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

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

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

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

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

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 2013-2014 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

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 http://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/departments/ps-sp/pdf/publications/moving 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

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

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, 2014. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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 4 2013 by ProActive ReSolutions, Inc. 5

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

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

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 +1 604 482 1750 www.proactive resolutions.com 2013 by ProActive ReSolutions, Inc. 8

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

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

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

Assessment Gathering information for use in making decisions Purposedriven Casedriven Wideranging

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

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

Selecting the Risk Factors

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

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

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

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

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

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

Risk Assessment Models

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

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

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

Non-Discretionary Approaches DA ODARA DVRAG

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

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

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

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

Structured Professional Judgment

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

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

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

SPJ Process: The B-SAFER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact Information ProActive ReSolutions Inc. #502-1168 Hamilton Street Vancouver, BC Canada V6B 2S2 +1 (604) 482-1750 www.proactive-resolutions.com

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

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

Ineffective Risk Communication November 7, 2013 3

Methods of Risk Communication November 7, 2013 4

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

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

Risk Communication Verbal risk Numeric risk 80 5 Low Risk High Risk 60 High Risk 4 3 40 2 20 1 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Likelihood of violence 0 0 1 2 3 4 5, 6 7 + ODARA Category 0

Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA) November 7, 2013 8

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

ODARA Development Index Assault Details Nondomestic Criminal History Domestic Criminal History Sociodemographic Characteristics Victim Reports Relationship Characteristics 11/7/2013 10

ODARA Development Regression analysis For subtypes of variables For subsamples of all cases Final analysis 13 items 11/7/2013 11

11/7/2013 12

Percent Recidivism 80 Percent who Recidivate As a Function of ODARA Category 50 60 40 40 30 20 Percent in ODARA Category 20 10 0 0 1 2 3 4 5, 6 7 + ODARA Category 0 Hilton, Harris, Rice, Lang, Cormier, & Lines (2004) Psychological Assessment

Percent Recidivism 80 Percent who Recidivate As a Function of ODARA Category 50 60 40 40 30 20 Percent in ODARA Category 20 10 0 0 1 2 3 4 5, 6 7 + ODARA Category 0

Communication, Cooperation, and Prevention November 7, 2013 15

Communication 100% accurate <1 error

Prevention and Cooperation Average ODARA Score of Men Arrested/Charged with Domestic Assault Released Held for Bail 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 ODARA not known ODARA was known Hilton, Harris, & Rice (2007) Criminal Justice and Behavior

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

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

Questions? zhilton@waypointcentre.ca ODARA@waypointcentre.ca

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

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

Communication inefficace des risques November 7, 2013 3

Modes de communication des risques November 7, 2013 4

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

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

Communication des risques Risque verbal Risque en nombre 80 5 Risque faible Risque élevé Élevé Risque 60 40 Risq ue élevé 4 3 2 20 1 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Probabilité de violence 0 0 1 2 3 4 5, 6 7 + Catégorie de l ERVFO 0

Évaluation du risque de violence familiale en Ontario (ERVFO) November 7, 2013 8

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

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 11/7/2013 10

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 11/7/2013 11

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 11/7/2013 12

80 Pourcentage de personnes qui récidivent en fonction de la catégorie de l ERVFO Pourcentage de récidive 50 60 40 20 40 30 20 10 Pourcentage dans la catégorie de l ERVFO 0 0 1 2 3 4 5, 6 7 + Catégorie de l ERVFO 0 Hilton, Harris, Rice, Lang, Cormier, & Lines (2004) Psychological Assessment

80 Pourcentage de personnes qui récidivent en fonction de la catégorie de l ERVFO Pourcentage de récidive 50 60 40 20 40 30 20 10 Pourcentage dans la catégorie de l ERVFO 0 0 1 2 3 4 5, 6 7 + Catégorie de l ERVFO 0

Communication, collaboration et prévention November 7, 2013 15

Communication 100 100 % d exactitude <1 erreur < 1 erreur Note Pourcentage, note dans cette fourchette Pourcentage, note inférieure Pourcentage, note supérieure Pourcentage, récidive 0 9 0 91 7 1 17 9 74 17 2 21 26 53 22 3 20 47 33 34 4 13 67 20 39 5-6 14 80 6 53 7-13 6 94 0 74

Prévention et collaboration Résultats moyens de l ERVFO concernant les hommes arrêtés/ accusés pour voies de fait contre un membre de la famille 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Libérés Détenus pour enquête sur cautionnement ERVFO non connue ERVFO connue Hilton, Harris, & Rice (2007) Criminal Justice and Behavior

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

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

Y a-t-il des questions? zhilton@waypointcentre.ca ODARA@waypointcentre.ca

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 Email: mcampbel@unb.ca 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 24 72 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, emails, 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

4. Treatment Goal: Rehabilitation to address the risk factors associated with the IPV and general violence Abuser Targets e.g., enhance motivation to change and accountability; challenging of attitudes/beliefs supportive of violence, emotional regulation and management skill deficits; interpersonal conflict resolution skill deficits; addiction treatment Victim Vulnerability Targets e.g., crisis counseling; victimization and trauma issues; education about the nature and forms of IPV; resources and skill learning for life stabilization re building; legal advice LOW IPV RISK MEDIUM IPV RISK HIGH IPV RISK Warning, Record incident Provision of information Little to no monitoring, supervision, treatment Moderate intensity monitoring/supervision Detention if required (with conditions on bail release) Treatment (moderate intensity) Safety planning, provide info, involve IPV support person (victim services, Domestic Violence Outreach) High intensity monitoring/supervision/rehabilitation Remove all weapons to which abuser has access Arrest /detention (advocate for no bail) Safety planning, provide info, & involve IPV support person POLICE COMMUNITY Do nothing file a report to establish record of contact Explain to victim/facilitate process for peace bonds or restraining orders Assist with problem solving underlying issue triggering incident Monitor Risk Check in with higher risk cases Give a warning to abuser Safety Planning with victim Provide info/refer aggressor to services to manage the behaviour & contributing factors Improve security at victim s home Remove weapons owned by, or accessible to, the aggressor Provide info/refer victim to community resources for support services & shelters, and transportation to a safe place Separate parties Remove and/or arrest the abuser Provide support to victim, even if he/she decides to remain in the relationship (e.g., support groups) Provide access to safe shelter Provide support to abuser aimed at engaging him/her & reducing IPV risk Facilitate victim and abuser access to therapeutic intervention (e.g., family/marital counseling; addictions & mental health counseling) Safety planning with the victim Monitor risk Provision of evidence informed interventions to target factors associated with risk of IPV Aggressor Attitudes / beliefs supportive of violence Negative emotional management skills Poor problem solving and conflict resolution skills Deficits in interpersonal effectiveness skills and healthy relationships Addiction and mental health issues contributing to the above Victim Context Crisis counseling Reduce life stressors Addiction and mental Housing stability health services needs Abuse & trauma Financial needs reactions Employment and Enhance healthy educational needs relationship skills Parenting and child Legal advice care supports Medical care Build in prosocial Services for children supports Life rebuilding info and skills Conjoint therapy / Care for pets couple /family counseling 2

