Police Family Violence
Response
Strengthening Systems to Enhance
Prevention and Intervention
Family Violence Symposium 2012
Strengthening Systems – The
Police ‘Element’

The response to Family Violence can be viewed
through a ‘systems framework’. Wikipedia says..
 a system is composed of parts.
 all the parts of a system must be related
(directly or indirectly)
 a system is a dynamic and complex whole,
interacting as a structured functional unit;
 systems thinking concerns an understanding
of a system by examining the linkages and
interactions between the elements that
compose the entirety of the system.
Strengthening Systems – The
Police ‘Element’

Police response to Family Violence is one
element of the overall framework that is the
system response to Family Violence.
 Police have reviewed and refined our FV
response with the objective of improving
prevention and intervention opportunities and
overall outcomes to FV.
 The overall success of the new changes
depends on Police implementation, but, also
depends on the quality of the communication
and interactions between the other elements
that compose the entirety of the ‘FV system.
The Changes…1 July 2012

A situational response model that will…
 distinguish between Intimate Partner Violence
(IPV) and non IPV occurrences
 apply a validated risk assessment tool that will
predict likelihood of re-assault in IPV
relationships (ODARA)
 collect and share risk information in IPV
contexts where ODARA does not apply
 collect and share risk information specifically
about children at all FV occurrences
 provide victims with relevant information and
advise them of referral to relevant FV service
providers
FAMILY VIOLENCE
Context…






In NZ the home is the most common location of
violence.
FV is more likely to result in injury than any other
type of assault.
Victims of FV are more likely to become repeat
victims than any other type of crime.
FV is the largest killer of women under the age of 44
years of age in the world (including traffic accidents,
war, natural disasters and disease).
One in three women experience physical or sexual
violence from a partner in their lifetime.
Estimated social and economic cost of family
violence is $5.3 billion a year (Women’s Affairs
Minister Hekia Parata June 2011).
Police Response to
Family Violence

Police attended over 94,000 family violence
incidents and offences in NZ in 2011.
 That is an average of 240 FV occurrences each
day (1 every 6 minutes).
 Context - it is estimated that still only 18-20% of
all FV incidents are reported.
 Children are present at and / or witness family
violence in over 50% of family violence
occurrences reported to Police
Family Violence - Role of Police





Critical responder - primary role = establish
safety and offender accountability as
appropriate.
ALSO - information collector, initial risk assessor
and facilitator of intervention.
FV response must be collaborative to be
effective and is a multi-agency responsibility.
Police do not address the underlying causes and
behavior – but play a key role in facilitation of
protective responses for victims and children.
The most crucial work is prevention – often
invisible and not measurable.
Un-Reported 80%
Reported 20%
Family Violence notifications to Police
Police Perspectives -The Iceberg Profile
6 to 10% = 65%
Call Demand
What is Reported to us?
% of Serious Violence that is Family Violence
Adult
Sexual
Assault
30%
Child
Abuse
Family Violence
70%
Serious
Assault
65%
50%
Homicide
19% - Child Female
14% - Child Male
30% - Adult Male
37% - Adult Female
Police Review of FV Response Primary Objectives






Understand the nature and type of FV
occurrences attended by NZ Police
Undertake international comparative analysis to
investigate type and effectiveness of FV
responses used elsewhere by law enforcement
agencies
Review and amend NZP response to ensure best
practice response to FV (current and relevant).
Identify relevant information for collection and
distribution internally and for collaborative
purposes
Apply risk assessment tools that are validated
and can reliably inform decisions
Improve ability to prioritize and effectively use
resources
Nature and Type of FV Occurrences Attended by Police
Family Violence Breakdown 2011 (70% IPV / 30% ‘Other’ Family Violence)
Intimate Partner
Violence
(Physical / sexual
violence / threats)
14%
Family Violence
Non IPV
(Remainder)
23%
26,326
Family
Violence
Non IPV
(Physical / sexual
violence / threats)
7%
Intimate Partner
Violence
(Remainder)
56%
Impact of Analysis

NZP - 70% of FV occurrences are Intimate
Partner Violence (IPV).
 IPV is driven by distinct dynamics

NZP 30% - ‘FV in non IPV family relationships’
 Violence in non IPV family relationships are
driven by different dynamics to IPV.

