United States	Systematic review	Second responder programs	Adult women victims/survivors	Gender-based violence
Davis et al. (2021)	Comparison: Treatment as usual, police services Qualitative data: No	Second responder program Duration and format: Individual, face-to-face delivered by police Setting: Home Costs: Not provided	Adult women victims/survivors	Gender-based violence
Davis & Taylor (1997) United States	Randomised controlled trial Comparison: No treatment Qualitative data: No	Second responder programs Duration and format: Individual, delivered by social workers and police Setting: Home Costs: Not provided	Adult women victims/survivors	Gender-based violence, Social and material support
Davis & Weisburd (2008); Peterson et al. (2022)	Systematic review	Second responder programs	Adult women victims/survivors	Gender-based violence
Deprince et al. (2012) United States	Quasi-experimental study Comparison: No treatment Qualitative data: No	Second responder program Duration and format: Individual telephone format, delivered by police and system-based advocate Setting: Home Costs: Not provided	NExp = 50, NComp = 53 Adult women victims/survivors	Gender-based violence
Friday et al. (2006); Exum et al. (2014) United States	Quasi-experimental study Comparison: Treatment as usual, police services Qualitative data: No	Charlotte Domestic Violence Unit Duration and format: Individual, face-to-face delivered by police sergeant, detectives, counsellors and volunteers Setting: Home Costs: Not provided	NExp = 220, NComp = 670 Adult women victims/survivors	Gender-based violence
Greenspan et al. (2005) United States	Quasi-experimental study Comparison: Treatment as usual, police services Qualitative data: No	Richmond Second Responder Program Duration and format: Individual, delivered by social works and police Setting: Home Costs: Not provided	NExp = 60, NComp = 60 Adult women victims/survivors	Gender-based violence
Hovell et al. (2006) United States	Quasi-experimental study Comparison: No treatment Qualitative data: No	Family Violence Response Team Duration and format: Individual, face-to-face delivered by police and social workers Setting: Home Costs: Not provided	Adult women victims/survivors (Latino/a or Hispanic : 62.5%)	Detection of violence, screening and support
Koppensteiner et al. (2015) United Kingdom	Randomised controlled trial Comparison: Treatment as usual, police services Qualitative data: No	Project 360 Referrals offered during phone contact with system-based advocates Duration and format: Individual face-to-face, 1-week varying by victim/survivor needs, delivered by community engagement workers Setting: Telephone (phone calls excluding text messaging) Costs: Not provided	NExp = 117, NComp = 97 Adult women victims/survivors	Wellbeing and emotions, Detection of violence, screening and support
Koppensteiner et al. (2017) United Kingdom	Randomised controlled trial Comparison: Treatment as usual, police services Qualitative data: No	Project 360 Duration and format: Individual face-to-face, 1-week varying by victim/survivor needs, delivered by community engagement workers Setting: Telephone (phone calls excluding text messaging) Costs: total estimated incremental cost over the 6-month period for Project 360 was £45,300, £174 per victim engagement	NExp = 110, NComp = 104 Adult women victims/survivors	Social and material support, Detection of violence, screening and support. Health. Wellbeing and emotions, Relationships
Messing et al. (2014; 2015) United States	Quasi-experimental study Comparison: Treatment as usual police services Qualitative data: No	Lethality Assessment Program Duration and format: face-to-face, individual, delivered by social workers, first responders or police Setting: Various, at the scene of the incident Costs: Not reported	NExp = 657, NComp = 342 Adult women victims/survivors	Behaviours, Gender-based violence, Health
Mizrachi (2019) United States	Single group pre-post study Comparison: N/A Qualitative data: No	Lethality Assessment Program Duration and format: Individual, face-to-face delivered by police Setting: Scene of domestic violence incident Costs: Not provided	N=954 Adult women victims/survivors	Gender-based violence
Regoeczi et al. (2018) United States	Quasi-experimental study Comparison: Treatment as usual, police services Qualitative data: No	Second responder program Duration and format: Individual, face-to-face delivered by Social worker, Police, Court workers, Prosecutor or judges Setting: Home Costs: Not provided	Adult women victims/survivors	Gender-based violence
Scott et al. (2015) Canada	Quasi-experimental study Comparison: No treatment Qualitative data: No	Second responder program Duration and format: Face-to-face, individual risk, needs, and responsivity-focused second-responder program delivered by therapists Setting: Specialist DFV services Costs: not reported	NExp = 40, NComp = 40 Adult male perpetrators	Gender-based violence
Stover et al. (2010) United States	Quasi-experimental study Comparison: Treatment as usual police services Qualitative data: No	Domestic Violence Home Visit Intervention Duration and format: face-to-face, individual home visits, delivered by police and community-based patrol officers Setting: Home Costs: not reported	NExp = 52, NComp = 55 Adult women victims/survivors	Health, Child health, behaviour and development, Social and material support
Stover et al. (2009) United States	Quasi-experimental study Comparison: No treatment Qualitative data: No	Duration and format: Individual, face-to-face delivered by police and social workers Setting: Home Costs: Not provided	Adult women victims/survivors	Gender-based violence

References and further reading

Included studies

• Casey, R. L., Berkman, M., Stover, C. S., Gill, K., Durso, S., & Marans, S. (2007). Preliminary Results of a Police-Advocate Home-Visit Intervention Project for Victims of Domestic Violence. Journal of Psychological Trauma, 6(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1300/J513v06n01_04


