Chapter 13: Assessing Risk

Balbir Gurm and Glaucia Salgado

Key Messages
  • The use of Risk Assessment Tools can aid professionals in their response to enhance the safety of victims and their children.
  • Risk assessment is important for case planning. If not used carefully, it can be discriminatory and cause harm to individuals, families and communities.
  • A number of risk assessment tools are used in Canada and around the world. Assessors need to keep in mind the objective, group, culture and intersectionality when selecting tools.
  • Research suggests there are some factors that increase the risk to re-offend. These include mental illness, history of complaints with the victim, violation of no-contact order, and continued contact between perpetrator and victim.

Relationship violence is any form of physical, emotional, spiritual and financial abuse, negative social control or coercion that is suffered by anyone that has a bond or relationship with the offender. In the literature, we find words such as intimate partner violence (IPV), neglect, dating violence, family violence, battery, child neglect, child abuse, bullying, seniors or elder abuse, male violence, stalking, cyberbullying, strangulation, technology-facilitated coercive control, honour killing, female genital mutilation gang violence and workplace violence. In couples, violence can be perpetrated by women and men in opposite-sex relationships (Carney et al., 2007), within same-sex relationships (Rollè et al., 2018) and in relationships where the victim is LGBTQ2SIA+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, Two-Spirit, intersex and asexual plus (The Scottish Trans Alliance, 2010; Rollè et al., 2018). Relationship violence is a result of multiple impacts such as taken for granted inequalities, policies and practices that accept sexism, racism, ageism, xenophobia and homophobia. It can span the entire age spectrum. It may start in-utero and end with death.

Risk Assessment

To address RV, it is important to be able to determine individual risk. There are a number of risk assessment tools for different populations. A common criticism is that assessment tools often take a Eurocentric approach and may not be able to fully appreciate or assess complex risk factors in cross-cultural contexts. If not used carefully, they can be discriminatory and cause harm to individuals, families and communities. It is important to apply these assessments taking into account guiding principles that are often outlined in legislation and policy. Risk assessment is important in order to do case planning.

In this chapter, we try to bring together knowledge about risk assessment and provide empirical evidence. Click here to understand why it is important to assess risk of RV. A summary of vulnerable populations, risk assessment, risk management and safety planning can be found in Table 13.1 (Jeffery et al., 2018). Also, a number of risk assessment tools are used in Canada and around the world. Click here to see the inventory of assessment tools used in Canada. Click here to read a good summary of risk assessment models. Murphy & McDonnell (2006) review how to assess and respond to the risk of RV. Locally, the Burnaby RCMP requested a group of researchers to identify characteristics that lead to re-offending. They found increased risk due to mental illness (8 times), history of complaints with the victim (2.5 times), violation of no-contact order (15 times), and continued contact with the offender (3 times) (McCormick et al., 2011).

 

Table 13.1 Summary of Vulnerabilities and Findings Regarding Risk Assessment, Risk Management, and Safety Planning Across the Four Vulnerable Populations (Jeffrey, N., Fairbairn, J., Campbell, M., Dawson, M., Jaffe, P. & Straatman, A-L. (2018). Canadian Domestic Homicide Prevention Initiative with Vulnerable Populations (CDHPIVP) Literature Review on Risk Assessment, Risk Management and Safety Planning.  Canadian Domestic Homicide Prevention Initiative.

