MMFC Workshop 2013: Risk Assessment and Risk Management in Intimate Partner Violence Situations

Transcription

1 MMFC Workshop 2013: Risk Assessment and Risk Management in Intimate Partner Violence Situations FINAL REPORT 1 Prepared by Rina Arseneault and Christine Wakeham, MMFC Since the 1970s, advocates have debated about the societal responses to intimate partner violence (IPV). Various government departments and community organizations reacted with different responses to the issue. The community created transitions houses, second stage housing and multidisciplinary committees on family violence just to name a few. The criminal justice system responded through legislation, law enforcement policies, treatment programs for violent individuals (Gill & Thériault, 2010; Ursel et al., 2008a), and specialized justice processes for promoting and coordinating practices across justice and human service systems. Despite normative assumptions about improvements to our collective responses to IPV, little has been done to improve our collective role in preventing and reducing IPV. The development of a collaborative multidisciplinary approach to assessing and managing risk should span across a range of related services involving community (transition house services, outreach services, counselling services for both the victim and the abuser, treatment programs for violent individuals, etc.), government services (police, crown prosecutors, victim services, child protections services, etc.) and academia. It became evident that we also need to look at how we can consistently assess danger for the victim through a multidisciplinary approach. Through research, a number of risk factors leading to IPV have been identified and several of these risk factors are included in IPV risk assessment tools. A couple of risk assessment tools that focus on assessing risk for the victim are the Danger Assessment (DA) and the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA). However, these tools are not currently used consistently when working with victims and more research is required. Professionals dealing with abusers and victims of IPV need to understand the issue and the importance of an effective and efficient intervention. What does a risk assessment in a situation of IPV need to cover? How should a risk assessment be conducted? What skills and training are needed? These are questions that are important to answer in order to move forward with assessing and managing risks in IPV situations. The MMFC organized its 2013 workshop knowing that working together to understand and prevent IPV is key in moving forward to answer these questions and others. The MMFC Workshop 2013 provided an opportunity to better understand risk assessments, the 1 Note: Not all PowerPoint presentations are available. Those received can be found in the appendix. MMFC Workshop 2013 Final Report Page 1

2 importance of assessing risk and how the assessment can be used and/or shared among professionals working in collaboration. Knowing that frontline workers from various milieus already use tools in their work to assess risk, the objectives of the workshop were to: discuss if these tools help to prevent IPV situations from recurring. deliberate on if and how professionals share their assessments once they have been completed. gain a better understanding of the role that each professional has when using risk assessments. gain a better understanding of what is being used to assess risk provincially and nationally; gain a better understanding of the benefits and the challenges encountered when using various risk assessment tools; and the benefits and challenges when not using the tools. (See appendix A for the MMFC Workshop 2013 Program) Key Results and Outcomes General Public Event The workshop was preceded, on October 29, 2013, by a free public event. The keynote speaker was Dr. Randall Kropp. Dr. Kropp is a clinical and forensic psychologist specializing in the assessment and management of violent offenders. He works for the Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission of British Columbia, ProActive ReSolutions, and is an Adjunct Professor of Psychology at Simon Fraser University. He has conducted hundreds of workshops on violence risk assessment and management for mental health professionals, police officers, corrections staff, and others in North America, Australia, Asia, Africa, and Europe. Dr. Kropp gave a public address entitled Critical Issues in Intimate Partner Violence Risk assessment and Management. There were approximately two hundred people in attendance. His presentation touched on the importance of understanding the complexities of IPV before conducting assessments. We need to know the nature of the violence, the intent of the perpetrator, the impact this violence has on the victim, the relationship status of the couple and the gender of those involved. He presented on how we comprehend risk and how risk is a hazard that is incompletely understood and therefore that can be forecast only with uncertainty. The highest risk of IPV occurring is when separation is imminent or 4-6 months after the separation. He spoke of the need to broaden the definition of IPV in order to assess risk. We need to include the context of the situation, the intent of the abuser, the impact on the victim, the type of relationship (e.g. common-law, dating, married, etc.), and so forth. Defining IPV creates challenges even before you begin to assess risk. Risk includes looking at nature, severity, frequency, and the imminence of violence. We need to remember that every case is different and needs to be treated as such. We can not predict the future which means that we can not predict when violence will occur. However, we can assess risk MMFC Workshop 2013 Final Report Page 2

3 which allows us to plan for if it happens again and hopefully prevent some instances of violence from occurring again. Dr. Kropp informed the audience that the assessment of risk will vary depending on who you are working with (victim, children, perpetrator, etc.). Risk assessment leads to speculation on how to manage the violence. Dr. Kropp cautioned about not being discriminatory. He spoke of the need for professional discretion by using the example of a perpetrator about to get out of prison who scored low on the risk assessment tool of re-offending but made a comment about killing his wife as soon as he gets out. Knowing the context in this situation and using your judgment is key to making the correct decision. As he reminds us, we usually know who the victim is or could be. We need to talk to the victim(s), not just the perpetrator, as we need to hear both sides of the story. We need to take the time to do this as it will allow the person/people assessing the risk to have different perspectives and to better know what is going on in that particular situation. We need to look at the context of the relationship. What are the problems in the relationship being assessed? What is the conflict they face? What are the red flags? Dr. Kropp reinforced the need to remember that safety planning with the victim is key. He also described in detail the process of using the B-SAFER assessment tool. In conclusion, Dr. Kropp stated that a risk assessment can influence and impact the way risk is managed for all involved. We need to manage the problem, not to predict the future. (See Appendix B for Dr. Kropp s PowerPoint presentation). The presentation was followed by a question period and a small reception (see Appendix C for the questions and answers). Workshop Morning Session On the morning of October 30, 2013, Dr. Carmen Gill, Director, Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre (MMFC), welcomed the 127 participants to the workshop. Inspector Lucie Dubois, Officer-in- Charge, Crime Reduction, Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) introduced the keynote speaker. William Reid, Chief of the Saint John Police Force and President of the New Brunswick Association of Chiefs of Police The title of Chief Reid s presentation was Managing Risk in the 21 st Century. He informed the participants that much has changed over the last 30 years. In the early 80 s, police just stopped the violent situation. There were no other interventions and the abuser was not removed from the home. Chief Reid quoted Alex Walker and noted the need to reinforce that victims do have power they are not powerless. He spoke on how technology has changed the way police officers respond to MMFC Workshop 2013 Final Report Page 3

