Police Family Violence Response Strengthening Systems to Enhance Prevention and Intervention

1. Police Family Violence ResponseStrengthening Systems to Enhance Prevention and Intervention Family Violence Symposium 2012

2. Strengthening Systems – The Police ‘Element’ • The response to Family Violence can be viewed through a ‘systems framework’. Wikipedia says.. • a system is composed of parts. • all the parts of a system must be related (directly or indirectly) • a systemis a dynamic and complex whole, interacting as a structured functional unit; • systems thinking concerns an understanding of a system by examining the linkages and interactions between the elements that compose the entirety of the system.

3. Strengthening Systems – The Police ‘Element’ • Police response to Family Violence is one element of the overall framework that is the system response to Family Violence. • Police have reviewed and refined our FV response with the objective of improving prevention and intervention opportunities and overall outcomes to FV. • The overall success of the new changes depends on Police implementation, but, also depends on the quality of the communication and interactions between the other elements that compose the entirety of the ‘FV system.

4. The Changes…1 July 2012 • A situational response model that will… • distinguish between Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) and non IPV occurrences • apply a validated risk assessment tool that will predict likelihood of re-assault in IPV relationships (ODARA) • collect and share risk information in IPV contexts where ODARA does not apply • collect and share risk information specifically about children at all FV occurrences • provide victims with relevant information and advise them of referral to relevant FV service providers

5. FAMILY VIOLENCEContext… • In NZ the home is the most common location of violence. • FV is more likely to result in injury than any other type of assault. • Victims of FV are more likely to become repeat victims than any other type of crime. • FV is the largest killer of women under the age of 44 years of age in the world (including traffic accidents, war, natural disasters and disease). • One in three women experience physical or sexual violence from a partner in their lifetime. • Estimated social and economic cost of family violence is $5.3 billion a year (Women’s Affairs Minister Hekia Parata June 2011).

6. Police Response toFamily Violence • Police attended over 94,000 family violence incidents and offences in NZ in 2011. • That is an average of 240 FV occurrences each day (1 every 6 minutes). • Context - it is estimated that still only 18-20% of all FV incidents are reported. • Children are present at and / or witness family violence in over 50% of family violence occurrences reported to Police

7. Family Violence - Role of Police • Critical responder - primary role = establish safety and offender accountability as appropriate. • ALSO - information collector, initial risk assessor and facilitator of intervention. • FV response must be collaborative to be effective and is a multi-agency responsibility. • Police do not address the underlying causes and behavior – but play a key role in facilitation of protective responses for victims and children. • The most crucial work is prevention – often invisible and not measurable.

8. 6 to 10% = 65% Call Demand Police Perspectives -The Iceberg Profile Reported 20% Family Violence notifications to Police Un-Reported 80%

9. Adult Sexual Assault 30% Child Abuse Serious Assault Family Violence 70% 65% 50% Homicide What is Reported to us? % of Serious Violence that is Family Violence 19% - Child Female 14% - Child Male 30% - Adult Male 37% - Adult Female

10. Police Review of FV Response - Primary Objectives • Understand the nature and type of FV occurrences attended by NZ Police • Undertake international comparative analysis to investigate type and effectiveness of FV responses used elsewhere by law enforcement agencies • Review and amend NZP response to ensure best practice response to FV (current and relevant). • Identify relevant information for collection and distribution internally and for collaborative purposes • Apply risk assessment tools that are validated and can reliably inform decisions • Improve ability to prioritize and effectively use resources

11. Nature and Type of FV Occurrences Attended by Police Family Violence Breakdown 2011 (70% IPV / 30% ‘Other’ Family Violence) 26,326

12. Impact of Analysis • NZP - 70% of FV occurrences are Intimate Partner Violence (IPV). • IPV is driven by distinct dynamics • NZP 30% - ‘FV in non IPV family relationships’ • Violence in non IPV family relationships are driven by different dynamics to IPV. • Blanket responses are ineffective at determining and managing risk and recidivism – move to situational response model that will distinguish between relationship type and nature of the violence

13. Risk Information /Assessment impacts • Review of current Risk Assessment tools; • international literature review of RA tools in use by law enforcement for FV, and • subsequent comparative analysis of current NZP ‘tools’ against these findings. • Outcome = Recommendation that the current risk assessment tool (all three sections) be replaced; because; • not developed using evidence based processes • not validated to show predictive accuracy • evidence of unreliability (over and under estimating risk • Not applicable across all relationship types – ie its blanket application lacks relevance to non IPV cases • Not evidentially applicable

14. Risk Assessment - what, why, and how? • Risk assessment means making an appraisal now about the likelihood of undesirable events happening in the future. • A reliable assessment enables resources to be allocated to cases according to risk (tailoring of urgency, nature and size of resource response). • BUT to be effective a risk assessment must be ‘valid ‘ and ‘reliable’.