Population Risk Management Safety Planning
Indigenous
  • Should be culturally informed and consider sociocultural/ historical aspects of risk
  • Should incorporate traditional practices and ceremonies if applicable
  • Should include Indigenous staff throughout risk assessment process including program planning and delivery
  • Should focus on healing for the whole family
  • Should include community education that discusses the issue of domestic violence, challenges stigma and denial, and identifies strategies for intervention
  • Should be culturally informed and consider sociocultural/historical aspects of risk
  • Should emphasize women’s strength and capacities
  • Should involve Elders and other community members/leaders
Rural, Remote, & Northern (RRN)
  • Should be culturally-informed and consider sociocultural/ historical aspects of risk
  • Potential for the use of the following strategies: firearm removal and restricted access policies; “safe at home” program models; and more meaningful justice system consequences
  • Current lenient treatment by criminal justice actors
  • Barriers obtaining and enforcing protection orders
  • Importance of service/sector coordination and collaboration
  • Should be culturally-informed regarding the community and consider sociocultural/historical aspects of risk
  • Importance of: considering RRN barriers to leaving perpetrator and focusing on minimizing harm; identifying formal and informal supports; being creative when formal services are unavailable; including arrangements for pets and farm animals; addressing confidentiality concerns
  • Importance of healthcare settings in safety planning
  • Importance of service/sector coordination and collaboration
  • Potential usefulness of web-and computer-based tools
Immigrant & Refugee (IR)
  • Should be culturally-informed and consider sociocultural/ historical aspects of risk
  • Should consider sociocultural, ethnocultural, and historical aspects of risk
  • Should strengthen informal supports; educate on gender, domestic violence, and Canadian laws; help increase English language proficiency, and address post-migration stressors
  • Should integrate/collaborate with immigrant settlement, employment, or religious programs
  • Importance of service/sector coordination and collaboration

 

  • Should be culturally-informed and consider sociocultural/ historical aspects of risk
  • Should consider sociocultural, ethnocultural, and historical aspects of risk
  • Importance of considering IR barriers to leaving abuser and focusing on minimizing harm; identifying formal and informal supports; utilizing non-traditional supports and points of intervention (e.g., settlement sector and multicultural serving agencies); educating about domestic violence and women’s rights; and fostering cultural resiliency
  • Should help address economic and structural issues
  • Should emphasize and foster community support
  • Importance of service/sector coordination and collaboration
Children Experiencing Domestic Violence
  • Should focus on early intervention and on separating parents
  • Should consider the best interests/safety of the children
  • Potential importance of child protection agencies in intervening with parent abuser
  • Potential of focusing on perpetrators’ roles as parents
  • Importance of service/sector coordination and collaboration
  • Should consider and involve children and their voice using developmentally appropriate strategies
  • Importance of considering barriers to leaving perpetrator when children are involved and focusing on pragmatic safety solutions and minimizing harm
  • Should differentiate domestic violence cases from other forms of child maltreatment and address concurrent child maltreatment
  • Importance of service/sector coordination and collaboration; information sharing; and risk assessments for family court
Population Vulnerabilities Risk Assessment
Indigenous
  • Historical and current injustices (e.g., Indian Act, residential school system, sixties scoop, and colonization)
  • Loss of culture, traditional lifestyle (intergenerational effects of residential school system)
  • Geographic, social, cultural, and economic isolation
  • Lower education attainment
  • Substance abuse and mental health issues (related to historical injustices)
  • Economic and structural issues (e.g., poverty, high cost of living, and overcrowding)
  • Limited availability of non-Indigenous and/or Indigenous-specific services
  • Lack of culturally-trained/sensitive service providers
  • Need to develop Indigenous-specific risk assessment tools/guidelines
  • Should be culturally informed and consider sociocultural/historical aspects of risk specific to the community
  • Should incorporate questions about rurality, isolation, availability of firearms, code of silence in the community, unemployment, quality of education, availability of services, housing conditions, gender inequality, and community protocols and policies to address domestic violence situations
Rural, Remote, & Northern (RRN)
  • Physical and social isolation
  • Economic and structural issues (e.g., higher cost of living, limited employment opportunities)
  • Adherence to traditional and patriarchal cultural values
  • Limited availability or accessibility of services
  • Lack of resources and proper training for services, screening, and management
  • Lack of privacy, anonymity, and confidentiality
  • Strong firearm traditions
  • Should be culturally-informed and consider sociocultural/ historical aspects of risk
  • Importance of healthcare settings in assessing risk
  • Importance of service/sector coordination and collaboration
  • Potential usefulness of web-and computer-based tools
  • No RRN-specific tools identified in the literature

 