4 situations of IPV. As he said: 20 years ago, viral meant that you had the flu. Now days, viral is a computer term. Everything put online is exposed in a matter of minutes through social media. Police need to be constantly observing and adapting to changes in society and cultural changes. In 1980, IPV was kept in the family. In the late 1980 s, research informed us that the mandatory arrest policies that were put in place, worked. Later still, we were informed that arrest alone does not reduce IPV. Today, police are responding more proactively knowing that a community response does work to reduce and prevent IPV. We know that we need to have services for both the victim and the offender. There are now many supports available, such as outreach workers, counseling, transition houses, etc., but we must continue to work together and continue to build on the collaboration that has begun. In the 21 st century, the policing focus has changed to be more proactive by focusing on crime reduction. To do this, a community response is essential. IPV is still the most unreported crime. Police must be vigilant for unintended consequences. Early contacts and interventions can have a huge impact on situations of IPV. It can help with moderating the escalation of violence. Police play an important role in identifying those who are at risk. Police also play a role in referring and sharing information with appropriate professionals who can help. Police need to evolve and implement/adapt strategies, including using risk assessment tools. ODARA was designed to be used by police and to be completed quickly and accurately. We must be mindful that police do not have the training to use a more in depth risk assessment tool. ODARA is a short, concise and practical risk assessment tool for police. Chief Reid ended by noting that IPV is a crime and needs to be treated as such. Police need to remove the threat and ensure the safety of the victim. Police want to do more and need to do more, and the community approach is helping with this. Victim Services is available 24/7 to assist victims. No one agency can assist with all issues related to IPV. We need to work together to deliver the appropriate support services to both victims and offenders. Morning Panel Discussion: After Chief Reid s presentation there was a panel discussion on Understanding the Importance of Risk Assessment that was chaired by Brian Brown, Chair of the NB Domestic Death Review Committee. The panelists were: Martine Stewart, Director, Violence Prevention and Community Partnerships, Women s Equality Branch, Executive Council Office, Government of New Brunswick Ms. Stewart highlighted the work currently being done in relation to the Violence Prevention Strategy of the Government of New Brunswick, especially through the Women s Equality Branch, Executive Council Office. The goals of the NB Violence Prevention Strategy include: supports for women and services to women and children access to justice services education and prevention strategies, and leadership and coordination. MMFC Workshop 2013 Final Report Page 4

5 She informed the participants that her office is presently updating the Women Abuse Protocols. She stated that a strategic framework to assist with addressing violence against Wabanaki women in New Brunswick was developed in coordination with the Women s Equality Branch and members of the New Brunswick Advisory Committee to End Violence against Aboriginal Women. The goal is to work collectively and collaboratively to end violence against women. Building relationships is key to reducing IPV. There is a need to work with victims, offenders, and their families. Strategies can improve the ability of various professional agencies to work together. Using risk assessments to manage risk is important for all professionals and domestic violence interveners. She explained that her office implemented a strategy through which interveners from the Provincial Partnerships in Action (PPA) Committee were trained to use the Danger Assessment tool. The next phases will include police training on ODARA and information sharing between agencies. The Prevention Strategy focuses on working together to promote violence prevention. Stephanie Sanford, Senior Consultant, Crime Prevention & Policing Standards (Branch), New Brunswick Department of Public Safety Ms. Sanford noted that New Brunswick s Crime Prevention and Reduction Strategy was developed in recognition of the need to balance current reactive criminal justice system responses with more proactive approaches that are focused on stopping crime and victimization before they happen. There are three priorities of the Strategy: youth at risk; chronic repeat offenders; and domestic/intimate partner violence. Within each priority, specific lenses are applied for First Nations populations and to mental health and addictions issues. Evidence strongly suggests that collectively focusing on these priorities should result in the greatest impacts on reducing crime and victimization in NB. The Roundtable on Crime and Public Safety, which oversees the Strategy, consists of 38 different professionals from various sectors including community agencies, police, the private sector, academia, First Nations groups, municipal and federal governments and several provincial departments. Five working groups have been established by the Roundtable to develop and implement concrete action plans that are consistent with the mission, vision, guiding principles and goals of the Strategy. One of the Strategy activities for is to implement standardized domestic/intimate partner violence risk screening by all front line police in NB. Assessing risk is the first step to finding a solution to a situation. Standardized risk screening helps to determine the risk posed to the victim; the likelihood that the perpetrator will re-offend; the potential for more serious and dangerous assaults; and identify the areas where risk can be minimized through proper interventions. By targeting the risk factors and effectively managing the risk for re-assault and MMFC Workshop 2013 Final Report Page 5