Aspects pratiques de l évaluation et de la gestion des risques de violence conjugale (VC) Mary Ann Campbell, Ph. D., L. Psych. Centre for Criminal Justice Studies et Département de psychologie Université du Nouveau Brunswick, campus de Saint John Courriel : mcampbel@unb.ca Atelier 2013 du CMMF : Évaluation et gestion du risque dans les situations de violence conjugale 31 octobre 2013, Fredericton, Nouveau Brunswick 1) Connaître les renseignements importants qui permettent d évaluer les risques de VC Repérer les facteurs de risque pertinents à l origine d actes de VC et la létalité associée à chaque cas L évaluation des risques permet de déterminer l intensité de la stratégie de gestion des risques à adopter. Elle fait appel à des outils d évaluation des risques de VC appuyés par la recherche, et non à votre instinct. 2) Connaître les stratégies qui permettent d atténuer les risques de VC Bien souvent, la collaboration et la communication d information entre une multitude de professionnels et d organismes s imposent. Les risques peuvent s accroître ou diminuer suivant l évolution des facteurs de risque importants et stables Risque imminent (associé aux 24 à 72 heures qui suivent) Risque à court terme (associé aux six prochains mois environ) Risque à long terme (associé aux douze prochains mois ou à une plus longue période) Un suivi régulier s impose pour la gestion des risques, en particulier des cas à risque élevé Chercher les signes d aggravation (les facteurs de risque dynamiques importants) Ces signes peuvent dépendre de la situation et passer inaperçus si vous ne surveillez pas de près la victime et l agresseur. 1. Suivi Objectif : surveiller l évolution des risques afin de réviser les stratégies au besoin Visites à la maison ou au travail Discussion avec des membres de la famille, des collègues, des voisins et des professionnels intervenant auprès des parties Visites impromptues en personne; vérifications par téléphone Surveillance électronique des déplacements Tests polygraphiques pour surveiller les activités Dépistage de la consommation de drogues, s il s agit d un des facteurs de risque dans le dossier Inspection du courrier ou des télécommunications, des appels téléphoniques, des courriels, des messages textes, des conversations en ligne, des médias sociaux L intensité du suivi dépend du niveau de risque de VC Risque élevé = suivi intensif Risque faible = suivi léger Le suivi peut être réalisé par les services de santé mentale, les services sociaux, les services de police, les services correctionnels, les services aux victimes ou les services privés de sécurité 2. Supervision Imposer des limites à la liberté de l agresseur Exemples : engagement à ne pas troubler l ordre public, ordonnance de non communication, mise en liberté sous caution, probation, peine avec sursis, détention Objectif : faire obstacle à d éventuels actes de violence de l agresseur Méthodes Arrestation ou détention rendant l agresseur incapable d agir Surveillance de la communauté et restrictions visant les activités, les déplacements, les rapports et la communication Adaptation en fonction du niveau de risque 3. Sécurité de la victime : adaptation en fonction du niveau de risque Renforcer la sécurité de la victime (p. ex. par le renforcement de la cible) dans les situations présentant un risque élevé Objectif : atténuer l impact négatif (psychologique et physique) sur la victime si des actes violents surviennent à nouveau Acteurs : la planification relative à la sécurité peut être réalisée par les services sociaux, les ressources humaines, les services de police, les services aux victimes, les services d aide en violence familiale ou les services privés de sécurité, entre autres. La planification est importante même si l agresseur est en détention, car il sera éventuellement remis en liberté. Le risque le plus élevé se présente lorsque la victime a quitté son agresseur. 1

4. Traitement Objectif : assurer la réadaptation pour prendre en charge les facteurs de risque associés à la VC et à la violence en général Mesures visant l agresseur p. ex. motiver la personne à changer et à prendre ses responsabilités; confronter la personne relativement àses attitudes et à ses croyances qui la poussent à la violence, l aider à contrôler ses émotions et à améliorer sa maîtrise de soi; l aider à améliorer ses capacités de résolution de conflits interpersonnels; traiter les dépendances Mesures visant la victime p. ex. counseling en cas de crise; mesures liées à la victimisation et aux traumatismes; offre d information sur la nature de la VC et ses diverses formes, de ressources et de méthodes pour acquérir les capacités permettant de retrouver la stabilité ainsi que de conseils juridiques RISQUE DE VC FAIBLE RISQUE DE VC MODÉRÉ RISQUE DE VC ÉLEVÉ Avertissement, consignation des événements Information Peu de suivi, de surveillance ou de traitement, voire aucun Suivi et surveillance modérés Détention, si nécessaire (conditions à la mise en liberté sous caution) Traitement (modéré) Planification en matière de sécurité, diffusion d information et mobilisation de ressources d aide en VC (services aux victimes, ligne d aide en violence familiale) Suivi, surveillance et réadaptation intensifs Retrait de toutes les armes auxquelles l agresseur peut avoir accès Arrestation et détention (sans possibilité de mise en liberté sous caution) Planification en matière de sécurité, diffusion d information et mobilisation de ressources d aide en VC POLICE COMMUNAUTÉ Ne rien Aider à la faire résolution déposer des un rapport problèmes à pour la base de ce consigner qui s est les faits passé Donner un avertissement à l agresseur Collaborer avec la victime dans la planification de sa sécurité Resserrer la sécurité au domicile de la victime Donner de l information et diriger la victime vers des ressources communautaires de soutien et des refuges, et assurer le transport vers un lieu «sûr» Soutenir la victime, même si elle décide de maintenir la relation avec son agresseur (p. ex. groupes de soutien) Soutenir l agresseur afin qu il se prenne en main et que le risque de VC diminue Collaborer avec la victime dans la planification de sa sécurité Surveiller les risques Expliquer à la victime en quoi consistent l engagement à ne pas troubler l ordre public et l ordonnance de noncommunication et lui offrir de l aide relativement aux processus connexes Surveiller les risques : faire le suivi des cas à risque élevé Donner de l information et diriger l agresseur vers des services d aide pour la maîtrise du comportement et d autres facteurs en cause Retirer les armes auxquelles l agresseur a accès ou qui lui appartiennent Séparer les parties Éloigner ou arrêter l agresseur Donner accès à un refuge sûr Permettre l accès de la victime et de l agresseur à des interventions thérapeutiques (p. ex. counseling familial ou matrimonial, counseling en matière de dépendance et de santé mentale) Mettre en œuvre des interventions fondées sur des données probantes ciblant les facteurs associés aux risques de VC Agresseur Attitudes et croyances qui poussent à la violence Lacunes dans la capacité à maîtriser ses émotions Difficulté à résoudre des problèmes et des conflits Capacités de communication interpersonnelle déficientes et relations malsaines Problèmes de dépendance et de santé mentale à la base des points ci dessus Victime Contexte Counseling en cas de crise Réduire le nombre de Services relatifs aux facteurs de stress dépendances et à la santé Besoins relatifs à la mentale stabilité en logement Réactions à la violence Besoins financiers et aux traumatismes Besoins relatifs à Amélioration des l emploi et à capacités à entretenir des relations saines l éducation Conseils juridiques Soutien à l éducation Soins médicaux et aux soins des enfants Services aux enfants Information et méthodes Soutien prosocial pour acquérir les intégré capacités permettant de Thérapie commune, retrouver la stabilité counseling familial ou Soins des animaux de matrimonial compagnie 2

Appendix C Question Periods Question Period for Evening Keynote by Randy Kropp (October 29, 2013) 1. Tips for breaking silos and working together - Need to share information. Groups are afraid to share because of the fear of violating confidentiality. In BC, the Freedom of Information Act has special provisions for IPV cases. There are usually allowances for sharing information, especially in high risk cases. MOU s with connecting agencies (e.g. victim services, police, child protection, etc.) can work as well. - Money can also be an issue. 2. Are there risk assessments for emotional/psychological violence? - No, not yet. It is hard to define emotional violence.. This type of abuse is not usually considered illegal. When emotional/psychological abuse becomes threatening or it develops into stalking/harassment, it then becomes a legal issue. - Emotional/psychological can be considered a risk factor for more serious forms of IPV. 3. It was noted that score does not always reflect the risk of violence. - Actuarial tools reflect what happens for the average offender. - We need to have the ability to apply discretion based on individual circumstances. - We need to be able to override numbers. Numbers only work on average. - When deciding on a tool to use, you need to look at the tool and the sample on which it was developed to ensure that that it is relevant to the sample to which you are applying it. - The person assessing risk/needs to know what happens when the circumstances do not fit the tool. 4. People still need to have the ability to make decisions. No tool should make decisions, people still need to make the decisions (informed decisions). - Dr. Kropp used the analogy of the Pirates of Caribbean not rules to live by or codes, but guidelines only. 5. How does the judicial system view assessments? Are judges aware of their background? - Judges start asking questions the more a tool is used/seen. The results of assessments can influence the judicial system, but they will never form the courts entire decision this is up to the judge as he/she must make an informed decision based on all information provided.