Blanket responses are ineffective at determining
and managing risk and recidivism – move to
situational response model that will distinguish
between relationship type and nature of the
violence
Risk Information /Assessment
impacts


Review of current Risk Assessment tools;

international literature review of RA tools in use by
law enforcement for FV, and

subsequent comparative analysis of current NZP
‘tools’ against these findings.
Outcome = Recommendation that the current risk
assessment tool (all three sections) be replaced;
because;

not developed using evidence based processes

not validated to show predictive accuracy

evidence of unreliability (over and under estimating
risk

Not applicable across all relationship types – ie its
blanket application lacks relevance to non IPV cases

Not evidentially applicable
Risk Assessment what, why, and how?

Risk assessment means making an appraisal
now about the likelihood of undesirable
events happening in the future.
 A reliable assessment enables resources to
be allocated to cases according to risk
(tailoring of urgency, nature and size of
resource response).
 BUT to be effective a risk assessment must
be ‘valid ‘ and ‘reliable’.
Risk Assessment what, why and how?

A valid risk assessment shared with those
who work with victims and criminal justice
users, can improve risk communication and
promote the coordination of all services
responding to family violence.
 Offender intervention should be based on the
principles of risk, need, and responsiveness;
a valid risk assessment is the essential
starting point.
Prediction – Prevention - Protection
Risk Assessment what, why and how?

There are a three ways to collect violence risk
information;
 unstructured / professional judgement – intuitive =
using informal processes to identify relevant
information and to make a decision. e.g. personal
experience, memory of research history, clinical
observations.
 structured professional judgement – intuitive =
guided decision making after consideration of a given
list of variables.
 actuarial – mechanical = decisions based on
empirical relationships between predictor
characteristics and outcomes. Have the highest
degree of predictive accuracy.
Risk Assessment what, why and how?




Research indicates that it is highly desirable to have
a tool that has a good predictive accuracy,
determined through validation design and testing.
To have predictive accuracy risk assessment tools
must be designed and tested (validated) for their
specific purpose (actuarial).
Risk assessment tools are relationship specific and
outcome specific (have a specific predictive
measurement objective …re-assault, lethality,
likelihood of conviction)
Risk assessment tools have a narrow application,
this means risk information also needs to be
collected to complement where a tool cannot be
applied.
Building the situational response
model – choosing a RA tool



Risk Assessment Tool must be IPV (other
relationships types driven by different dynamics – no
tool applicable to law enforcement available as yet).
A tool designed to predict re-assault is desirable,
because that is our greatest volume attendance
AND a good tool one will also give an indication of
the likely seriousness of any re-assault.
Review of IPV re-assault tools in use by
international law enforcement and comparison of
relative accuracy led to…
= selection of Ontario Domestic Assault Risk
Assessment tool (ODARA) for use by NZP
ODARA Accuracy
Assessment
ROC Area (+.5 to +1)
Sensitivity/Specificity trade-off
ODARA
DVSR (LE239) (DV Supp Report)
SARA (Spousal Assault RA)
DA (Danger Assessment)
LSI (Level of Service Inventory)
.77
.67
.64
.59
.56
- Any ROC score over .70 is described as having a
‘large’ (significant) effect.
- Subsequent cross validations of ODARA resulted in
ROC scores of up to .80
Validity: ROC Area, PPP, NPP for any New IPV
Sensitivity / Predictive Power
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Specificity
Hilton, Harris, Rice, Lang, Cormier, & Lines (2004)
Risk Assessment
Evolution – Ontario Domestic Assault Risk
Assessment (ODARA)
 Canada – 1998