6 lethality in IPV, the Strategy will contribute to reductions in D/IPV, and achieve better outcomes for victims, offenders, and service providers. The Strategy can be found online at FromTheoryToOutcomes.pdf. Julia Rustad, Community, Aboriginal and Diversity Policing Services, Program Manager, RCMP Victim Services, Nova Scotia Ms. Rustad noted that Nova Scotia uses a service model based on a collaborative approach. In 2008 police in Nova Scotia were mandated to use the risk assessment tool ODARA. Training sessions on ODARA were done collaboratively. There was police training on how to use the tool, there was combined training with police and Domestic Violence Case Coordinators that included the processes that would be used, and there was also training that included the service providers. After the use of risk assessments was rolled out in Nova Scotia, the number of high risk cases increased initially. This has since leveled out and the number of high risk cases being tracked is now at 8%. Reflection on Panelists Presentations Linda Neilson, Professor, Department of Sociology, Faculty of Arts, UNB, Fredericton Campus After the panel, Linda Neilson gave a presentation reflecting on the panel presentations. Dr. Neilson noted that, while there are important challenges ahead, New Brunswick is to be commended for coming a long way. The decision to implement a validated risk assessment tool across the province will undoubtedly help to enhance safety in the province. Risk assessment is, however, but one piece of the safety puzzle. Associated challenges ahead include: 1) crosssector education on the strengths and limitations of risk assessment tools; 2) best-practicepolicies on collection and documentation of evidence (risk assessment tools are not designed to replace detailed collection of evidence); 3) implementation of lethality assessments across the province (although there is overlap, lethality indicators differ from risk indicators); 4) receptivity in policy and practice to evolution and change in our risk and lethality assessment knowledge (research is ongoing - indicators for specific populations and for children are changing); 5) implementation of risk-and-potential-for-lethal-outcome-information-exchange protocols, within the criminal justice system, and among our legal systems (taking into account the ways in which different legal systems use information). Finally, we must be careful to ensure that risk assessment conclusions are not used to deny people access to services. The reflection on panelist presentations wrapped up with questions for all of the morning presenters. (See Appendix C for Questions and Answers) Morning Small Group Discussions The workshop participants were divided into 22 small groups. (See Appendix D for questions and a summary of the discussions.) MMFC Workshop 2013 Final Report Page 6

7 Afternoon Session Sergeant Tammy Ward, Crime Reduction Unit, J Division, RCMP, introduced the afternoon keynote speaker. N. Zoe Hilton, Senior Research Scientist at The Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care and Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, University of Toronto Dr. Hilton s presentation entitled Risk Assessment as a Tool for Communication, Cooperation, and Prevention, was given by videoconference. During her presentation, she focused on the development of the ODARA risk assessment tool. In developing the ODARA tool, Dr. Hilton and her team concentrated on cases involving women being assaulted by their current or ex-husbands or cohabiting partners. They developed an actuarial tool in order to facilitate offender risk management that is proportionate to risk. The ODARA was developed using information from the Ontario Provincial Police and other records management systems. Information was gathered on both the victim (including degree of fear of repeat assault) and the perpetrator (including recidivism). ODARA is a validated actuarial tool. It uses precise numeric data to indicate the likelihood of recidivism. With every increase on the ODARA score the likelihood of recidivism increases; also, higher ODARA scores are associated with more subsequent assaults and injuries, and less time until recidivism. The main purpose of risk assessments are to prevent and to be proactive in eliminating IPV. Actuarial risk assessments do this by allowing risk management to be applied in accordance with the risk of recidivism. The ODARA is precise, reliable, valid and brief. Training on the ODARA has been shown to significantly increase scoring accuracy. Assessment tools can help to coordinate responses and communicate risk to various partners using the same terms. Effective risk communication, and data to support decisions, is necessary for all sectors to work together to prevent IPV. (See Appendix B for Dr. Hilton s PowerPoint presentation and Appendix C for questions following her presentation.) Mary Ann Campbell, Director of the Centre for Criminal Justice Studies and Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Arts, UNB, Saint John Campus After Dr. Hilton s presentation, Dr. Campbell gave a presentation on the Practical Use of Risk Assessment. Dr. Campbell noted that risk is dynamic. We need to be cognizant of the kinds of decision that are being made and on how the information is gathered. It is important to intervene with the right level of intensity relative to the risk assessment as over intervening in low risk cases can MMFC Workshop 2013 Final Report Page 7

8 inadvertently raise the actual risk level. presentation (See Appendix B for Dr. Campbell s PowerPoint Dr. Campbell facilitated the group discussions that followed her presentation. The group discussion focused on specific scenarios (see Appendix D for a summary of the small group discussions that followed and a copy of the scenarios.) Carmen Gill, Director of the Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre for Family Violence Research and Professor, Department of Sociology, Faculty of Arts, UNB, Fredericton Campus The workshop ended with Dr. Gill giving a summary of the Future Directions and Closing Remarks. Dr. Gill thanked everyone for taking the time to come to the workshop to learn more about risk assessment tools and how they can assist professionals dealing with abusers and victims of IPV. She informed the participants of her hope that the workshop will help to facilitate the collaboration that is needed among government departments, policy makers, academia, police, corrections, etc. As she stated we all play an integral part in moving forward with the provincial Crime Prevention and Reduction Strategy on domestic/intimate partner violence. In conclusion, Dr. Gill informed the participants of a new project at the MMFC entitled Working toward the development of a sustainable and evidence-informed community-police strategy for reducing intimate partner violence in New Brunswick. The partnering police agencies are the Fredericton Police Force, the Saint John Police Force and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Dr. Gill advised everyone to mark their calendar as the MMFC, in partnership with the NB Department of Public Safety and the Canadian Observatory on the Justice System to IPV, will be hosting a national conference from October 20-22, Dr. Gill wished everyone a safe journey home and continued collaboration in an effort to prevent and eliminate violence against women. Impact of MMFC Workshop 2013: Risk Assessment & Risk Management in Intimate Partner Violence Situations MMFC Workshop 2013 had presenters from diverse backgrounds with unique perspectives on risk assessment and risk management related to the issue of family violence. The workshop provided an opportunity to better understand risk assessments, the importance of assessing risk and how to use and/or share assessments among professionals working in collaboration. A better understanding was gained on the role that each key player has when using risk assessments. A better understanding was also gained on what is currently being used to assess risk provincially and nationally; as well as the benefits and the challenges encountered when using or not using various risk assessment tools. A common occurrence during the day was the creation of connections between participants with intentions to share resources and work together on future projects. MMFC Workshop 2013 Final Report Page 8