Immigrant & Refugee (IR)
  • Physical, social, cultural, or economic isolation
  • Migration and acculturation stressors
  • Economic and structural issues (e.g., poverty or un/underemployment)
  • Adherence to traditional and patriarchal cultural values and gender roles
  • Language and cultural barriers
  • Precarious or non-legal status and other legal barriers
  • Socio-cultural influences (e.g., family honour and unity)
  • Power imbalance in relationships (e.g., threat of deportation in sponsorship arrangements)
  • Lack of knowledge of Canadian systems/laws/culture
  • Discrimination
  • Should be culturally-informed and consider sociocultural/ historical aspects of risk
  • Should consider sociocultural, ethnocultural, and historical aspects of risk
  • Should be multi-dimensional (e.g., considers financial, social, and legal risk factors)
  • Importance of service/sector coordination and collaboration
Children Experiencing Domestic Violence
  • Children’s dependency on the perpetrator
  • Children’s inability or reluctance to report
  • Lack of proper training for service providers/risk assessors; confusion over policies and legislation
  • Child and parent/victim’s concern that the child could be taken away
  • Parental separation as an important risk factor for lethality
  • Custody and access dispute
  • Conflating high conflict divorce with DV
  • Inadequate response of police and recognition by family court of DV as a factor in protecting children
  • Recognition that child’s risk parallels mother/victim’s risk
  • Importance of building trust with mother/victim to gather risk information
  • Potential importance of child protection agencies, healthcare settings, and police in assessing risk
  • Importance of service/sector coordination and collaboration, including the justice system and family court
  • Training required to engage with and monitor perpetrators and hold them accountable

Spousal Violence

Click here to find the inventory of spousal violence assessment tools in different jurisdictions in Canada (Department of Justice Canada, 2013). To read a report created for Justice Canada on tools, click here (Millar et al., 2013). These tools are used to identify offender risk. Roehl et al. (2005) assessed the validity of the following evaluation tools: the Danger Assessment (DA), DV-MOSAIC, Domestic Violence Screening Instrument (DVSI), Kingston Screening Instrument for Domestic Violence (K-SID) and (two questions inquiring about the) victim’s perception. They found the DA performs the best followed by the victim’s perceptions. You may read the full report here.

In the UK, the MARAC Model is used. It is a risk assessment conference with multi-agencies. To learn more click here.

From the literature, we identify those with empirical evidence that follow an established violence risk strategy (Douglas et al., 2014). These tools must have a correlation between the identification of risk factors in determining recommendations and strategies to manage these risks. There is little agreement in the literature on how and by whom risk assessment tools should be implemented. You can find below the validity and reliability of eight assessment tools that were evaluated in 2012 and one in 2019. These are summaries from the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project (Hamel, 2012) and one from Australia (FVRAT). 

Table 13.2 – Measurement Tools to Assess Relationship Violence

MEASUREMENT TOOLS Score Summary For more information
Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA) 0.64 – 0.77 Predicting recidivism was good to excellent. ODARA screening tool form (Hilton et al., 2010).
Domestic Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (DVRAG) AUC = 0.70 (p < .001) The inter-rater reliability for both instruments was
excellent. However, only one study reported the cited AUC value.
Please, contact Nzoe Hilton

zhilton@mhcp.on.ca

The Domestic Violence Screening Inventory (DVSI) and Domestic Violence Screening Inventory-Revised (DVSI-R) AUC range 0.61 – 0.71 Good predictors of new family violence incidents and IPV recurrence Please, contact Joseph
DiTunno at
Joseph.DiTunno@j
ud.ct.govA write up on DVSI-R
Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) and Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG) AUC 0.66 – 0.71 and 0.67 – 0.75 Were examined in three studies, neither of which are IPV specific. Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (Quinsey et al., 2006)
The Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) and Level of Service Inventory – Ontario. Revision (LSI-OR) AUC 0.50 and 0.73 (in both) Discussed in four articles, both of which were predicting IPV recidivism. Girard & Wormith (2004)

The level of Service Inventory (Andrews & Bonta, 2011)

Spousal Assault Risk Assessment guide (SARA) AUC 0.52 – 0.65 The interrater reliability (IRR) for the SARA was excellent for total scores, good for the summary risk ratings, and poor for the critical items. (Kropp & Gibas, 2010)