15. Risk Assessment - what, why and how? • A valid risk assessment shared with those who work with victims and criminal justice users, can improve risk communication and promote the coordination of all services responding to family violence. • Offender intervention should be based on the principles of risk, need, and responsiveness; a valid risk assessment is the essential starting point. Prediction – Prevention - Protection

16. Risk Assessment - what, why and how? • There are a three ways to collect violence risk information; • unstructured / professional judgement – intuitive = using informal processes to identify relevant information and to make a decision. e.g. personal experience, memory of research history, clinical observations. • structured professional judgement – intuitive= guided decision making after consideration of a given list of variables. • actuarial – mechanical = decisions based on empirical relationships between predictor characteristics and outcomes. Have the highest degree of predictive accuracy.

17. Risk Assessment - what, why and how? • Research indicates that it is highly desirable to have a tool that has a good predictive accuracy, determined through validation design and testing. • To have predictive accuracy risk assessment tools must be designed and tested (validated) for their specific purpose (actuarial). • Risk assessment tools are relationship specific and outcome specific (have a specific predictive measurement objective …re-assault, lethality, likelihood of conviction) • Risk assessment tools have a narrow application, this means risk information also needs to be collected to complement where a tool cannot be applied.

18. Building the situational response model – choosing a RA tool • Risk Assessment Tool must be IPV (other relationships types driven by different dynamics – no tool applicable to law enforcement available as yet). • A tool designed to predict re-assault is desirable, because that is our greatest volume attendance AND a good tool one will also give an indication of the likely seriousness of any re-assault. • Review of IPV re-assault tools in use by international law enforcement and comparison of relative accuracy led to… = selection of Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment tool (ODARA) for use by NZP

19. ODARA Accuracy Assessment ROC Area (+.5 to +1) Sensitivity/Specificity trade-off ODARA .77 DVSR (LE239) (DV Supp Report) .67 SARA (Spousal Assault RA) .64 DA (Danger Assessment) .59 LSI (Level of Service Inventory) .56 • -Any ROC score over .70 is described as having a ‘large’ (significant) effect. • - Subsequent cross validations of ODARA resulted in ROC scores of up to .80

20. Validity: ROC Area, PPP, NPP for any New IPV Hilton, Harris, Rice, Lang, Cormier, & Lines (2004)

21. Risk Assessment Evolution – Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA) • Canada – 1998 • 1998 - May / Iles Inquest, Report to the Attorney General • 2002 -Hadley Inquest, Family Violence Death Review recommendation. • Collaboration of Ontario Provincial Police and Waypoint to work on a project to develop RA Tool that could assist in assessing risk of recidivism in cases of domestic assault - ODARA • New Zealand – 2001- 2007 • Death of the Aplin sisters (2001) • Death of Coral Burrows (2003) • Introduction of first risk assessment tool in NZ – Pol FVIR (3 questions, 12 red flags, risk and lethality worksheet)

22. Ontario Domestic Risk Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA) Collaboration of OPP with MHCP (now Waypoint) Domestic Assault Recidivism Risk Assessment Project, 1999 - 2005 First Purpose: To develop a risk assessment tool for front line police officers, crown attorneys, health care professionals, victim groups and other criminal justice partners that could assist in assessing risk of recidivism in cases of domestic assault

23. What is ODARA? • Tool designed to assess the likelihood that a person who has assaulted their partner will do so again • ODARA consists of 13 items that predict re-assault and produces estimates of risk based upon the number of items scored as present • The higher the score the sooner, the more frequent and the more severe the violence is likely to be

24. Developing ODARA • The actuarial approach to designing ODARA and identifying predictive variables resulted in some interesting findings……. • Some variables expected to be good predictors were not significantly related to recidivism (e.g. injury at index assault and suicidal indicators or threats). • Other variables were related to recidivism but did not improve the risk assessment after the 13 selected items were included (e.g. unemployment and sexual jealousy). Only variables that were primary and strong predictors of recidivism were chosen for ODARA (13 items)

25. Original Variable Grouping and Reduction Steps • Index Assault Details • Non domestic Criminal History • Domestic Criminal History • Socio-demographic Characteristics • Victim Reports • Relationship Characteristics • Series of steps to reduce variables only to those that made a significant and independent contribution to the prediction of recidivism – regression, set wise, boot strapping, final reduction = 13 items. • The 13 variables selected were those that in the series of analyses, consistently predicted recidivism by themselves and over and above the remaining variables.