9 Students at University of New Brunswick, St. Thomas University and the Université de Moncton were given the opportunity to participate in the workshop. Their interest and participation is a positive sign for the future of family violence prevention initiatives. The feedback from participants was overwhelmingly positive, which is predictive of the success of future Research Days, workshops and/or national conferences. Contributors/Sponsors The MMFC Workshop 2013 has benefitted from in-kind support and/or financial contributions from the following organizations: RCMP Family Violence Initiative Fund Community Action Fund, Women s Equality Branch, Executive Council Office, Government of New Brunswick Support for Translation and Interpretation Program, Intergovernmental Affairs Muriel McQueen Fergusson Foundation Canadian Observatory on the Justice System Response to Intimate Partner Violence New Brunswick Department of Public Safety Workshop Organizing Committee Members No workshop happens without the tireless work of many people and we conclude by acknowledging those who were on our organizing committee: Rina Arseneault, MMFC, UNB, Fredericton Campus Mary Ann Campbell, Centre for Criminal Justice Studies, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Arts, UNB, Saint John Campus Leanne Fitch, Fredericton Police Force Carmen Gill, MMFC, UNB, Fredericton Campus Anita Rossignol, Crime Prevention & Policing Standards (Branch), New Brunswick Department of Public Safety Stephanie Sanford, Crime Prevention & Policing Standards (Branch), New Brunswick Department of Public Safety Martine Stewart, Violence Prevention and Community Partnerships, Women s Equality Branch, Executive Council Office, Government of New Brunswick Christine Wakeham, MMFC, UNB, Fredericton Campus Sergeant Tammy Ward, Crime Reduction Unit, J Division, RCMP Comments from participants In order to receive feedback from participants, we asked them to complete an evaluation form at the end of day. A summary of the comments can be found in Appendix E. MMFC Workshop 2013 Final Report Page 9

10 IPV Risk 29 October 2013 P. Randall Kropp, Ph. D. ENJEUX IMPORTANTS EN MATIÈRE D ÉVALUATION ET DE GESTION DU RISQUE DE VIOLENCE CONJUGALE Violence conjugale Dommage physique que l on inflige, que l on tente d infliger ou que l on menace d infliger à un partenaire conjugal ou à un ancien partenaire conjugal Nature de la violence État de la relation Intention de l agresseur Sexe Impact sur la victime Risque Danger qui n est pas entièrement compris et qui ne peut en conséquence être prévu avec certitude Complexe Contextuel Spéculatif Évaluation Synthèse Collecte d information en vue de la prise de décisions Évaluation du risque de violence Processus de spéculation sur le risque de violence que présente un agresseur Axée sur un objectif Axée sur un cas De portée étendue Gestion du risque de violence Processus d atténuation du risque de violence que présente un agresseur 2013 by ProActive ReSolutions, Inc. 1

11 IPV Risk 29 October 2013 Objectifs Sélectionner les facteurs de risque Améliorer la sécurité publique grâce à la prévention Guider l élaboration de plans de gestion du risque Maximiser la responsabilité professionnelle Améliorer la transparence et la cohérence des décisions Réduire les risques juridiques Protéger les contrevenants, les victimes et les professionnels Que faut il inclure? Trois principaux critères d inclusion Empirique exactitude prévisionnelle Professionnel utilité pratique Juridique équité et caractère raisonnable Problèmes liés au critère empirique Tout ce qui est important n a pas été prouvé ou validé scientifiquement Peut mener à l exclusion de facteurs de risque «valables», mais rares ou difficiles à évaluer Prédiction cause, explication ou intervention Peut mener à l inclusion de facteurs de risque «non valables», mais communs ou faciles à évaluer Exemple : le TAMIS Âge Jeune = non valable Sexe Homme = non valable Pilosité faciale Dense = non valable Taille des pieds Grands = non valable Problèmes liés au critère professionnel L accent mis sur les facteurs dynamiques peut fausser l évaluation du risque Peut mener à l exclusion de facteurs de risque «valables», mais statiques ou faciles à ignorer Les stéréotypes des professionnels peuvent être tout simplement erronés Peut mener à l inclusion de facteurs de risque «non valables», mais clairs ou impressionnants 2013 by ProActive ReSolutions, Inc. 2