SARA research summary

Brief Spousal Assault Form for the Evaluation of Risk (B-SAFER) No article examined the B-SAFER predictive validity, but one did report the IRR based on 12 cases with a mean interclass coefficient (ICC) of 0.57. Brief Spousal Assault Form for the Evaluation Risk

(Kropp & Hart, 2005)

B-Safer document on the development and pilot from Justice Canada

The Danger Assessment (DA) It has the largest body of literature behind it, but there are limitations in the research that inhibit a precise determination of the psychometric properties of the measure thus far. Victim appraisals of the risk of future IPV show some evidence of predictive accuracy; however, further research is needed to determine the best means with which to collect the victim’s reports and determining the conditions (e.g., stalking) and characteristics of victims that should be considered (e.g., PTSD, substance use). The Danger Assessment tool 

(Campbell, 2009).

A research scale for the assessment of psychopathy in criminal populations (HARE) Reliability > 0.85 This is an assessment tool that serves to help to identify an individual’s characteristics of psychopathy. It is suggested not to be used as a single tool of assessment. (Hare, 1980)

HARE checklist

A refined version of the Family Violence Risk Assessment Tool (FVRAT) Four-fifths of high-risk and low-risk DV cases were correctly classified (83%) It helps identify repeat risk. Download the full report on the tool from this site

There does not seem to be a single superior tool, and there is modest predictive accuracy for most tools. The authors conclude more research is needed. Assessors need to keep in mind the objective, group, culture and intersectionality when selecting tools. Hanson et al. (2007) conducted a meta-analysis on risk assessment for Public Safety Canada and found that the victim’s assessment of risk is similar to predictive tools and that no tool is clearly more accurate than another. Read the full report here. Northcott (n.d.) conducted a review of domestic violence tools for Justice Canada. She looked at the purpose of tools, types of tools and ways tools can use in decision-making.  Her report can be accessed here.

As well, there are checklists for those in the domestic violence system. These checklists help community response teams to improve their efforts. The Battered Women Justice Project has collated checklists click here.

Older Adults

A number of tools, including the literature review by Storey (2020), identified risk factors that make older adults more vulnerable and the offender more likely to continue to abuse. Also, he conducted a thorough literature review and created the Elder Abuse Risk Level Index (EARLI), so that those working with older adults could identify risk and intervene. Storey states that earlier risk assessment tools are not based on empirical research. At the time of publication, the EARLI had not been tested. In addition, he recommends that practitioners use the risk and vulnerability factors below to conduct a full assessment (Storey, 2020).

Table 13.3 Summary criteria for elder abuse risk and vulnerability factors (Storey, 2020, p. 4)

Factors Perpetrator risk factor criteria Victim vulnerability factor criteria
1. Problems with physical health a) Illness such as chronic illness, physical disability, poor health and recent declines in health.

b) Functional impairment related to Activities and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, such as grooming and meal preparation, respectively.

Same criteria as perpetrators, with the added concern that victims will not be able to contact help when needed.
2. Problems with mental health
a) Problems with mental and personality functioning, that can result in substantial problems with cognition, mood, and behaviour.

b) Major mental disorder, personality disorder and cognitive impairment.

Same criteria as perpetrators.
3. Problems with substance use
a) Serious problems with health, occupational, financial, social, or legal functioning resulting from the use of illegal substances or the misuse of legal substances (e.g., alcohol, prescribed medications). The same criteria as perpetrators, with the additional criteria that use, may impair the victim’s ability to protect themselves.
4. Dependency
a) Perpetrator’s dependency on the victim or other individuals.

b) Dependency is most often related to housing and finances but can also be emotional and functional in nature.

Victim’s dependency on the perpetrator

Dependency can be functional, financial, social or emotional in nature

5. Problems with stress and coping

a) Serious problems with stress related to an inability to cope with life problems.

b) Problems may be a reaction to unusually stressful life events, inadequate coping with normal or day-to-day life stresses, or inadequate coping with caregiving responsibilities.

Serious problems with stress related to an inability to cope with life problems.

Problems may be a reaction to unusually stressful life events, abuse, or the consequences of and reactions to impairments caused by functional, cognitive, or emotional problems.

Includes engaging in self-neglect.