1998 - May / Iles Inquest, Report to the Attorney
General
2002 -Hadley Inquest, Family Violence Death Review
recommendation.
• Collaboration of Ontario Provincial Police and Waypoint to
work on a project to develop RA Tool that could assist in
assessing risk of recidivism in cases of domestic assault ODARA

New Zealand – 2001- 2007


Death of the Aplin sisters (2001)
Death of Coral Burrows (2003)
• Introduction of first risk assessment tool in NZ – Pol FVIR (3
questions, 12 red flags, risk and lethality worksheet)
Ontario Domestic Risk Assault Risk
Assessment (ODARA)
Collaboration of OPP with MHCP (now
Waypoint) Domestic Assault Recidivism Risk
Assessment Project, 1999 - 2005
First Purpose:
To develop a risk assessment tool for front line
police officers, crown attorneys, health care
professionals, victim groups and other
criminal justice partners that could assist in
assessing risk of recidivism in cases of
domestic assault
What is ODARA?

Tool designed to assess the likelihood that a
person who has assaulted their partner will do
so again
 ODARA consists of 13 items that predict reassault and produces estimates of risk based
upon the number of items scored as present
 The higher the score the sooner, the more
frequent and the more severe the violence is
likely to be
Developing ODARA
 The
actuarial approach to designing
ODARA and identifying predictive
variables resulted in some interesting
findings…….
Some variables expected to be good predictors were
not significantly related to recidivism (e.g. injury at
index assault and suicidal indicators or threats).
 Other variables were related to recidivism but did not
improve the risk assessment after the 13 selected
items were included (e.g. unemployment and sexual
jealousy).
Only variables that were primary and strong predictors
of recidivism were chosen for ODARA (13 items)

Original Variable Grouping and
Reduction Steps
•
•
•
•
•
•
Index Assault Details
Non domestic Criminal History
Domestic Criminal History
Socio-demographic Characteristics
Victim Reports
Relationship Characteristics
Series of steps to reduce variables only to those that made
a significant and independent contribution to the
prediction of recidivism – regression, set wise, boot
strapping, final reduction = 13 items.
The 13 variables selected were those that in the series of
analyses, consistently predicted recidivism by themselves
and over and above the remaining variables.
ODARA COMPOSITION
Summary
ODARA has 13 items summarised into seven key
groups:
 Family violence history
 Criminal history
 Threat and confinement during most recent
offense
 Children in the relationship
 Accused substance abuse
 Barriers to support
 Victims views on potential for future violence
ODARA Application and Impacts

ODARA has qualifying criteria before it can be
used. (Predicts re-assault, so predicated on the
fact that there has been prior assault.)
 Focuses application on cases that meet the
threshold of physical assault, or, serious threat
of violence with a weapon and / or sexual
violence. (Called the index offence)
 Risk information about remaining IPV cases
where ODARA does not apply, still needs to be
collected and shared.
 Resulted in further research and analysis and
subsequently, the development of processes to
collect risk information about victims and
children.
Family Violence New Process Application
IPV
ODARA
14%
30%
26,326
12,285
20%
49,141
80%
56%
IPV
Non ODARA
70%
Source: 2010 – 2011 Fiscal Year
80
50
Percent who Recidivate
As a Function of ODARA Category
Percent Recidivism
60
30
40
20
20
Percent in ODARA Category
40
10
0
0
0
Construction N=589
1
2
3
4
All Cross-validations N=836
5, 6
7+
Percent in Category N=1425
Interpreting ODARA Risk Scores
Score
Percent
Recidivism
Percent in
this range
Percent
scoring
lower
Percent
scoring
higher
0
1
2
3
4
5-6
7-13
5
10
20
27
41
59
70
11
16
21
19
13
13
7
0
11
27
48
67
80
93
89
73
52
33
20
7
0
(Booklet page 30)
Using ODARA
POLICE
 Information available in domestic
investigation
 Opposition to bail
 Custody, Promise-to-appear
 Warrant for arrest
 Victim crisis referral, Emergency
transportation
 Crown brief
Using ODARA – Courts/Probation
Bail
 Higher scoring offenders represent more substantial risk
 Custody, Bail conditions
 Victim services liaison
Sentencing
 Incarceration, Duration
 Probation conditions
Probation and Parole
 Higher risk offenders: more supervision
 Conditions of release
 Supervision frequency, Intensity
 Referral to treatment programs
Uses of ODARA
Identification of potential risk to Victim
(and children in relationship)