12 IPV Risk 29 October 2013 Exemple : Intuition clinique Dépression Présente = valable Anxiété Présente = valable Intelligence Élevée = valable Rorschach Voir des viscères = non valable Problèmes liés au critère juridique Utile pour exclure des facteurs de risque, mais pas pour en inclure On peut soutenir que presque tout facteur de risque est injuste ou déraisonnable à certains égards Modèles d évaluation de risque Combinaisons de facteurs de risque Discrétionnaires Information pondérée et combinée selon le jugement de l évaluateur Modèles aussi appelés informels, intuitifs ou impressionnistes Non discrétionnaires Information pondérée et combinée selon des règles fixes et explicites Modèles aussi appelés actuariels, algorithmiques ou mécaniques Problèmes : Discrétionnaires Problèmes : Non discrétionnaires Arbitraires Portée non assujettie à des restrictions Flous Aucune règle Instables Changement rapide Arbitraires Portée assujettie à des restrictions Rigides Règles strictes Fixes Aucun changement 2013 by ProActive ReSolutions, Inc. 3

13 IPV Risk 29 October 2013 Approches non discrétionnaires Jacob Bernoulli ED ERVFO «Il est parfaitement invraisemblable qu une formule mathématique puisse nous prédire l avenir. Ceux qui croient le contraire auraient cru à la sorcellerie.» DVRAG Albert Einstein «Quand le nombre de facteurs entrant en jeu dans un complexe phénoménologique est trop grand, la méthode scientifique, dans la plupart des cas, échoue à s imposer.» Niels Bohr «Il est difficile de faire des prédictions, surtout à propos de l avenir.» Défi Jugement professionnel structuré Comment pouvons nous combiner les forces des approches discrétionnaires et non discrétionnaires? 2013 by ProActive ReSolutions, Inc. 4

14 IPV Risk 29 October 2013 JPS Fonction des lignes directrices Repose sur des lignes directrices visant à structurer l exercice de la discrétion professionnelle Orienter la prévention par la planification Ne pas limiter la portée Rendre compte des pratiques exemplaires Aucune règle de notation Préciser les facteurs de risque fondamentaux Utile pour surveiller le changement Texte de référence Paramètres de pratique JPS Aidemémoire Manuel de test Approches de JPS Processus de JPS : B SAFER HCR 20 START SAVRY SVR 20 RSVP ERASOR SARA B SAFER SAM SRP WAVR 21 WRA et ERA PATRIARCH Utilisations et utilisateurs À utiliser avec les agresseurs (présumés) Adultes, hommes ou femmes, > 18 ans À toute étape de la procédure judiciaire Avant l arrestation, le procès et la détermination de la peine, avant et après la mise en liberté Par les professionnels de la justice pénale Qui possèdent une compétence en évaluation et en violence conjugale Administration Renseignements sur le cas 1 Présence de facteurs de risque 2 Stratégies de gestion 3 Opinions conclusives by ProActive ReSolutions, Inc. 5

15 IPV Risk 29 October 2013 Étape 1 : Renseignements sur le cas Définir et recueillir les renseignements raisonnablement nécessaires à l évaluation Étape 2 : Facteurs de risque Tenir compte des facteurs de risque généraux et de ceux propres au cas Divers traits, méthodes et organismes Résumer les jugements sur leur présence, actuelle et passée Violence conjugale Adaptation psychosociale 1. Actes de violence 2. Menaces ou pensées violentes 3. Escalade 4. Violation des ordonnances d un tribunal 5. Attitudes violentes Autres éléments d appréciation 6. Criminalité en général 7. Problèmes dans les relations intimes 8. Problèmes d emploi 9. Problèmes de toxicomanie 10. Problèmes de santé mentale Autres éléments d appréciation Facteurs de vulnérabilité de la victime Codes liés à la présence 11. Attitudes ou comportements inconstants 12. Peur intense de l agresseur 13. Soutien ou ressources inadéquats 14. Conditions de vie peu sûres 15. Problèmes de santé Autres éléments d appréciation O? N Omettre Présent Preuve de la présence Présence possible ou partielle Incertain, peut être Absent Aucune preuve de la présence Aucun renseignement Impossible de dire, inconnu 2013 by ProActive ReSolutions, Inc. 6

16 IPV Risk 29 October 2013 Codes liés à la présence Étape 3 : Stratégies de gestion Actuellement Dans les 4 dernières semaines ou à peu près Déterminer et cibler les facteurs de risque pertinents Dans le passé Avant les 4 dernières semaines ou à peu près Préciser les stratégies et les tactiques de gestion Stratégies de gestion Surveillance Surveillance Surveillance ou évaluation répétée Supervision Imposition de contrôles ou de restrictions de libertés Traitement Réadaptation, y compris évaluation ultérieure Planification de la sécurité de la victime Rehaussement des ressources de sécurité pour des cibles définissables L objectif est d évaluer les changements du risque au fil du temps pour que les stratégies de gestion puissent être revues, au besoin Peut être effectuée par différents professionnels de la santé mentale, des services sociaux, de l application de la loi, des services correctionnels et de la sécurité Devrait préciser des «éléments déclencheurs» ou des «signaux d alarme» qui peuvent avertir de l imminence ou de l escalade du risque de violence de la personne Supervision L objectif est de rendre (plus) difficile toute violence ultérieure de la part de la personne Généralement exercée par des professionnels de l application de la loi, des services correctionnels, du milieu juridique et de la sécurité Dans un établissement ou au sein de la communauté Doit être mise en œuvre à un niveau d intensité conforme au niveau de risque que présente la personne Il s agit de la solution la moins restrictive Traitement L objectif est d améliorer les carences dans l adaptation psychosociale de la personne Généralement offert par des professionnels des soins de santé, d aide aux employés et des services sociaux Cliniques pour patients hospitalisés ou externes, organismes Peut être une condition d emploi ou une exigence prévue par la loi 2013 by ProActive ReSolutions, Inc. 7