- Judges understand that assessments are best practice models and that discretion needs to be used. - Assessments are useful to reason a situation through and are useful in backing up reasoning for why something should be done or why something was done the way that it was. - There are examples of risk assessments being used in case law in the USA, UK and Canada. - Judges rely on professional opinion, so assessments do count. 6. Are there any risk assessment protocols? What kinds of training should be provided for frontline workers to know when to use discretion and how to use an assessment in an informed way not just to use it as a checklist. - In the past for the B-SAFER, Dr. Kropp has provided 2-day training that walks the assessor through the actual assessment and provides hands-on practice through group exercises. This has worked well to allow people the opportunity to get a feel for how the assessment works and how they can best use the tool to manage risk. - Provide as much training as possible. - Need to explain the importance, relevance, usefulness to get buy-in. - Need to have buy-in from the people using the assessment tool so that they do not see the process as just being extra paperwork. - Assessors need to understand the issue of IPV, have training on IPV before they receive training on using a risk assessment. - Need to change the attitudes and beliefs of what the assessor s role is (e.g.. police can go beyond investigation to also conduct risk assessments). - Training needs to be ongoing to refresh, update, and to keep up with turn-over/new staff. 7. Elder Abuse - A lot of the same issues do apply to elder abuse. - Need to assess the dynamics of the family. - Need to determine what the stressors are, what the motivations are behind the abuse, what are the issues with the family or agency involved - Elder abuse can be complicated by issues such as the health and financial status of the perpetrators and victims.

Morning Question Period for Workshop (October 30, 2013) 1. Is there any type of lethality assessment done in Nova Scotia? - Julia Rustad responded that at this time, there is no lethality assessment that the police do, ODARA assesses for re offence. The transition houses and Provincial Victim Services use the Jackie Campbell Danger Assessment. - Martine Stewart that transitions houses in NB are using the Danger Assessment created by Jackie Campbell. 2. It was highlighted that this is a men s problem. 85% of domestic violence assaults are done by men to women. We need to start looking at what can be done with men/society besides punishing the offender. We need to focus on prevention. We need to address services for offenders, as well as victims, with the intent of reducing domestic violence. - Martine Stewart highlighted that Jackson Katz would be in Fredericton on November 6 doing a public presentation as well as hosting a men s workshop around the issue of intimate partner violence. 3. Was it a long process to learn how to work together collaboratively? What should be avoided? - Julia Rustad noted that the process has been continually evolving in Nova Scotia and began 10 years ago in 2003. There are always new challenges that are being discussed. The most important thing is to bring together all service providers as they are all experts in their own unique ways. 4. How much Federal Government cooperation has there been in Nova Scotia? - Right now, the Nova Scotia risk assessment strategy is a provincial strategy with no Federal Government input. There has been a gap identified as far as information sharing between Federal Corrections and the protocol groups when an offender is released after serving their sentence. The sharing of information would assist all service providers around safety planning. Question Period for Afternoon Keynote by Zoe Hilton (October 30, 2013) 1. For the research that you did since developing the ODARA tool, did you diversify the people that were assessed? - Yes, in later research we included men who were not living with the victim (dating violence). We have not yet tested the ODARA for people in same-sex relationships.

2. Was data collected for female offenders? - In recent research we found that the ODARA is a good predictor of recidivism by female domestic offenders. However, women recidivate at less than half the rate of men, and there needs to be more data collected before we can create and actuarial table to interpret scores for women.

Appendix D Small Group Discussions Morning Small Group Discussions 1. What is risk to you? There was a variety of information shared during the discussion of this question. Some of the comments were: Depends of your profession as well as your personal and professional experience Possibility to reoffend Safety of women in family associated with culture elevated risk factor/unintended consequences Systemic risk Risk to children Risk to police before you get instincts and training Dominant aggressor Probability of unwanted negative consequences Life, death, safety Psychological/emotional harm Harm to self/others Public safety Risk is: the potential for recidivism and level of harm; defining the type of harm, i.e. emotional, physical, financial, etc., to the victim; potential of perpetrator re-offending; and risk for the victim(s) to be harmed. Victims: children, spouse, extended family, new partner, ex-partner, victim s support system. List of indicators, whether the person is going to be a victim of violent incident Instability in family dynamic, which leads to recidivism in youth at risk Risk of violence starting; risk to children; risk of assault/lethality; risk as a scale or continuum; uncertainty of level of risk risk is there, but how serious is it?; willingness to speak up about risk, pieces falling into place; questions about truth and willingness to share; individual circumstances are a huge factor; cultural factors at play in risk definition of risk is influenced by our values/culture; improved identification of risk factors Potential/possibility of something negative happening; harmful situation place or person Risk is: unidentified risk; lack of referrals/connections; hazard/threat; Dynamic, complex Risk of personal safety based on personal assessment. Different levels. Specific situation perspective.

2. What did we (you) used before risk assessment tools were developed? Some of the comments shared were: Experience Info gathering, change over time, SARA Criminal court documents Information presented Judgment, values, experience Interviews, fact gathering Collaboration Physical evidence Use of information triage, perception, invitation Collateral feedback Rely on victim s experience, background, experience/potential of escalation of harm/risk. Corrections, in our experience, has always had tools for assessment Professional opinions, gut feelings, experiences, observations, facts/data, outside expertise Best judgment of responder 3. What did you do when you saw risk? Some of the comments were: Mitigate, take steps to eliminate Offender management strategies Only high risk for victims support Called police, C.P. Referred (i.e. Psychologist) Safety Plan Report, refer, assess, collaborate Get more details, in depth look Empathy cope immediate, towards individual s needs Advise proper channels if available (family, police, medical) Safety plan for victim, work on a case plan, corrections: determine level of program intervention Discussed with supervisor, called child protection/police, or make individual referrals Assess it (with whatever tools available); asks questions, talks to victim; share knowledge, make referrals; safety planning; listen, BELIEVE Used training/expertise at that time; report it/remove offender; discussions with others involved (offender, victim, community, partners). Immediate intervention no long term plan of action (years ago); report risk to appropriate person; providing ongoing support and treatment; address risk proper referrals; reaction varies depending on role; situational factors children Notes/report; explore options/resources; referrals; education/information; safety planning; empowering to identify risks; explain support

