Assessment and management of risk for intimate partner violence by police officers using the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide.

Abstract

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a crime that is present in all countries, seriously impacts victims, and demands a great deal of time and resources from the criminal justice system. The current study examined the use of the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide, 2nd ed. (SARA; Kropp, Hart, Webster, & Eaves, 1995), a structured professional judgment risk assessment and management tool for IPV, by police officers in Sweden over a follow-up of 18 months. SARA risk assessments had significant predictive validity with respect to risk management recommendations made by police, as well as with recidivism as indexed by subsequent contacts with police. Risk management mediated the association between risk assessment and recidivism: High levels of intervention were associated with decreased recidivism in high risk cases, but with increased recidivism in low risk cases. The findings support the potential utility of police-based risk assessment and management of IPV, and in particular the belief that appropriately structured risk assessment and management decisions can prevent violence.

Progress in Violence Risk Assessment and Communication: Hypothesis versus Evidence

“…They also add, “(A)lthough this has not been observed in all studies” (p. 106). Our reading of the literature leads us to conclude, contrary to Douglas et al () and Heilbrun et al (), that the accuracy of assessments of violence risk are unimproved or worsened (though rarely significantly) by the summary risk ratings compared with untempered raw scores (Belfrage et al, ; de Vogel et al, ; de Vogel, & de Ruiter, ; Desmarais, Nicholls, Wilson, & Brink, ; Douglas, Yeomans, & Boer, ; Michel et al, ; Storey et al, ; see also meta‐analyses by Guy, and O'Shea, Mitchell, Picchioni, & Dickens, ). We found one study (Douglas, Ogloff, & Hart, ) reporting that summary risk ratings improved accuracy over untempered raw totals.…”

Double jeopardy: Predictors of elevated lethality risk among intimate partner violence victims seen in emergency departments

“…14 victims seen in EDs for their injuries. The use of the DA score as an outcome variable allows for a quantitative evaluation of victim danger that is often only available qualitatively, retrospectively, or through instruments designed for groups other than IPV victims (Bansal et al, 2008;Bazargan-Hejazi et al, 2014;Belfrage et al, 2012;Smith et al, 2014). While it is important not to overgeneralize victim risk from DA scores (e.g., high-risk factors, such as firearms in the home, should not be ignored in the context of medium or low DA scores), the Lethality Risk Assessment adds an important dimension to IPV prevention and intervention efforts.…”

“…The Lethality Risk Assessment is a validated prevention tool comprising a victim-reported calendar of abuse events and weighted questionnaire that predicts female IPV victims' risk of intimate partner homicide by a male partner. Existing literature suggests this is the first such use of the Lethality Risk Assessment (Belfrage et al, 2012;Campbell et al, 2009;Juodis et al, 2014;Williams, 2012). The DVRR app calculates a Danger Assessment (DA) score based on the weighted questionnaire from the Lethality Risk Assessment without the victim-reported calendar.…”

The Influence of Victim Vulnerability and Gender on Police Officers’ Assessment of Intimate Partner Violence Risk

“…This finding by Douglas and Hines (2011) may be somewhat explained by the mismatch between risk and management found in the present results, where victims may view risk management strategies that do not correspond to risk factors or risk level as unhelpful. This problem is an important one for practice as poor or limited management will lead to greater rates of IPV recidivism and heightened rates of post-traumatic stress disorder among victims (Belfrage et al 2011; Douglas and Hines 2011). …”