26. ODARA COMPOSITIONSummary ODARA has 13 items summarised into seven key groups: • Family violence history • Criminal history • Threat and confinement during most recent offense • Children in the relationship • Accused substance abuse • Barriers to support • Victims views on potential for future violence

27. ODARA Application and Impacts • ODARA has qualifying criteria before it can be used. (Predicts re-assault, so predicated on the fact that there has been prior assault.) • Focuses application on cases that meet the threshold of physical assault, or, serious threat of violence with a weapon and / or sexual violence. (Called the index offence) • Risk information about remaining IPV cases where ODARA does not apply, still needs to be collected and shared. • Resulted in further research and analysis and subsequently, the development of processes to collect risk information about victims and children.

28. 14% 30% 56% Family Violence New Process Application IPV ODARA 12,285 20% 26,326 49,141 80% IPV Non ODARA 70% Source: 2010 – 2011 Fiscal Year

29. Percent who Recidivate As a Function of ODARA Category

30. Interpreting ODARA Risk Scores (Booklet page 30)

31. Using ODARA POLICE • Information available in domestic investigation • Opposition to bail • Custody, Promise-to-appear • Warrant for arrest • Victim crisis referral, Emergency transportation • Crown brief

32. Using ODARA – Courts/Probation Bail • Higher scoring offenders represent more substantial risk • Custody, Bail conditions • Victim services liaison Sentencing • Incarceration, Duration • Probation conditions Probation and Parole • Higher risk offenders: more supervision • Conditions of release • Supervision frequency, Intensity • Referral to treatment programs

33. Uses of ODARA Identification of potential risk to Victim (and children in relationship) • Assists in explaining to victims, and their understanding of, potential risk • Improve victim engagement with service providers • Enable appropriate safety planning commensurate to identified risk for victim • Information to victims on uses of ODARA by the Criminal Justice System Offender Treatment Decisions • Resource allocation • Attrition • Victim contact Acommon metric for all sectors working together to prevent violence against women

35. Certification and Registration • ODARA is an internationally validated risk assessment tool, it will be tested and validated in NZ by NZ Police • To maintain integrity and predictive validity of ODARA scores, NZ Police must comply with training, certification and registration requirements. • Frontline staff will collect ODARA information – scores will be validated by specialists who are trained users. • All training of users will be provided by the FV Unit and delivered by a registered ODARA trainer • All staff who successfully complete the ODARA user training will be certified and internationally registered.

36. Collection of Risk Information(IPV - ODARA not applicable) Once ODARA was chosen we needed to look specifically at how to manage risk to occurrences where ODARA did not apply… To score the ODARA, (the index assault) must be met. Definition - index assault: • the most recent incident known to police in which violence occurred between intimate partners … • ‘Violence’ = physical and /or sexual assault and/ or a credible threat of harm or death with a weapon in hand, in the presence of the victim • Risk information was required for IPV attendances where ODARA does not apply (the orange wedge)

37. Collection of Risk Information(IPV - ODARA not applicable) • Confident that ODARA will help prioritize cases and assess risk where physical violence or imminent threat of it applies • Actuarial tools not generally developed to assess risk at the ‘lower level’, usually designed to predict an event • But still need to collect risk information about non ODARA IPV cases to help inform decision making (Victim safety and offender management) • IPV non ODARA cases are approximately 56% of attendances • Used research and prior recent work by Ontario Provincial Police to develop NZ Police’s own structured professional judgment tool – a list of variables known to predict risk of harm in IPV cases = Intimate Partner Vulnerability Factors • Acute and dynamic factors a primary focus to ensure lower level attendance by Police is not something more serious.

38. Collection of Risk Information(IPV - ODARA not applicable) • This information also forms part of the history where there are both ODARA and Non ODARA attendances by Police • As with the Child Risk Factors, items are not scored (not a validated tool) but are listed as present, not present or unknown. • The number of factors and combination of factors are both important. It is the professional judgment and experience of FV specialists in interpreting the information that is important • Commentary and summary on front page FV reports.