4. What was offered to the victim? Some of the answers were: Victim services referral, community support, SPCA Planned 24 hour support Mental health access Safe place to stay (T.H) Services (counseling) Victim notification (parole board) Keep advised of status of case Victim compensation Counseling Resources (contacts, etc.) Legal resources (victim services) Active listening Support Empowerment Protocols around immediate safety for every agency; short term/reactive solutions; long term/proactive strategies Child protection services would be engaged if there were children in the home 5. Is assessing the risk important? Why? Sample of comments: Past behavior is predictor of future behavior - do it everyday Yes protection and safety Yes, to determine level of safety, risk of lethality, services Break the cycle (multi-dimensional) Reduce and eliminate harm, even homicide Yes, to educate and assess the level of harm (potential) Yes! To build a plan, prioritize, reduce recidivism, to choose appropriate intervention for risk level, and budgeting to use funds wisely. Yes! Because it helps us identify situations where violence can escalate; allows for intervention; response will be different depending on risk; reduce the cycle of violence 6. Who should be assessing the risk? When? Some of the answers: All parties ASAP and within 72 hours The whole team! Professionals dealing with the case; educated parents/friends; police officers; counselors (addictions, mental health); probation officers; parole officers; correctional program officers; community program officers; social workers; lawyers;

psychologist; heath care workers (nurses, doctors). When? Immediately and continuously. Before we feel the need. 7. How is risk assessment shared among professionals? Some of the answers were: With great difficulty statutory hurdles need for protocols Safety planning conference With consent or if imminent risk requires breach of confidentiality Ideally in multi-discipline meeting (different perspectives) It is not always shared. It should be shared with colleagues, agencies (police, social services), public, and judicial system, with report and communication. Corrections: institution with victim services, community, PO, police

Afternoon Small Group Discussions/Scenarios The afternoon small group discussions were asked to discuss the scenario received. Each scenario was either a low, medium or high risk. Each table received the same general scenario questions: Knowing the risk level of each of the following cases, what strategies would you implement for the following risk management components? Monitoring of the case Supervision of the abuser Victim safety planning Intervention victim and abuser

Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre for Family Violence Research MMFC 2013: Risk Assessment Workshop Practical Aspects of Risk Assessment Risk Management Questions for Morning Small Discussion Group 1. What is risk to you? 2. What did we (you) used before risk assessment tools were developed? 3. What did you do when you saw risk? 4. What was offered to the victim? 5. Is assessing the risk important? Why? 6. Who should be assessing the risk? When? 7. How is risk assessment shared among professionals? Atelier du CMMF sur l évaluation des risques Aspects pratiques de l évaluation et de la gestion des risques Questions pour les petits groupes de discussion en matinée 1. Que signifie le risque pour vous? 2. Qu avions-nous à notre disposition avant que les outils d évaluation des risques ne soient mis au point? 3. Quelle a été votre réaction face au risque? 4. Qu a-t-on offert à la victime? 5. Est-ce important d évaluer les risques? Pourquoi? 6. Qui est-ce qui doit évaluer les risques? Quand faut-il procéder à cette évaluation? 7. De quelle manière l évaluation des risques est-elle prise en charge par les différents professionnels?

Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre for Family Violence Research MMFC 2013: Risk Assessment Workshop Practical Aspects of Risk Assessment Risk Management Small Discussion Group Scenarios General Scenario Questions: Knowing the risk level of each of the following cases, what strategies would you implement for the following risk management components: Monitoring of the case Supervision of the abuser Victim safety planning Intervention victim and abuser Scenario 1 Low Risk Sally and Jeff have been married for 15 years and are both in their mid-30s. At approximately 7:30pm on a Saturday evening, 911 receives a call from a neighbour who heard loud shouting from the backyard of Sally and Jeff s residence. The caller was concerned because the argument had been going on for 30 minutes so far and seemed to be escalating. Constable Henry recalls being to this home once before about 6 months ago for a similar complaint. Both parties had been drinking at the time. When Constable Henry and his partner arrive to the residence this time, Sally and Jeff both appear to be intoxicated. Sally has a fresh red scratch on her cheek. When asked about it, Sally reports that she tripped on the stone path and scratched her face on the stones where she fell. Sally denied that Jeff hit her, but said he may have tripped her while she walked by him on the path. Jeff denies tripping her and said that she merely lost her balance because she is drunk. She had been yelling at him about not fixing things around the house and wasn t paying attention to where she was walking. Neither Sally nor Jeff have prior criminal records. Other than the loud arguing, there is no known history of domestic assault or threats between them. Sally and Jeff have two sons, who are 10 and 14 years of age. When you speak to the children, they deny witnessing any physical violence or threats between their parents, but do acknowledge that their parents drink sometimes and argue loudly. Occasionally, Sally will throw things around during these arguments.

Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre for Family Violence Research MMFC 2013: Risk Assessment Workshop Practical Aspects of Risk Assessment Risk Management Small Discussion Group Scenarios General Scenario Questions: Knowing the risk level of each of the following cases, what strategies would you implement for the following risk management components: Monitoring of the case Supervision of the abuser Victim safety planning Intervention victim and abuser Scenario 2 Low Risk Joseph and Bill have been a couple for 6 years. At around 11pm, 911 received a call from Bill stating that he was assaulted by Joseph during an argument. When police arrive on scene, they learn that Bill and Joseph were arguing over money. Joseph was angry at Bill for buying a boat earlier that day, when they had previously agreed to limit their spending and to consult each other about large purchases. The argument escalated to the point at which Joseph punched Bill in the face once followed by a brief struggle. Officers observed that Bill had a bloody split lip and swelling of the lip area where the punch presumably landed and appeared roughed up as evidenced by a tear in his clothing. Bill denied feeling afraid of Joseph, but he was shocked by the intensity of his anger as this was the first time that Joseph ever hit him or threatened to do so. Joseph had left the scene after the fight, and was not at the residence when police arrived. The couple has no children. Bill appeared sober to the attending officers, and he denied any substance use concerns with Joseph either.

Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre for Family Violence Research MMFC 2013: Risk Assessment Workshop Practical Aspects of Risk Assessment Risk Management Small Discussion Group Scenarios General Scenario Questions: Knowing the risk level of each of the following cases, what strategies would you implement for the following risk management components: Monitoring of the case Supervision of the abuser Victim safety planning Intervention victim and abuser Scenario 3 Moderate Risk Fred and Cameron moved in together 5 months ago, after dating for 6 months. Fred s 11 year old son from a previous relationship called 911 because his father s girlfriend (Cameron) had a knife and was threatening his father with it. When police arrive, they find Fred and his son in the living room of the residence. Cameron had locked herself in the bathroom and refused to come out. The attending officers notice that Fred s arm was bleeding from what appeared to be a superficial cut. Fred reported that Cameron did that to him when he tried to take the knife away from her. They had been arguing about whether to have more children; Fred didn t want more kids and Cameron did. Cameron became very upset and angry towards Fred, grabbed the knife from the kitchen counter, and lunged at him with it. Fred was able to take the knife away from Cameron, which is how he got injured, and she ran into the bathroom crying. Fred stated that he could hear Cameron throwing things around in the bathroom initially, but things have quieted down in the past 20 minutes or so. Fred reported that this is not the first time that Cameron has become aggressive towards him. She has previously punched and slapped him, but he denies ever being aggressive towards her. Fred s son supports his statement. The aggression started once they moved in together. This was the first time Cameron used a weapon during one of these fights. Police records confirm that two previous domestic dispute calls to this residence were previously made to 911 in the past 4 months. Fred did not initiate any of these calls. Usually it was neighbours who called. This was the first time such an incident happened in the presence of his son, as his son is only there every 2 nd weekend. Officers manage to coerce Cameron out of the bathroom, and find her tearful and remorseful about her actions. She discloses that she is under the care of a psychiatrist for Bipolar disorder, and has not been taking her medication as she should because she didn t want Fred to know about her problem. Fred admits that he worries about something like this happening again, but thinks he can handle himself.

Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre for Family Violence Research MMFC 2013: Risk Assessment Workshop Practical Aspects of Risk Assessment Risk Management Small Discussion Group Scenarios General Scenario Questions: Knowing the risk level of each of the following cases, what strategies would you implement for the following risk management components: Monitoring of the case Supervision of the abuser Victim safety planning Intervention victim and abuser Scenario 4 Moderate Risk Cathy and Allan have been married for 20 years, and have three adolescent children who still live in the family home. Cathy called a domestic violence shelter around 8pm to report that her husband physically assaulted her on their way home from a friend s party and it continued once they arrived home. Cathy stated that things were fine until it was time to leave the party. She mentioned to Allan that she thought he had too much to drink and should not drive, to which Allan responded by forcefully banging her head into the side of the car and telling her that she does not control him. He then ordered her into the vehicle, and yelled at her the entire drive home. He threatened to beat the crap out of her some more when they got home if she didn t shut up. When they arrived at their residence, Allan pushed and shoved Cathy into their house and slapped her so hard across the face that she fell down and broke a tooth. Allan then went out to the garage, leaving Cathy alone. All of their children were out for the night. Fearing further aggression, Cathy left the home and went to a neighbour s house. The neighbour encouraged Cathy to call the police, but she was reluctant to do so. However, she was willing to go to the Emergency Department to get her physical injuries checked out and to call a shelter. At the Emergency Department, medical staff noted Cathy s injuries as including significant swelling and early bruising, as well as dried blood on her face from where her tooth fell out and where it cut her lips. Her clothing was ripped and she had red welt marks on her upper arms where she reported Allan had grabbed her and shook her. The treating physician was also worried that her wrist might be broken. After her injuries were tended to, Cathy called domestic violence outreach and spoke to a worker on the phone before returning home. According to Cathy, Allan has always been somewhat controlling in their relationship, and has a temper. However, he has only lost his temper like this time twice before in their marriage. Once he almost hit her, but went out to his garage instead and took his anger out on objects out there by throwing or breaking them until he cooled down enough. He had been drinking then too, but Cathy denied that Allan has a drinking problem. It s just that when he does drink, he is more likely to lose control of his temper. With reluctance, Cathy also discloses that Allan has shoved her before when she has annoyed him, but denied that he has ever punched her before. Although he can be intimidating, Allan has no history of physical fights in the community and has no known criminal record. Cathy does not want to go to the police and have Allan charged because she has nowhere else to go, and thinks that he won t do it again. Cathy has no independent income, and has been a homemaker for the past 20 years. She also does not want to leave the kids alone with their father. When Cathy returns home, she finds Allan still in the garage, but he has calmed down and apologizes for assaulting her. He communicates his openness to getting help, but stated that she should know better than to set him off like that.

Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre for Family Violence Research MMFC 2013: Risk Assessment Workshop Practical Aspects of Risk Assessment Risk Management Small Discussion Group Scenarios General Scenario Questions: Knowing the risk level of each of the following cases, what strategies would you implement for the following risk management components: Monitoring of the case Supervision of the abuser Victim safety planning Intervention victim and abuser Scenario 5 High Risk Police are called to the residence of a 28 year old female named Jennifer, who has received a series of threatening voice mails that cause her to fear for her safety. Police learn that Jennifer had recently separated from her same-sex partner, Allison (age 42), after 3 years of living together. Jennifer left the relationship because she found Allison controlling and dominating. Allison had tried to control Jennifer s finances, demanded access to her private accounts, always wanted to know where she was and who she was with, and allowed her very little free time to spend alone with her own family and friends. Jennifer felt suffocated. Jennifer also reported that Allison was extremely jealous during their relationship and would slap, push, shove, and hit her whenever she was unhappy with something Jennifer said or did. This behaviour went on for most of their relationship, until Jennifer got up the courage to leave Allison. Since Jennifer left the relationship, Allison was leaving threatening voice messages and telling her I will never let you go! If I can t have you, then no one can have you. Jennifer has twice found the tires slashed on her vehicle, and thinks that Allison may have broken into her home recently as some things were missing (i.e., a framed photo of the two of them) and her apartment was trashed. Allison has also been spreading false stories about Jennifer on Facebook, trying to get her in trouble with her employer, friends and family. Allison s harassment has been escalating over the past 30 days, and Jennifer is afraid that Allison will harm her or someone she cares about in retaliation for leaving her. A record check indicates that Allison has a history of violence from her mid-20s. Her record includes 2 prior violent convictions all against a previous intimate partner of Allison s. The convictions stemmed from an incident in which Allison held her former partner against her will in their apartment for 2 days before stabbing her in the stomach. The victim convinced Allison to call 911, which she eventually did and the victim survived. Allison pled guilty to the charges of forcible confinement and aggravated assault and served 5 years in federal custody before being released on parole. Allison s parole was twice suspended for attempting to contact her ex-intimate partner in violation of her parole conditions and a restraining order, but was never actually revoked. Since her release from prison, Allison incurred one new charge for assaulting a customer at her former place of work, and received a 6 month custodial sentence followed by 12 months of probation for this incident. At the time of the current incident, Allison is not under any court-ordered conditions.

Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre for Family Violence Research MMFC 2013: Risk Assessment Workshop Practical Aspects of Risk Assessment Risk Management Small Discussion Group Scenarios General Scenario Questions: Knowing the risk level of each of the following cases, what strategies would you implement for the following risk management components: Monitoring of the case Supervision of the abuser Victim safety planning Intervention victim and abuser Scenario 6 High Risk Cindy and John have been living as a common-law couple for 4 years. Cindy is currently 6 months pregnant with their first child, and Cindy s 5 year old daughter and 7 year old son from a previous relationship also live in the home. Cindy s mother called a domestic violence shelter after Cindy came to her residence in a distressed and upset state, with her children in tow. Cindy told her mother that John had punched her in the stomach earlier that day after he accused her of having an affair with his brother, and she now feared for her safety and that of her children. Cindy tells the worker on the phone that John was not convinced that the baby she was carrying was his, and reportedly punched her in the stomach in the hopes of causing her to miscarriage. Cindy tells the worker that he has a cocaine addiction and has become increasingly jealous and paranoid over the past few months. Prior to this incident, John had never made threats of violence towards her or her daughter. He also did not have a reputation for being an aggressive person, but seemed to be easily angered lately and rather hostile with other people in his life. John has one prior conviction from 8 months ago for cocaine possession, for which he was placed on probation for 12 months. John had been compliant with his probation conditions for the most part, including attending treatment for his addiction up until 3 weeks ago when he stopped going after relapsing. John missed his last supervision meeting with his probation officer 3 days ago.

Centre Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre pour la recherche sur la violence familiale Atelier du CMMF sur l évaluation des risques Aspects pratiques de l évaluation et de la gestion des risques Scénarios à examiner en petits groupes de discussion Questions générales sur les scénarios Compte tenu du niveau de risque de chacun des cas suivants, quelles stratégies mettriez-vous en œuvre relativement aux éléments suivants de la gestion des risques? Suivi du dossier Supervision de l agresseur Planification de la sécurité de la victime Intervention auprès de la victime et de l agresseur Scénario 1 : risque faible Sally et Jeff sont mariés depuis 15 ans et sont tous deux dans la mi-trentaine. Vers 19 h 30 un samedi soir, le service 911 reçoit un appel d un voisin qui entend des cris en provenance de la cour de Sally et de Jeff. Le voisin se dit inquiet parce que la dispute dure depuis une demi-heure et semble dégénérer. L agent Henry se rappelle s être rendu à cette résidence une fois auparavant, il y a environ six mois, en réponse à une plainte semblable. Les deux parties avaient consommé de l alcool lors de cet incident. Encore cette fois, lorsque l agent Henry et son partenaire se présentent sur les lieux, Sally et Jeff semblent en état d ébriété. Sally a une écorchure rouge encore fraîche sur la joue. Lorsque les policiers lui demandent ce qui lui est arrivé, elle affirme avoir trébuché dans l allée en pierres et s être écorché le visage dans sa chute. Sally soutient que Jeff ne l a pas frappée, mais qu il l a peut-être fait tomber lorsqu elle passait à côté de lui dans l allée. Jeff nie l avoir fait trébucher. Selon lui, elle a simplement perdu l équilibre parce qu elle est ivre. Elle était en train de lui reprocher vivement de ne rien réparer dans la maison et ne portait pas attention à l endroit où elle mettait les pieds. Ni Sally ni Jeff n ont de casier judiciaire. Outre les disputes bruyantes, le couple n a aucun antécédent de violence conjugale ou de menace. Sally et Jeff ont deux fils âgés de 10 et de 14 ans. Les enfants disent qu ils n ont jamais été témoins de violence physique ni de menaces entre leurs parents. Ils reconnaissent que Sally et Jeff consomment de l alcool à l occasion et ont de grosses disputes par la suite, qui poussent Sally à lancer des objets.