17 IPV Risk 29 October 2013 Planification de la sécurité de la victime L objectif est de limiter les répercussions de toute violence future sur le bien être psychologique et physique de la victime Peut être assurée par différents professionnels des services sociaux, des ressources humaines, de l application de la loi et des services privés de sécurité Devrait inclure l agent de liaison de la victime Étape 4 : Opinions conclusives Communiquer les conclusions sommaires de façon claire et simple Relever les restrictions importantes liées aux opinions Enjeux Coordonnées Établissement de la priorité du cas Degré d effort ou d intervention requis Dommage physique sérieux Risque de violence constituant un danger de mort Intervention immédiate Intervention urgente effectuée ou nécessaire Victimes probables Déterminer les victimes probables de violence future ProActive ReSolutions Inc. 1168, rue Hamilton, bureau 502 Vancouver (Colombie Britannique) V6B 2S2 Canada resolutions.com 2013 by ProActive ReSolutions, Inc. 8

18

19 P. Randall Kropp, PhD CRITICAL ISSUES IN INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE RISK ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT

20 Intimate Partner Violence Actual, attempted, or threatened physical harm of a current or former intimate partner Nature of violence Intent of perpetrator Impact on victim Relationship status Gender

21 Risk A hazard that is incompletely understood and therefore that can be forecast only with uncertainty Complex Contextual Speculative

22 Assessment Gathering information for use in making decisions Purposedriven Casedriven Wideranging

23 Synthesis Violence risk assessment Process of speculating about violence risk posed by a perpetrator Violence risk management Process of mitigating the violence risk posed by a perpetrator

24 Goals Enhance public safety via prevention Guide development of risk management plans Maximize professional accountability Improve transparency and consistency of decisions Minimize legal risks Protect offenders, victims and professionals

25 Selecting the Risk Factors

26 What to Include? Three primary inclusion criteria Empirical predictive accuracy Professional practical utility Legal fairness and reasonableness

27 Problems With Empirical Criterion Not everything that is important has been proven or validated scientifically Can lead to exclusion of good but rare or difficultto-assess risk factors Prediction cause, explanation, or intervention Can lead to inclusion of bad but common or easyto-assess factors

28 Example: The SIEVE Age Sex Facial hair Foot size Young is bad Male is bad Dense is bad Big is bad

29 Problems With Professional Criterion Focus on dynamic factors may bias risk assessments Can lead to exclusion of good but static or easy-toignore factors Conventional wisdom of professionals may be plain wrong Can lead to inclusion of bad but vivid or dramatic factors

30 Example: Clinical Intuition Depression Anxiety Intelligence Rorschach Present is good Present is good High is good Seeing viscera is bad

31 Problems With Legal Criterion Useful for excluding risk factors, but not for including them It can be argued that almost any risk factor is unfair or unreasonable in some respect

32 Risk Assessment Models

33 Combining Risk Factors Discretionary Information weighted and combined according to the evaluator s judgment AKA informal, intuitive, impressionistic Non-Discretionary Information weighted and combined using fixed and explicit rules AKA actuarial, algorithmic, mechanical

34 Problems: Discretionary Capricious Unrestricted scope Fuzzy No rules Unstable Rapid change

35 Problems: Non-Discretionary Arbitrary Restricted scope Rigid Strict rules Fixed No change

36 Non-Discretionary Approaches DA ODARA DVRAG

37 Jacob Bernoulli It is utterly implausible that a mathematical formula should make the future known to us, and those who think it can would once have believed in witchcraft

38 Albert Einstein When the number of factors coming into play in a phenomenological complex is too large scientific method in most cases fails

39 Niels Bohr Predicting is very difficult, especially about the future.

40 Challenge How do we combine the strengths of the discretionary and non-discretionary approaches?

41 Structured Professional Judgment

42 SPJ Relies on guidelines to structure the exercise of professional discretion Guide prevention via planning Don t restrict scope Reflect best practice No scoring rules Specify basic risk factors Good for monitoring change

43 Function of Guidelines Reference text Aide mémoire SPJ Practice parameters Test manual

44 SPJ Approaches HCR-20 START SAVRY SVR-20 RSVP ERASOR SARA B-SAFER SAM SRP WAVR-21 WRA & ERA PATRIARCH

45 SPJ Process: The B-SAFER

46 Uses and Users For use with (alleged) perpetrators Adults, male or female, > 18 yrs At any stage of legal proceedings Pre-arrest, -trial, -sentence; pre- and post-release For use by criminal justice professionals With basic expertise in assessment and IPV

47 Administration Case information 1 Presence of risk factors 2 Management strategies 3 Conclusory opinions 4

48 Step 1: Case Information Identify and gather information reasonably necessary for assessment Multiple traits, methods, agencies

49 Step 2: Risk Factors Consider standard and case specific risk factors Summarize judgments about presence, currently and in the past

50 Intimate Partner Violence 1. Violent Acts 2. Violent Threats or Thoughts 3. Escalation 4. Violation of Court Orders 5. Violent Attitudes Other Considerations

51 Psychosocial Adjustment 6. General Criminality 7. Intimate Relationship Problems 8. Employment Problems 9. Substance Use Problems 10. Mental Health Problems Other Considerations

52 Victim Vulnerability Factors 11. Inconsistent Attitudes or Behaviour 12. Extreme Fear of Perpetrator 13. Inadequate Support or Resources 14. Unsafe Living Situation 15. Health Problems Other Considerations

53 Coding Presence Y? N Omit Present Evidence of presence Possibly or partially present Unsure/uncertain/maybe Absent No evidence of presence No information Can t tell/unknown