Assists in explaining to victims, and their understanding
of, potential risk
 Improve victim engagement with service providers
 Enable appropriate safety planning commensurate to
identified risk for victim
 Information to victims on uses of ODARA by the Criminal
Justice System
Offender Treatment Decisions



Resource allocation
Attrition
Victim contact
A common metric for all sectors working together to
prevent violence against women
Certification and Registration





ODARA is an internationally validated risk
assessment tool, it will be tested and validated in NZ
by NZ Police
To maintain integrity and predictive validity of
ODARA scores, NZ Police must comply with
training, certification and registration requirements.
Frontline staff will collect ODARA information –
scores will be validated by specialists who are
trained users.
All training of users will be provided by the FV Unit
and delivered by a registered ODARA trainer
All staff who successfully complete the ODARA user
training will be certified and internationally
registered.
Collection of Risk Information
(IPV - ODARA not applicable)
Once ODARA was chosen we needed to look specifically at
how to manage risk to occurrences where ODARA did not
apply…
To score the ODARA, (the index assault) must be met.
Definition - index assault:
• the most recent incident known to police in which
violence occurred between intimate partners …
• ‘Violence’ = physical and /or sexual assault and/ or a
credible threat of harm or death with a weapon in hand,
in the presence of the victim

Risk information was required for IPV attendances where
ODARA does not apply (the orange wedge)
Collection of Risk Information
(IPV - ODARA not applicable)






Confident that ODARA will help prioritize cases and assess
risk where physical violence or imminent threat of it applies
Actuarial tools not generally developed to assess risk at the
‘lower level’, usually designed to predict an event
But still need to collect risk information about non ODARA
IPV cases to help inform decision making (Victim safety
and offender management)
IPV non ODARA cases are approximately 56% of
attendances
Used research and prior recent work by Ontario Provincial
Police to develop NZ Police’s own structured professional
judgment tool – a list of variables known to predict risk of
harm in IPV cases = Intimate Partner Vulnerability Factors
Acute and dynamic factors a primary focus to ensure lower
level attendance by Police is not something more serious.
Collection of Risk Information
(IPV - ODARA not applicable)

This information also forms part of the history
where there are both ODARA and Non ODARA
attendances by Police
 As with the Child Risk Factors, items are not
scored (not a validated tool) but are listed as
present, not present or unknown.
 The number of factors and combination of
factors are both important. It is the professional
judgment and experience of FV specialists in
interpreting the information that is important
 Commentary and summary on front page FV
reports.
Risk Information for Non ODARA IPV
Intimate Partner Vulnerability Factors
















Recent change in relationship status
Offender wanting to renew the relationship
Officer identifies / partner discloses psychological violence
Chronic violence in the relationship
Violence - increasing severity/frequency
Victim believes offender could kill or injure her
Offender has strangled the victim
Offender has threatened/attempted suicide
Offender has threatened to kill the victim or others
Offender has a history of violence against others
Offender has stalked the victim
Offender has exhibited sexual jealousy
Offender is recently unemployed / under financial pressure
Offender has history of drug / alcohol use
Offender has diagnosed mental illness
Offender has diagnosed personality disorder
Risk Management – Collection of
Risk Information - Children
Once collection of risk information for IPV response
(ODARA and IPVF) was determined we needed to look
specifically at how to manage remaining risk

30% not IPV; (The ‘blue wedge’ – ODARA / IPVF not
relevant)
- 20% child related FV
- 10% ‘Other’ FV – No RA tool applicable
Addressing Risk to Children


It was important to consider how Police could specifically
address risks to children when attending FV incidents.
Work was commissioned to look at whether there was
identifiable and recognized risks to children living in families
engaged in FV.
Risk Management – Collection of
Risk Information - Children