Centre Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre pour la recherche sur la violence familiale Atelier du CMMF sur l évaluation des risques Aspects pratiques de l évaluation et de la gestion des risques Scénarios à examiner en petits groupes de discussion Questions générales sur les scénarios Compte tenu du niveau de risque de chacun des cas suivants, quelles stratégies mettriez-vous en œuvre relativement aux éléments suivants de la gestion des risques? Suivi du dossier Supervision de l agresseur Planification de la sécurité de la victime Intervention auprès de la victime et de l agresseur Scénario 2 : risque faible Joseph et Bill forment un couple depuis six ans. Vers 23 h, le service 911 reçoit un appel de Bill qui dit avoir été agressé par Joseph au cours d une dispute. Lorsque la police arrive sur les lieux, les agents apprennent que Bill et Joseph se disputaient pour une question d argent. Joseph est en colère parce que Bill a acheté un bateau plus tôt dans la journée, alors qu ils avaient convenu de limiter leurs dépenses et de se consulter avant de faire des achats importants. La dispute s est échauffée au point où Joseph a donné un coup de poing au visage de Bill, ce qui a donné lieu à un bref corps à corps. Les agents remarquent que Bill a la lèvre fendue et enflée à l endroit où le coup de poing aurait été porté et qu il a l air d avoir été malmené en raison d une déchirure dans ses vêtements. Bill dit ne pas avoir peur de Joseph, mais qu il a été surpris par l intensité de la colère de ce dernier, étant donné que Joseph ne l avait jamais frappé auparavant ni même menacé de le faire. Joseph a quitté les lieux après la dispute et n est pas sur place à l arrivée des policiers. Le couple n a pas d enfants. Bill paraît à jeun aux yeux des policiers, et il soutient que Joseph n a rien consommé non plus.

Centre Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre pour la recherche sur la violence familiale Atelier du CMMF sur l évaluation des risques Aspects pratiques de l évaluation et de la gestion des risques Scénarios à examiner en petits groupes de discussion Questions générales sur les scénarios Compte tenu du niveau de risque de chacun des cas suivants, quelles stratégies mettriez-vous en œuvre relativement aux éléments suivants de la gestion des risques? Suivi du dossier Supervision de l agresseur Planification de la sécurité de la victime Intervention auprès de la victime et de l agresseur Scénario 3 : risque modéré Fred et Cameron ont emménagé ensemble il y a cinq mois, après s être fréquentés pendant six mois. Le fils de 11 ans de Fred, né d une union précédente, appelle le service 911 parce que Cameron, la copine de son père, menace ce dernier avec un couteau. Lorsque les policiers arrivent, Fred et son fils se trouvent dans le salon. Cameron s est enfermée dans la salle de bain et refuse de sortir. Les agents remarquent que Fred saigne d un bras, où il semble avoir une coupure superficielle. Fred explique que Cameron lui a infligé cette blessure lorsqu il a tenté de lui enlever le couteau. Ils se disputaient concernant la décision d avoir d autres enfants ou non. Fred n en veut pas d autres, tandis que Cameron, si. Très en colère contre Fred, Cameron a pris un couteau sur le comptoir de la cuisine et s est jetée sur lui. Fred a réussi, non sans être blessé, à enlever le couteau des mains de Cameron, qui s est enfuie dans la salle de bain en sanglots. Fred affirme qu il a entendu Cameron lancer des objets dans la salle de bain, mais que le calme est revenu depuis 20 minutes environ. Il dit que ce n est pas la première fois que Cameron se montre agressive à son égard. Elle lui a déjà donné des coups de poing et des gifles, tandis que lui soutient qu il ne s en est jamais pris à elle. Le fils de Fred corrobore cette affirmation. Les agressions ont commencé après le déménagement. C est la première fois que Cameron utilise une arme. Les dossiers de la police confirment que deux autres appels liés à des disputes conjugales ont été faits au service 911 au cours des quatre derniers mois. Fred n a fait aucun de ces appels. Ce serait plutôt des voisins qui ont téléphoné. Un tel incident ne s était jamais produit devant le fils de Fred, qui n est là qu une fin de semaine sur deux. Les agents parviennent à forcer Cameron à sortir de la salle de bain. Elle est en pleurs et regrette ses gestes. Elle révèle qu elle reçoit les soins d un psychiatre en raison d un trouble bipolaire et qu elle ne suivait pas toujours la posologie de ses médicaments, car elle ne voulait pas que Fred soit au courant de son problème. Fred se dit inquiet qu une telle situation se reproduise, mais il estime qu il est capable de se débrouiller.

Centre Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre pour la recherche sur la violence familiale Atelier du CMMF sur l évaluation des risques Aspects pratiques de l évaluation et de la gestion des risques Scénarios à examiner en petits groupes de discussion Questions générales sur les scénarios Compte tenu du niveau de risque de chacun des cas suivants, quelles stratégies mettriez-vous en œuvre relativement aux éléments suivants de la gestion des risques? Suivi du dossier Supervision de l agresseur Planification de la sécurité de la victime Intervention auprès de la victime et de l agresseur Scénario 4 : risque modéré Cathy et Allan sont mariés depuis 20 ans et ont trois adolescents qui vivent toujours avec eux. Cathy téléphone à un refuge pour victimes de violence familiale vers 20 h pour déclarer que son mari l a agressée physiquement pendant leur retour après une fête d amis et que l agression s est poursuivie une fois à la maison. Elle affirme que tout allait bien jusqu au moment de partir, quand elle a dit à Allan que, selon elle, il a trop bu et qu il ne devrait pas conduire. Allan réagit en lui frappant durement la tête sur le côté de la voiture et en lui disant qu elle n a aucune emprise sur lui. Il lui ordonne ensuite de monter dans la voiture et crie contre elle pendant tout le trajet du retour. Il menace de continuer à lui «casser la gueule» à la maison si elle ne se tait pas. À leur arrivée, Allan pousse violemment Cathy pour qu elle entre dans la maison et la frappe au visage si fort qu elle tombe par terre et se casse une dent. Puis, Allan part dans le garage, laissant Cathy toute seule. Leurs enfants sont partis pour la soirée. Craignant une autre agression, Cathy sort et se rend chez un voisin. Le voisin l encourage à appeler la police, mais Cathy est réticente. Elle est cependant prête à se rendre à l urgence pour faire examiner ses blessures et à appeler un refuge. Le personnel médical de l urgence fait le bilan de l état de Cathy. Certaines parties de son corps sont très enflées et présentent les premiers signes d ecchymoses. Elle a aussi du sang séché sur le visage à cause de la dent qui lui a fendu les lèvres et qui est tombée. Ses vêtements sont déchirés et elle a des marques rouges sur les bras, à l endroit où, selon son témoignage, Allan l a agrippée pour la secouer. Le médecin traitant craint aussi que son poignet soit fracturé. Après avoir reçu des soins pour ses blessures, Cathy parle à une travailleuse d approche d une ligne d aide en violence familiale, puis elle rentre à la maison. Selon Cathy, Allan s est toujours montré plutôt contrôlant dans sa relation avec elle et s emporte facilement. Toutefois, une situation comme celle qu elle vient de vivre ne s est produite qu à deux occasions depuis leur mariage. La première fois, il l avait presque frappée, mais il s était ravisé puis retiré au garage pour y déchaîner sa colère en lançant ou en brisant des objets qui s y trouvaient jusqu à ce qu il se soit suffisamment calmé. Cette fois-là encore, Allan avait consommé de l alcool, mais selon Cathy, il n est pas alcoolique. Elle soutient qu il a simplement plus de difficultés à garder son sang-froid après avoir bu. Cathy révèle aussi avec réticence qu Allan l a déjà violemment poussée parce qu elle le dérangeait. Elle nie cependant avoir reçu un coup de poing de son mari auparavant. Bien qu il puisse être intimidant, Allan n a aucun antécédent de bagarres dans la communauté et n a pas de casier judiciaire connu. Cathy ne veut pas mêler la police à l histoire et faire accuser Allan, parce qu elle a nulle part où aller et croit qu il n agira plus de la sorte. Femme au foyer depuis 20 ans, elle n a pas de revenu. Elle ne veut pas non plus laisser ses enfants seuls avec leur père. À son retour à la maison, elle trouve Allan toujours au garage, mais il s est calmé et s excuse de l avoir agressée. Il se dit ouvert à l idée de demander de l aide, mais il soutient qu elle aurait dû savoir qu il ne fallait pas le provoquer ainsi.