39. Risk Information for Non ODARA IPVIntimate PartnerVulnerability Factors • Recent change in relationship status • Offender wanting to renew the relationship • Officer identifies / partner discloses psychological violence • Chronic violence in the relationship • Violence - increasing severity/frequency • Victim believes offender could kill or injure her • Offender has strangled the victim • Offender has threatened/attempted suicide • Offender has threatened to kill the victim or others • Offender has a history of violence against others • Offender has stalked the victim • Offender has exhibited sexual jealousy • Offender is recently unemployed / under financial pressure • Offender has history of drug / alcohol use • Offender has diagnosed mental illness • Offender has diagnosed personality disorder

40. Risk Management – Collection of Risk Information - Children Once collection of risk information for IPV response (ODARA and IPVF) was determined we needed to look specifically at how to manage remaining risk • 30% not IPV; (The ‘blue wedge’ – ODARA / IPVFnot relevant) - 20% child related FV - 10% ‘Other’ FV – No RA tool applicable Addressing Risk to Children • It was important to consider how Police could specifically address risks to children when attending FV incidents. • Work was commissioned to look at whether there was identifiable and recognized risks to children living in families engaged in FV.

41. Risk Management – Collection of Risk Information - Children • Research confirmed - high inter-relationship between IPV and the incidence of child abuse and neglect = 70% correlation. • Automatic screening in some countries (e.g UK). • Concern with a very high percentage of child FV deaths in immediate and wider family context in New Zealand (child deaths are approximately 33% of all FV deaths in NZ). • Recommendation that NZP should consider introducing a supplementary tool specifically to consider risks to children.

42. Risk Management – Collection of Risk Information - Children • Further work was subsequently commissioned to look at what child risk tools international frontline law enforcement used to assess risks to children in FV incidents. • No tools are currently in use although some jurisdictions are in the early stages of development. Decision made that NZ Police need to collect risk information about children when attending all family violence incidents = development of the Child Risk Factor Form in conjunction with partner agencies

43. Risk Management – Collection of Risk Information - Children • The Child Risk Factor Form (CRF) was developed by using clearly identified risk factors derived from research • These factors are clearly distinct from those related to IPV • Balance was required to ensure CRF would not overburden staff or be outside ‘Police role’ • The CRF went through a consultation process with key partner agencies including CYF • It is not a risk assessment tool, but a list of variables to inform professional judgment in making decisions • The CRF is not ‘scored’, it is the presence and combination of factors that is important.

44. Child Risk Factors • In the new FV response model, CRF’s will be completed for all children involved in Family Violence occurrences attended by NZP • Only one CRF is completed for all children present that are 16 years of age or younger • The CRF records the presence or not of known risk factors grouped into categories – aggressor, family and child specific • Police will collect this information and share it with partner agencies • We are not usurping the role of CYF to determine and be responsible for identifying and managing at risk children, but we will be able to assist by providing better quality information

45. Child Risk Factors • CHILD • Child unborn • Child/ren under 5 years of age • Child/ren with physical disability • Previous injury to child/ren through family violence • AGGRESSOR / PROTECTIVE PARENT • History of alcohol and / or drug use • Diagnosed mental illness • Criminal history • Evidence of stalking in the relationship (agg) • Extremely controlling behaviour in the relationship (agg)

46. Child Risk Factors • FAMILY • Police history of family violence • Current Protection order / Family Court Order or PSO • Low socio-economic circumstances • Recent stressors • Non-biological parents • Mother under 25 years of age • Changes in relationship status • Sexual assault of parent / caregiver at current occurrence

47. 14% 30% 56% Family Violence New Process Application IPV ODARA 12,285 20% 26,326 49,141 80% IPV Non ODARA 70% Source: 2010 – 2011 Fiscal Year

48. ‘Preventative Actions’ in FV ResponseNew and Refined… • Prevention of further imminent harm by correct offender management decisions, removal through arrest or use of Police Safety Order • Collecting relevant risk information to inform decisions and to provide future context (Child Risk Factors, Intimate Partner Vulnerability Factors) includes sharing this information appropriately • Application of ODARA, correct identification of risk – offender management, safety planning and interagency response • Providing the victim with information (Victim information sheet) and referring onto FV service provider • Active engagement in FVIARS • Targeting of high risk offenders and victims through profiling of repeat and high risk cases (FVC) • Police Family Violence Death Review (PFVDR) • Alternative resolutions / outcomes as appropriate

49. Ripple Effect : Preventative Actions