Appraising Risk for Intimate Partner Violence in a Police Context

Abstract

This study examines the predictive accuracy of three risk assessment approaches for intimate partner violence (IPV) among a sample of 246 male perpetrators who were charged for offenses against their intimate partners. The sample was followed up for an average of 3.3 years, and any new general, violent, and IPV charges and convictions were recorded. The Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA) and a modified 14-item version of the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide (SARA) demonstrated large effects in their ability to predict any reoffending or any violent reoffending and moderate predictive accuracy for IPV offending behaviors. The regionally used approach, Family Violence Investigative Report (FVIR), showed good predictive validity for any future offending but poorly predicted any of the violent-specific recidivism outcomes. Results of the study show that the ODARA was significantly better at predicting violence risk over the FVIR, but paired comparisons did not reveal statistical differences with the SARA.

Use of the ODARA by police officers for intimate partner violence: Implications for practice in the field

“…Specifically, scores of 0 to 3 are interpreted as representing a low risk of subsequent IPV, scores of 4 to 6 represent moderate risk, and scores of 7 or higher reflect a high-risk individual. Based on file-coded scorings of the ODARA by researchers, the ability of the ODARA has adequate inter-rater reliability (Hilton et al, 2008) and can reliably predict subsequent IPV among male perpetrators at least to a moderate degree based on Receiving Operator Characteristics Curve analyses (Hilton & Harris, 2009;Jung & Buro, 2017). The ODARA produced the strongest predictive validity estimates among intimate partner risk measures in a meta-analysis by Messing and Thaller (2013).…”

“…The expansive role of police in responding to intimate partner violence (IPV) has resulted in various initiatives such as specialized units, domestic violence courts, and the mandatory use of risk assessment tools such as the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA; Hilton et al, 2004). Despite research demonstrating the validity of the ODARA for appraising risk of subsequent intimate partner violence (Hilton & Harris, 2009;Jung & Buro, 2017), gaps remain with regard to its actual use by police officers in the field (Lauria et al, 2017). Studies are needed to examine how formalized risk assessments are used by responding officers and under what conditions they are more likely to use them (Ariza et al, 2016;Campbell et al, 2018) to inform policy and practice.…”

Homicidio de pareja en España (2007-2016): tiempo entre denuncia, valoración policial del riesgo y muerte

“…La prevención de la VCP se ha centrado tradicionalmente en la evaluación y tratamiento de víctima y autor, y recientemente en el uso formal de evaluaciones de riesgo basadas en los factores que se relacionan de modo empírico con la aparición de la conducta violenta, que pueden clasificarse en estáticos y dinámicos, siendo estos últimos mejores predictores (Muñoz y López-Ossorio, 2016). La creación y uso de herramientas de evaluación específicas para la VCP se ha extendido en las últimas décadas, debido a la sensibilización y al incremento de casos (Campbell, 1986;Kropp, Hart, Webster y Eaves, 1995;Mental Health Center Penetanguishene [MHCP], 2005;Jung y Buro, 2016). Entre estos cabe destacar el Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA); su versión adaptada para uso policial, el Brief Spousal Assault Form for the Evaluation of Risk (B-SAFER; Jung y Buro, 2016; Kropp et al, 1995); y el Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA) (Jung y Buro, 2016;MHCP, 2005).…”

Predictive Validity of the Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-Entry Among Intimate Partner Violence Offenders

“…). The most promising IPV risk scales appear to be the ODARA and the SARA, which, in recent research, yielded AUCs ranging from .66 to .72 (moderate to large effects) and .62 to .74 (small to large effects), respectively, for IPV recidivism(Jung & Buro, 2017;Messing & Thaller, 2013;Olver & Jung, 2017).Lower effect sizes for IPV risk instruments may, in part, be due to a less developed effort to identify the strongest predictors of IPV (Z.Hilton, personal communication, May 17, 2017).Given this, there is no current 'best set' of IPV predictors; however, numerous variables have been identified in the literature as being significantly associated with IPV recidivism, one of…”