Centre Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre pour la recherche sur la violence familiale Questions générales sur les scénarios Atelier du CMMF sur l évaluation des risques Aspects pratiques de l évaluation et de la gestion des risques Scénarios à examiner en petits groupes de discussion Compte tenu du niveau de risque de chacun des cas suivants, quelles stratégies mettriez-vous en œuvre relativement aux éléments suivants de la gestion des risques? Suivi du dossier Supervision de l agresseur Planification de la sécurité de la victime Intervention auprès de la victime et de l agresseur Scénario 5 : risque élevé La police reçoit un appel provenant de la résidence d une femme de 28 ans nommée Jennifer, qui craint pour sa sécurité parce qu elle a reçu une série de messages vocaux menaçants. Les policiers apprennent que Jennifer a récemment rompu avec Allison, sa conjointe de 42 ans, après trois ans de vie commune. Jennifer a quitté Allison parce qu elle trouvait cette dernière contrôlante et dominatrice. Allison avait tenté d avoir la mainmise sur les finances de Jennifer, avait exigé l accès à ses comptes personnels, tenait toujours à savoir où et avec qui elle se trouvait et ne lui laissait que très peu de temps pour voir sa famille et ses amis. Jennifer étouffait. De plus, selon Jennifer, Allison était extrêmement jalouse pendant leur relation. Dès que Jennifer faisait ou disait quelque chose qui déplaisait à sa conjointe, cette dernière la giflait, la bousculait, la poussait ou la frappait. Ce genre de comportement a marqué la majeure partie de leur relation, jusqu à ce que Jennifer prenne son courage à deux mains et quitte Allison. Depuis, Allison laisse des messages vocaux menaçants à Jennifer dans lesquels elle déclare : «Je ne te laisserai jamais me quitter! Si je ne peux pas être avec toi, personne ne le sera.» Jennifer a trouvé ses pneus de véhicule coupés à deux reprises, et elle pense qu Allison serait récemment entrée par effraction chez elle, car certains objets n y sont plus (une photo encadrée des deux femmes, notamment) et l appartement a été saccagé. Allison a aussi fait courir de fausses rumeurs concernant Jennifer sur Facebook pour lui attirer des ennuis avec son employeur, ses amis et sa famille. Le harcèlement d Allison s est intensifié au cours des 30 derniers jours, et Jennifer a peur que son ex-conjointe lui fasse du mal ou fasse du mal à quelqu un qui lui est cher pour se venger d avoir été abandonnée. Une vérification de dossier permet de constater que les antécédents de comportement violent d Allison remontent au milieu de sa vingtaine. À deux reprises, elle a été déclarée coupable d infraction avec violence envers la même ancienne partenaire. Allison avait retenu son ancienne partenaire contre son gré pendant deux jours dans l appartement qu elles partageaient avant de la poignarder au ventre. La victime, qui avait convaincu Allison de composer le 911, a survécu. Allison a plaidé coupable aux accusations de séquestration et de voies de fait graves et a purgé une peine de cinq ans dans un établissement fédéral avant d être mise en liberté conditionnelle. Sa liberté conditionnelle a été suspendue deux fois parce qu elle avait essayé de communiquer avec son ancienne partenaire, manquant ainsi aux conditions de sa remise en liberté et à une ordonnance de non-communication. Sa liberté conditionnelle n a cependant jamais été révoquée. Depuis sa sortie de prison, une nouvelle accusation de voies de fait a été portée contre Allison après qu elle s en soit prise à un client à son ancien lieu de travail. Cette accusation lui a valu une peine d emprisonnement de six mois, suivie d une période de probation de douze mois. Au moment du scénario qui nous occupe actuellement, aucune condition ordonnée par un tribunal ne vise Allison.

Centre Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre pour la recherche sur la violence familiale Atelier du CMMF sur l évaluation des risques Aspects pratiques de l évaluation et de la gestion des risques Scénarios à examiner en petits groupes de discussion Questions générales sur les scénarios Compte tenu du niveau de risque de chacun des cas suivants, quelles stratégies mettriez-vous en œuvre relativement aux éléments suivants de la gestion des risques? Suivi du dossier Supervision de l agresseur Planification de la sécurité de la victime Intervention auprès de la victime et de l agresseur Scénario 6 : risque élevé Cindy et John forment un couple en union libre depuis quatre ans. Cindy est enceinte de six mois de leur premier enfant ensemble. Le couple vit avec les deux enfants de Cindy issus d une relation précédente : une fille de cinq ans et un garçon de sept ans. Cindy se présente avec ses enfants en état de détresse et d angoisse chez sa mère, qui appelle un refuge pour les victimes de violence familiale. Cindy dit à sa mère que, plus tôt dans la journée, John lui a donné un coup de poing au ventre après l avoir accusée de le tromper avec son frère. Par conséquent, elle craint maintenant pour sa sécurité et celle de ses enfants. Au téléphone, elle explique à l intervenante du refuge que John n est pas convaincu d être le père de l enfant qu elle porte et qu il lui a donné un coup de poing au ventre en espérant qu elle fasse une fausse couche. Elle confie aussi que John a une dépendance à la cocaïne et qu il s est montré de plus en plus jaloux et paranoïaque au cours des derniers mois. Jusqu à ce jour, John n avait jamais proféré de menaces de violence envers Cindy ni envers sa fille. De plus, il n a pas la réputation d être agressif, mais ces derniers temps, il se mettait facilement en colère et se montrait plutôt hostile envers les personnes qu il côtoie. Huit mois plus tôt, John a été trouvé coupable de possession de cocaïne et condamné à une période de probation de douze mois. En général, John s est plié aux conditions de sa probation, qui comprennent la participation à des séances de traitement pour sa dépendance. Toutefois, il a fait une rechute trois semaines plus tôt et ne s est pas présenté en thérapie depuis. Il y a trois jours, John a raté son dernier rendez-vous avec son agent de probation.