54 Coding Presence Currently In the last 4 weeks or so In the Past Prior to last 4 weeks or so

55 Step 3: Management Strategies Identify and target relevant risk factors Specify management strategies and tactics

56 Management Strategies Monitoring Supervision Treatment Victim Safety Planning Surveillance or repeated assessment Imposition of controls or restriction of freedoms Rehabilitation, including further assessment Enhancement of security resources for identifiable targets

57 Monitoring Goal is to evaluate changes in risk over time so that management strategies can be revised as appropriate May be delivered by a range of mental health, social service, law enforcement, corrections, and security professionals Should specify any triggers or red flags that might warn the individual s risk of violence is imminent or escalating

58 Supervision Goal is to make it (more) difficult for the individual to engage in further violence Typically delivered by law enforcement, corrections, legal, and security professionals In institutions or the community Should implement at a level of intensity commensurate with the degree of risk posed by the individual Least restrictive alternative

59 Treatment Goal is to improve deficits in the individual s psychosocial adjustment Typically delivered by health care, employee assistance, and social service professionals Inpatient or outpatient clinics, agencies May be made a condition of employment or a legal requirement

60 Victim Safety Planning Goal is to minimize the impact of any future violence on the victims psychological and physical well being May be delivered by a range of social service, human resource, law enforcement, and private security professionals Should include victim liaison

61 Step 4: Conclusory Opinions Communicate summary judgments clearly and simply Identify important limitations on opinions

62 Issues Case Prioritization Serious Physical Harm Immediate Action Likely Victims Degree of effort or intervention required Risk for lifethreatening violence Urgent intervention taken or needed Identity of likely victims of any future violence

63 Contact Information ProActive ReSolutions Inc. # Hamilton Street Vancouver, BC Canada V6B 2S2 +1 (604)

64 Risk Assessment as a Tool for Communication, Cooperation, and Prevention Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre, UNB By OTN, 30 October 2013 zhilton@waypointcentre.ca Formerly the Mental Health Centre Penetanguishene

65 Today s presentation Ineffective risk communication Assessing and communicating risk ODARA Communication, cooperation, and prevention

66 Ineffective Risk Communication November 7,

67 Methods of Risk Communication November 7,

68 Risk Assessment Users Interpretation of Risk Low Risk High Risk 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Likelihood of a Violent Offence within 10 years Hilton, Carter, Harris, & Sharpe (2008) Journal of Interpersonal Violence

69 Types of Risk Assessment Clinical opinion, Professional judgment Structured professional judgment Actuarial Insurance Violence 11/7/2013 6

70 Risk Communication Verbal risk Numeric risk 80 5 Low Risk High Risk 60 High Risk % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Likelihood of violence , ODARA Category 0

71 Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA) November 7,

72 ODARA Development Collaboration with police services Eligibility Recidivism (30%) 11/7/2013 9

73 ODARA Development Index Assault Details Nondomestic Criminal History Domestic Criminal History Sociodemographic Characteristics Victim Reports Relationship Characteristics 11/7/

74 ODARA Development Regression analysis For subtypes of variables For subsamples of all cases Final analysis 13 items 11/7/

75 11/7/

76 Percent Recidivism 80 Percent who Recidivate As a Function of ODARA Category Percent in ODARA Category , ODARA Category 0 Hilton, Harris, Rice, Lang, Cormier, & Lines (2004) Psychological Assessment

77 Percent Recidivism 80 Percent who Recidivate As a Function of ODARA Category Percent in ODARA Category , ODARA Category 0

78 Communication, Cooperation, and Prevention November 7,

79 Communication 100% accurate <1 error

80 Prevention and Cooperation Average ODARA Score of Men Arrested/Charged with Domestic Assault Released Held for Bail ODARA not known ODARA was known Hilton, Harris, & Rice (2007) Criminal Justice and Behavior

81 Communication and Cooperation Support from % of Women Female friends 60 Female biological relatives 55 Professionals 32 Male biological relatives 30 Male friends 26 Police 21 Other relatives 17 In-law relatives 14 No-one 9 Hilton, Harris, & Holder, 2009, Canadian Journal of Nursing Research

82 Risk Assessment as a Tool for Communication, Cooperation, and Prevention Precise, reliable, valid, brief Effective risk communication Data to support decisions A common metric for all sectors working together to prevent violence against women

83 Questions?

84 L évaluation des risques comme outil de communication, de collaboration et de prévention Centre Muriel McQueen Fergusson, UNB Présentation d OTN, 30 octobre 2013 zhilton@waypointcentre.ca Anciennement le Centre de santé mentale de Penetanguishene

85 Contenu de la présentation Communication inefficace des risques Évaluation et communication des risques ERVFO Communication, collaboration et prévention

86 Communication inefficace des risques November 7,

87 Modes de communication des risques November 7,

88 Interprétation des risques par les personnes qui utilisent l évaluation des risques Risque faible Risq Risque ue élevé élev é 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Probabilité d une agression violente sur 10 ans Hilton, Carter, Harris, & Sharpe (2008) Journal of Interpersonal Violence

89 Types d évaluation des risques Avis clinique, jugement professionnel Jugement professionnel structuré Appréciation actuarielle Assurance Violence 11/7/2013 6

90 Communication des risques Risque verbal Risque en nombre 80 5 Risque faible Risque élevé Élevé Risque Risq ue élevé % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Probabilité de violence , Catégorie de l ERVFO 0

91 Évaluation du risque de violence familiale en Ontario (ERVFO) November 7,

92 Élaboration de l ERVFO Collaboration avec les services policiers Admissibilité Récidive (30 %) 11/7/2013 9