6. Problems with attitudes

a) Serious problems with attitudes related to caregiving, older persons, and the rights of others.

b) Includes unrealistic expectations of the victim and antisocial attitudes.

Serious problems with minimization of and inconsistent attitudes toward the perpetrator, their behaviour, and the risks they pose.
7. Victimization
a) Previous abuse experienced or witnessed during childhood or adolescence. Previous abuse experienced or witnessed during the lifetime, other than the current episode of elder abuse by the perpetrator.
8. Problems with relationships
a) Serious problems establishing or maintaining positive, prosocial intimate (romantic) and non-intimate relationships

b) Includes conflictual relationships, feelings of social isolation and a lack of social support.

Serious problems with relationships, including those with the perpetrator and other social relationships.

Includes conflictual relationships, social isolation and a lack of social support.

Children

Identifying the risk of relationship violence for children is complex. Social workers are tasked on behalf of governments and child welfare agencies to assess risk among children in their families. As with adults, children are at greater risk at the time of parental separation. Social workers must interview family members and weigh the vulnerability factors against the protective factors using their personal experience and knowledge to determine if the child is safe in a home. Department of Justice (2016) in Canada has identified 2 scales (Ages and Stages Social-Emotional (AS-SEQ) Questionnaire and Children Exposed to Domestic Violence Scale) for children and both of these have been shown to be effective in a 2018 systematic review of Socio-Emotional Screening for Young Children in Welfare by McCrae & Brown (2018). A table with all the instruments reviewed can be found in the link McCrae and Brown Social-Emotional Screening Tools. Department of Justice Canada (2013) identifies a third tool to use with children, the Danger Assessment mentioned earlier because children are often in danger because of spousal violence.

Ravi and Tonui (2020) did a systematic review to assess the reliability and validity of the Child Exposure to Domestic Violence (CEDV) Scale. Their final sample included 13 studies. They found good reliability across populations (0.79-0.97) and some evidence of concurrent validity (it compares well with a measure that is effective) but no evidence of factor validity (that it actually measures what is intended to measure). They state the scale should be used by social workers to identify relevant actions, but it should continue to be researched.

McTavish et al. (2020) reviewed instruments used to identify maltreatment They narrowed the review to 19 articles representing 18 studies. The studies included various assessment strategies including three instruments: 1) the SPUTOVAMO checklist, 2) the Escape instrument, and 3) a 6-item screening questionnaire for child sex trafficking. They found that the tools were ineffective because they either identified false negatives or false positives (McTavish et al., 2020). They were not a good measurement.

In the United States, the National Child Traumatic Stress Network-NCTSN (n.d.) was established in 1980 with a mission to raise the standard of care and improve access to services for traumatized children, their families and communities throughout the United States. The NCTSN has a list of 72 different inventories and scales. It is a list of evaluation data. Unfortunately, they do not list the two scales from the Justice Canada site. Only some of the inventories are free to access. The site itself is a good resource.

References

Andrews, D.A., & Bonta, J. (2001). The level of Service Inventory-Revised. Multi-Health Systems Inc.

Campbell, M., Hilton, NZ., Kropp, PR., Dawson, M., Jaffe, P. (2016). Domestic Violence Risk Assessment: Informing Safety Planning & Risk Management. Domestic Homicide Brief (2). London, ON: Canadian Domestic Homicide Prevention Initiative. http://cdhpi.ca/sites/cdhpi.ca/files/Brief_2_Final_2.pdf

Campbell, J.C., Webster, D.W., & Glass. N. (2009). The Danger Assessment: Validation of a lethality risk assessment instrument for intimate partner femicide. J. Interpers Violence, 24(4), 653-674.

Carney, M., Buttell, B., & Dutton, D. (2007). Women who perpetrate intimate partner violence: A review of the literature with recommendations for treatment. Aggression and Violent Behavior 12, 108 –115. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222426549_Women_Who_Perpetrate_Intimate_Partner_Violence_A_Review_of_the_Literature_With_Recommendations_for_Treatment

Department of Justice Canada. (2013). Inventory of spousal violence risk assessment tools used in Canadahttps://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/fv-vf/rr09_7/rr09_7.pdf

Department of Justice Canada. (2016). Risk factors for children in situations of family violence in the context of separation and divorce. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/fv-vf/rfcsfv-freevf/p7.html

Douglas, K. S., Hart, S. D., Webster, C. D., Belfrage, H., Guy, L. S., & Wilson, C. M. (2014). Historical-clinical-risk management-20, version 3 (HCR-20V3): Development and overview. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health13(2), 93-108.