Appendix E Evaluation Summary In order to receive feedback from participants, we asked that they complete an evaluation form at the end of day. Some feedback received by email from participants after the workshop were: «Je voulais tout simplement vous remercier, toi et ton équipe, pour le beau travail accomplit. Ce n est pas facile de tout mettre cela en place. Vous avez réussi, sans doute, à mettre de l emphase sur le sujet présenté. J ai entendu beaucoup de feedback positif de la part de mon équipe.» Thank you so much for organizing the excellent event. Thank you for hosting such a successful workshop. It was great. Merci énormément de m avoir invité à participer à l atelier. J ai tellement appris.» Some comments received via the evaluation forms included: Were the length and the timing of the workshop good? Too short - could have stayed to listen to more. Two days would have been better. Bonne information, outils pour savoir comment manager le risque selon le niveau de risque, c'est vraiment utile, good guidelines. Great outcome, well done! It would have been great to have longer presentations with more detail to the application and management of risk pertaining to offenders. Location is great! Liked the changing of tables - got to meet more people and network. Group work went well. Dr. Randall Kropp was excellent - should have spoken during the Wednesday session instead of one of the others (panel or Zoe Hilton) - very engaging speaker and deserved a bigger crowd. Well-paced; various presentations, liked the group work, sharing, mixing tables was cool Comments on the choice of topic for the workshop C'était un sujet intéressant, mais j'aurais aimé qu'il y aurait eu plus d'emphase sur comment intervenir auprès des victimes et agresseurs Excellent - need a follow-up workshop on strategies to develop risk management. Excellent presenters! Glad to see a concreted focus on risk assessment.

Flows well with province roll out of ODARA Good choice. Would like more training in assessing risk Important topic. I enjoyed the discussion on risk. Interesting scenarios that posed a challenge to the group. Mixture of group members perspectives made it interesting. Much needed awareness, great job bringing it forward. The variety of presentations and activities (active learning) created an engaging environment for participants to share - great venue! The workshop was very informative, allowing networking with other agencies, small group discussions I found most beneficial Topic was relevant and it is an important thing for service providers to be aware of. Très intéressant et pertinent Très utile, surtout pour les nouvelles intervenantes, ça guide très bien Very insightful for my line of work (Correctional Programs Officer) Do you see yourself implementing anything that you have learned in this workshop at your workplace? If so, what? Checking out the ODARA tool to see if it is relevant to other situations Évaluation du risque et contacts - socialisation - rencontre Familiarizing myself with ODARA and SARA for example Follow-up re: monitoring (trying to get that to happen) supervision Have partners provide us with an information session I currently complete training for Child Protection staff on the topic of how child protection intersects with the issue of IPV I would like to learn more about the ODARA tool It justifies some of the work we are doing to manage risk. But how can we improve and identify what is missing? Oui, en apprend encore plus sur ODARA et trouver une façon de travailler encore plus ensemble pour identifier les gens à risque dans notre région Oui, entre autres, comment évaluer le risque et ne pas oublier que ce sont des outils Pet safety programming. High risk case coordination committee Risk factor identification, risk assessment The biggest piece of information for me was how very important communication is Use of language when dealing with clients Use risk assessment in IPV cases - seek consultation from local experts on difficult cases We would like to see the ODARA as part of the paper trail for Federal Corrections Yes, group discussion, improving communications with provincial colleagues and various stakeholders Yes, more discussions on info sharing strategies within and between organizations privacy legislation

What was the most valuable piece of information that you gained from this workshop? A better explanation of ODARA and meeting other members of the community Applying the information to case studies Approaches to risk management (monitoring, supervision, etc.); also met some interesting people who are doing good work with these issues Bonne discussion et vision/perception et outils Clarification de rôle, attente et entrainement des policiers. Prendre le contexte en considération dans chaque cas Collaboration and the current NB context Communication and respect for others perspective Critique of different risk assessment tools Different tools may be appropriate for different clients, situations, etc. Dr. Zoe Hilton's workshop/discussions with various representatives Familiarity with current risk assessments Hearing about the ODARA and hearing about other province's multi-departmental approach and collaboration How to apply domestic violence risk assessment to case management plans I was able to connect with some other professionals to make new linkages Key presenters - Kropp, Hilton, Campbell and open floor comments Knowing that providing info. to victim might not benefit right off the bat, but continued support and providing resources will empower the person to move forward when ready Le jugement professionnel est bien, mais avoir un outil d'évaluation en plus, c'est beaucoup mieux Meeting other workers Need to balance actuarial risk assessments with structured professional judgment presented in a defensible manner ODARA - risk management options; IPV risk management strategies and approaches, etc. ODARA information - this would be useful for case management for federally sentenced offenders Positive feedback/reviews of ODARA since we are bringing it into the province for all police forces Predicting risk to reoffend is dynamic - a reminder to us that we are providing information and tools throughout programs as a suggestion that risk may be mitigated Que parfois quelque chose qui peut nous paraître anodin peut être une menace pour une autre personne qu'est-ce que l'évaluation du risque Speaking with the wide variety of professionals and learning from their perspectives Stratégies de risk management, tips for safety plan by Dr. Campbell Table discussions with other professionals many federal and provincial government organizations have obstacles in communicating and sharing risk info That there's a lot of work still to be done to become good partners in combating IPV

That we as federal are not yet really in the loop. We might be able to do more if we had more (i.e. ODARA) That we have a lot of work to do in NB. That NB does not have a strategic, structured/systematic response but that it is possible to have one (BC, UK, etc). SPF vs actuarial discussion throughout was effective and engaging, very important The importance of risk assessment when it comes to risk management The info discussed by Zoe Hilton (videoconference) was very interesting and informative. We currently do not use this tool in my line of work (federal corrections) so was good to learn how it works The issue of collaboration was echoed with each speaker and is such a key component in this field The need to share among agencies The ODARA tool and the marrying of actuarial tools and discretion The practical aspects of IPV risk assessment and management Validation of previous training. Zoe Hilton and Mary Ann Campbell's presentations. The topic of managing risk by sharing info with partners although it is a complex issue because of privacy laws Do you have any suggestions for future workshops? Avoir information pour être formé sur ODARA. Bringing Criminal Court and Family Court systems together. Coordinated response to manage risk Do a provincial case study of an actual case and how each of the departments/partners do - or could - work together to get the desired outcome. Hands on- follow through work and ideas on what to do. Would like to be taught ODARA. Need to go to the next level instead of what we are "going" to do. Historical perspectives re IPV progress and brainstorming challenges and solutions ahead. How to strengthen multi-disciplinary teams re family violence. Information sharing protocols. Build on what we have started (interventions). Removing barriers for services for victim, making services accessible for the vulnerable (i.e. Not on assistance, can't get service). Removing barriers for treatment. Let's honour the experience of the survivor who spoke up and refer to women who experience IPV as survivors, not victims. We need a shift in the way we think, treat them/work with them to empower them, etc. To talk about victims all day as if we are helping them when there are survivors in the room is hypocritical. Maybe an actual presentation by victim(s) about what was helpful and not helpful to them in terms of police, resources, etc. Also their perspective on risk (re: themselves and perpetrator). More info on impact on children. More info on Linda Neilson's work. More on Mary Ann Campbell's work. More on how to help. Also, more on perpetrator.

Need to continue to bring diverse stakeholders together to continue to learn about this issue and ways to collaborate, respond to gaps. ODARA training/explanation. Please come and do education at Mental Health! What to do with "women at risk" - intervention strategies short to long term. Specifically looking at the safety of children in homes with IPV. The same topic but more from a social justice perspective rather than the criminal justice lens. Continue engaging police services. Get them to present what they do in IPV. Un atelier qui nous expliquerais les meilleurs façon d'intervenir dans les cas de violence conjugale ou familiale. Violence risk assessment (general) Workshop for frontline workers. Youth in IPV; the treatment and impacts