93 Élaboration de l ERVFO Détails de l agression évaluée Antécédents criminels non liés à la famille Antécédents criminels liés à la famille Caractéristiques sociodémographiques Comptes rendus des victimes Particularités de la relation 11/7/

94 Élaboration de l ERVFO Analyse de régression À l égard de sous-types de variables À l égard de sous-échantillons de l ensemble des cas Analyse finale 13 éléments 11/7/

95 Résumé des éléments de l ERVFO Ne pas utiliser sans avoir pris connaissance des directives complètes sur l attribution des notes Attribuer la note suivante pour chaque élément : 1 si l élément s applique 0 si l élément ne s applique pas? en l absence d information 1. Incident antérieur de violence familiale consigné à un rapport de police ou dans un dossier criminel 2. Incident antérieur de violence non lié à la famille, consigné à un rapport de police ou dans un dossier criminel 3. Peine d emprisonnement antérieure d au moins 30 jours 4. Non-respect d une libération conditionnelle antérieure 5. Menace de tuer ou de blesser quelqu un lors de l agression évaluée 6. Séquestration de la victime lors de l agression évaluée 7. Crainte qu a la victime d être agressée de nouveau 8. Deux enfants ou plus 9. Victime ayant un enfant biologique d un conjoint antérieur 10. Antécédents de violence de l agresseur envers une victime non liée à la famille 11. Au moins deux indices d abus de drogues 12. Agression de la victime pendant qu elle était enceinte 13. Obstacles au soutien à la victime Note brute (somme des éléments dont la note attribuée est 1) Note finale 11/7/

96 80 Pourcentage de personnes qui récidivent en fonction de la catégorie de l ERVFO Pourcentage de récidive Pourcentage dans la catégorie de l ERVFO , Catégorie de l ERVFO 0 Hilton, Harris, Rice, Lang, Cormier, & Lines (2004) Psychological Assessment

97 80 Pourcentage de personnes qui récidivent en fonction de la catégorie de l ERVFO Pourcentage de récidive Pourcentage dans la catégorie de l ERVFO , Catégorie de l ERVFO 0

98 Communication, collaboration et prévention November 7,

99 Communication % d exactitude <1 erreur < 1 erreur Note Pourcentage, note dans cette fourchette Pourcentage, note inférieure Pourcentage, note supérieure Pourcentage, récidive

100 Prévention et collaboration Résultats moyens de l ERVFO concernant les hommes arrêtés/ accusés pour voies de fait contre un membre de la famille Libérés Détenus pour enquête sur cautionnement ERVFO non connue ERVFO connue Hilton, Harris, & Rice (2007) Criminal Justice and Behavior

101 Communication et collaboration Soutien de... % de femmes Amies 60 Parentes biologiques 55 Professionnels 32 Parents biologiques (hommes) 30 Amis (hommes) 26 Police 21 Autres parents 17 Parents par alliance 14 Aucun soutien 9 Hilton, Harris, & Holder, 2009, Canadian Journal of Nursing Research

102 Évaluation des risques comme outil de communication, de collaboration et de prévention Un outil précis, fiable, valable, succinct Communication efficace des risques Données à l appui des décisions Une référence commune pour tous les secteurs qui travaillent ensemble à la prévention de la violence faite aux femmes

103 Y a-t-il des questions?

104 Practice Aspects of IPV Risk Assessment & Management Mary Ann Campbell, Ph.D., L.Psych. Centre for Criminal Justice Studies & Psychology Department University of New Brunswick Saint John Campus MMFC 2013: IPV Risk Assessment Workshop October 30, 2013, Fredericton, New Brunswick 1) Knowledge of relevant risk Information to estimate IPV risk identify relevant risk factors of subsequent IPV and lethality that are present for a given case Risk estimate determines the intensity of the necessary risk management strategies to mitigate risk. Identified via research supported IPV risk tools, not your gut 2) Knowledge of strategies that can mitigate IPV risk Often requires cooperation and info sharing between many professionals and organizations Risk can increase & decrease with escalation in acute and stable risk factors imminent risk (i.e., within the next hours) short term risk (i.e., within the next 6 months or so) long term risk (i.e., within the next year or more) Risk management requires that you to monitor risk over time especially in high risk cases look for signs of escalation (i.e., acute dynamic risk factors) May be situationally based, so they are easy to miss if you are not keeping tabs on the victim and abuser 1. Monitoring Goal: surveillance to watch for changes in risk over time, so can revise strategies as necessary Field visits at home or work Speak with family members, coworkers, neighbours, professionals involved with the parties. In person drop in visits; telephone check ins Electronic surveillance to monitor whereabouts Polygraph interviews to monitor activities Drug testing if a risk factor for the case Inspection of mail or telecommunications phone records, s, texts, online chats, social media Intensity is matched to IPV risk level high risk = high intensity monitoring Low risk = low intensity monitoring Monitoring can be done by mental health, social service, law enforcement, corrections, victim services, and/or private security 2. Supervision Place restrictions on the abuser s freedom e.g., peace bonds, restraining orders, bail, probation, conditional sentences, custody Goal: make it more difficult for the abuser to engage in future violence How? Incapacitation via arrest and detention Community supervision with restrictions on activities, movement, association, and communication Match to risk level 3. Victim Safety match to risk level Enhance the victim's security (e.g., target hardening) and safety in elevated risk situations Goal: If violence does reoccur, minimize any negative impact on victim(s) that might occur (psychological and physical) Who? Safety planning can be done by social services, human resources, law enforcement, victim services, DV outreach, private security, etc. Plan even if abuser is in custody, because this person eventually will be released Risk is highest when victim has left abuser! 1