Systematically identifying and prioritising domestic abuse perpetrators for targeted intervention

Abstract

International research finds that the majority of harm from crime can be attributed to a small proportion of perpetrators. Accurately identifying these individuals as priorities for intervention can lead to significant harm reduction. A new method, the Priority Perpetrator Identification Tool, was implemented in three police force areas of England and Wales. Additional investment, restructuring of units and the development of bespoke policies and protocols were necessary to establish the pilots, which to date have seen the Priority Perpetrator Identification Tool used in nearly 1500 domestic abuse cases. Mixed-methods research illustrates how the pilots instigated a systematic approach to identify and prioritise perpetrators in order to inform decisions about the scope and type of intervention to be deployed to reduce their offending. The development of these new collaborative arrangements represents a step change in the way the most harmful domestic abuse perpetrators are identified and managed within a multi-agency partnership.

The Relationship Between the Development of General Offending and Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration in Young Adulthood

“…Moreover, a small group displaying a persistent and diverse pattern of both nonviolent and violent offending were particularly at risk of perpetrating psychological and (severe) physical IPV across time. This conclusion is in line with the notion that a small group of offenders are responsible for a large proportion of crimes and harm, and therefore that it would be useful to focus resources and intervention efforts on this group of “power few” or persistent, high-risk offenders ( Moffitt et al, 2002 ; Robinson & Clancy, 2020 ; Sherman, 2007 ).…”

Unpacking Multiagency Structured Professional Judgment Risk Assessments for Family Violence

“…Agencies providing FV services often use risk assessments to guide their decision-making (Henning et al, 2021; Robinson & Clancy, 2020; Spivak et al, 2020; Stanley & Humphreys, 2014). In criminal justice settings, risk assessments are designed to predict the likelihood of an individual committing a criminal act in the future (Prins & Reich, 2021).…”

“…Agencies responding to Family Violence (FV) cases commonly use risk assessments because they aid practitioner judgments about the likelihood of future harm and can be used to inform their efforts to prevent that harm (Garrington & Boer, 2020; Henning et al, 2021; Robinson & Clancy, 2020; Stanley & Humphreys, 2014). The Integrated Safety Response (ISR) is a multiagency collaboration of organizations responsible for managing FV cases reported to police in two areas of New Zealand (Integrated Safety Response, 2018).…”

A theory of change driven approach to evaluating a multi-agency stalking intervention programme

“…Reasons given are expedited information sharing, improved referral processes, integration of working practices across organisational boundaries, access to professional expertise, and the ability to present a unified response to service users (Burnett and Appleton, 2004;Robinson, 2004;Sloper, 2004;Berry et al, 2011). Partnerships that focus on managing high risk people can potentially provide a better quality of response to service users -due to the synthesis of diverse perspectives on how to respond with the potential to target multiple causal mechanisms driving the problem -and/or a better quantity (i.e., dosage) of response to service users (Robinson and Clancy, 2021;Hester et al, 2017;Rosenbaum, 2002). For partnerships responsible for managing high-risk offenders or situations, the gains in effectiveness can be the difference between a calamitous outcome and a less harmful one.…”