• Davis, R. C., Petersen, K., Weisburd, D., & Taylor, B. (2021). Updated protocol: Effects of second responder programs on repeat incidents of family abuse: An updated systematic review and meta‐analysis. Campbell Systematic Review, 17(4), e1200–n/a. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1200


• Davis, R. C., & Weisburd, D. (2008). Protocol: effects of second responder programs on repeat incidents of family abuse. Campbell Systematic Review, 4(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/CL2.49


• Davis, R. C., Weisburd, D., & Hamilton, E. E. (2010). Preventing repeat incidents of family violence: a randomized field test of a second responder program. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 6(4), 397–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-010-9107-3


• Davis, R. C., Weisburd, D., & Taylor, B. (2008). Effects of Second Responder Programs on Repeat Incidents of Family Abuse: A Systematic Review. Campbell Systematic Review, 4(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2008.15


• Deprince, A. P., Labus, J., Belknap, J., Buckingham, S., & Gover, A. (2012). The impact of community-based outreach on psychological distress and victim safety in women exposed to intimate partner abuse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 80(2), 211–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027224


• Exum, M. L., Hartman, J. L., Friday, P. C., & Lord, V. B. (2014). Policing Domestic Violence in the Post-SARP Era: The Impact of a Domestic Violence Police Unit. Crime and Delinquency, 60(7), 999–1032. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128710382345


• Foureaux Koppensteiner, M., Matheson, J., & Plugor, R. (2017). Project 360: An intervention to address victim-police engagement in repeat domestic violence cases. University of Leicester.


• Friday, P. C., Lord, V. B., Exum, M. L., & Hartman, J. L. (2006). Evaluating the impact of a specialized domestic violence police unit, final report. University of North Carolina. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/215916.pdf


• Greenspan, R. Weisburd, D. & Lane, E. (2005). Richmond's second responders: Partnering with police against domestic violence. Police Foundations Report. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/lbrr/archives/cnmcs-plcng/cn80445925-eng.pdf


• Hovell, M. F., Seid, A. G., & Liles, S. (2006). Evaluation of a Police and Social Services Domestic Violence Program: Empirical Evidence Needed to Inform Public Health Policies. Violence Against Women, 12(2), 137–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801205277723


• Matheson, J., Koppensteiner, M., & Plugor, R. (2015). Project 360: Preliminary report I. University of Leicester.


• Messing, J. T., Campbell, J., Webster, D. W., Brown, S., Patchell, B., & Wilson, J. S. (2015). The Oklahoma Lethality Assessment Study: A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of the Lethality Assessment Program. The Social Service Review (Chicago), 89(3), 499–530. https://doi.org/10.1086/683194


• Messing, J. T., Campbell, J., Wilson, J. S., Brown, S., Patchell, B., & Shall, C. (2014). Police departments’ use of the lethality assessment program: a quasi-experimental evaluation. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/247456.pdf


• Mizrachi, D. A. (2019). Stop Running in LAPs: Evaluating the Lethality Assessment Program’s Effectiveness in Reducing Repeat Intimate Partner Violence [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.34917/15778509


• Petersen, K., Davis, R. C., Weisburd, D., & Taylor, B. (2022). Effects of second responder programs on repeat incidents of family abuse: An updated systematic review and meta‐analysis. Campbell Systematic Review, 18(1), e1217–n/a. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1217


• Regoeczi, W. C., & Hubbard, D. J. (2018). The Impact of Specialized Domestic Violence Units on Case Processing. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(3), 570-590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-018-9435-9


• Scott, K., Heslop, L., Kelly, T., & Wiggins, K. (2015). Intervening to Prevent Repeat Offending Among Moderate- to High-Risk Domestic Violence Offenders: A Second-Responder Program for Men. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59(3), 273–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X13513709


• Stover, C. S., Berkman, M., Desai, R., & Marans, S. (2010). The Efficacy of a Police-Advocacy Intervention for Victims of Domestic Violence: 12 Month Follow-Up Data. Violence Against Women, 16(4), 410–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801210364046


• Stover, C. S., Poole, G., & Marans, S. (2009). The Domestic Violence Home-Visit Intervention: Impact on Police-Reported Incidents of Repeat Violence Over 12 Months. Violence and Victims, 24(5), 591–606. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.24.5.591

Additional evidence on the intervention

This list contains other evidence that was not eligible for the Intervention Review based on our selection criteria but may provide further information regarding the intervention.

• Davis, R. C., Weisburd, D. Hamilton, E. E. (2007). Preventing Repeat Incidents of Family Violence: A Randomized Field Test of a Second Responder Program in Redlands. U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/219841.pdf


• Mazerolle, L., Eggins, E., Sydes, M., Hine, L., McEwan, J., Norrie, G. (2018). Criminal justice responses to domestic and family violence: A rapid review of the evaluation literature. University of Queensland. https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/586185/systematic-review-of-criminal-justice-responses-to-domestic-and-family-violence.pdf


• Rubenstein, B. Y., Wojcik, M. L. T., Anderson, V. R., & Fisher, B. S. (2021). Shifting the Service Referral Paradigm Using Community-Based Second Responders: Examining Weapon Use in Intimate Partner Violence. Journal of Family Violence, 36(5), 527–535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-020-00246-1


• Smith Stover, C. (2012). Police-Advocacy Partnerships in Response to Domestic Violence. Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations, 12(2), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332586.2012.717031