Research confirmed - high inter-relationship
between IPV and the incidence of child abuse
and neglect = 70% correlation.
 Automatic screening in some countries (e.g
UK).
 Concern with a very high percentage of child
FV deaths in immediate and wider family
context in New Zealand (child deaths are
approximately 33% of all FV deaths in NZ).
 Recommendation that NZP should consider
introducing a supplementary tool specifically
to consider risks to children.
Risk Management – Collection of
Risk Information - Children


Further work was subsequently commissioned to look at
what child risk tools international frontline law
enforcement used to assess risks to children in FV
incidents.
No tools are currently in use although some jurisdictions
are in the early stages of development.
Decision made that NZ Police need to collect risk
information about children when attending all family
violence incidents
=
development of the Child Risk Factor Form in
conjunction with partner agencies
Risk Management – Collection of
Risk Information - Children






The Child Risk Factor Form (CRF) was developed
by using clearly identified risk factors derived from
research
These factors are clearly distinct from those related
to IPV
Balance was required to ensure CRF would not
overburden staff or be outside ‘Police role’
The CRF went through a consultation process with
key partner agencies including CYF
It is not a risk assessment tool, but a list of variables
to inform professional judgment in making decisions
The CRF is not ‘scored’, it is the presence and
combination of factors that is important.
Child Risk Factors





In the new FV response model, CRF’s will be completed
for all children involved in Family Violence occurrences
attended by NZP
Only one CRF is completed for all children present that
are 16 years of age or younger
The CRF records the presence or not of known risk
factors grouped into categories – aggressor, family and
child specific
Police will collect this information and share it with
partner agencies
We are not usurping the role of CYF to determine and
be responsible for identifying and managing at risk
children, but we will be able to assist by providing better
quality information
Child Risk Factors

CHILD
 Child unborn
 Child/ren under 5 years of age
 Child/ren with physical disability
 Previous injury to child/ren through family violence

AGGRESSOR / PROTECTIVE PARENT
 History of alcohol and / or drug use
 Diagnosed mental illness
 Criminal history
 Evidence of stalking in the relationship (agg)
 Extremely controlling behaviour in the relationship (agg)
Child Risk Factors

FAMILY
 Police history of family violence
 Current Protection order / Family Court Order or
PSO
 Low socio-economic circumstances
 Recent stressors
 Non-biological parents
 Mother under 25 years of age
 Changes in relationship status
 Sexual assault of parent / caregiver at current
occurrence
Family Violence New Process Application
IPV
ODARA
14%
30%
26,326
12,285
20%
49,141
80%
56%
IPV
Non ODARA
70%
Source: 2010 – 2011 Fiscal Year
‘Preventative Actions’ in FV Response
New and Refined…

Prevention of further imminent harm by correct offender
management decisions, removal through arrest or use of
Police Safety Order
 Collecting relevant risk information to inform decisions and
to provide future context (Child Risk Factors, Intimate
Partner Vulnerability Factors) includes sharing this
information appropriately
 Application of ODARA, correct identification of risk –
offender management, safety planning and interagency
response
 Providing the victim with information (Victim information
sheet) and referring onto FV service provider
 Active engagement in FVIARS
 Targeting of high risk offenders and victims through
profiling of repeat and high risk cases (FVC)
 Police Family Violence Death Review (PFVDR)
 Alternative resolutions / outcomes as appropriate
Ripple Effect : Preventative Actions
Analysis of FV
Information and data
Offender Management
14%
23%FST
ASA
n
io
at
rm
fo al
In err
im ef
ct R
Vi
7%
FST
Youth
NPT
56%
Pl Saf
an et
ni y
ng
CPT
n
io
at t
rm e n
fo
In ssm
k
is se
R As
CIB
PS Mak
O es
Ar afe
re
st
FV Practitioner
overview
FVIARS
Intervention
Prosecution
Alternative Resolution
Profiling and Targeting
(FV subjects)
Liaison
Officers