Girard, L., & Wormith, J. S. (2004). The predictive validity of the level of service inventory-Ontario revision on general and violent recidivism among various offender groups. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31(2), 150–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854803261335

Hamel, J. (2012). Partner abuse stat of knowledge project: Findings at a glance. http://domesticviolenceresearch.org/pdf/FindingsAt-a-Glance.Nov.23.pdf

Hanson, R.K.,  Helmus, L., & Bourgon, G. (2007). The Validity of risk assessments for intimate partner violence: A meta-analysis. Public Safety Canada. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ntmt-prtnr-vlnce/ntmt-prtnr-vlnce-eng.pdf

Hare, R. D. (1980). A research scale for the assessment of psychopathy in criminal populations. Personality & Individual Differences, (1)2, 111–119.

Hilton, N. Z., Harris, G. T., & Rice, M. E. (2010). Risk assessment for domestically violent men: Tools for criminal justice, offender intervention, and victim services. American Psychological Association.  https://doi.org/10.1037/12066-000

Jeffrey, N., Fairbairn, J., Campbell, M., Dawson, M., Jaffe, P. & Straatman, A-L. (November 2018). Canadian Domestic Homicide Prevention Initiative with Vulnerable Populations (CDHPIVP) Literature Review on Risk Assessment, Risk Management and Safety Planning. London, ON: Canadian Domestic Homicide Prevention Initiative. ISBN: 978-1-988412-27-6

Kropp, P. R., & Hart, S.D. (2005). The development of the brief spousal assault form for the evaluation of Risk (B-SAFER): A tool for criminal justice professionals. Department of Justice Canada. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/fl-lf/famil/rr05_fv1-rr05_vf1/index.html

McCormick, A.V., Cohen, I.M., & Plecas, D. (2011). Reducing recidivism in domestic violence cases. Centre for Public Safety and Criminal Justice Research, BC Centre for Social Responsibility and University of the Fraser Valley. https://www.ufv.ca/media/assets/ccjr/reports-and-publications/Reducing_Recidivism_in_Domestic_Violence_2011.pdf

McCrae, J. S., & Brown, S. M. (2018). Systematic review of social–emotional screening instruments for young children in child welfare. Research on Social Work Practice28(7), 767–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731516686691

McTavish, J.R., Gonazlez, A., Santesso, N., MacGregor, J.C.C., & McKee, C. (2020). Identifying children exposed to maltreatment: A systematic review update. BMC Pediatrics, 20, 2-14.  doi:10.1186/s12887-020-2015-4

Millar, A., Code. R.,  & Ha. L. (2013). Inventory of spousal assessment tools used in Canada. Department of Justice Canada. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/fv-vf/rr09_7/rr09_7.pdf

Murphy, C., & McDonnell, N. (2006). Escalating violence how to assess and respond to risk: A review of international experience. http://www.aoibhneas.ie/documents/Escalating_violence-How_to_Assess_and_Respond_to_Risk.pdf

Network to Eliminate Violence in Relationships. (2019). Community champion tool kit: Responding safely to situations of relationship violence. https://www.kpu.ca/sites/default/files/NEVR/Community%20Champions%20Toolkit.pdf

Northcott, M. (n.d.). Intimate partner violence risk assessment tools: A review. Research and Statistics Division Department of Justice Canada. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/fv-vf/rr12_8/rr12_8.pdf

Quinsey, V. L., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C. A. (2006). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk. American Psychological Association.

Ravi, K. E., & Tonui, B. C. (2020). A systematic review of the child exposure to domestic violence scale. The British Journal of Social Work50(1), 101-118.

Roehl, J.,  O’Sullivan, C., Webster, D., & Campbell, J. (2005). Intimate partner violence risk assessment validation study: The RAVE study practitioner summary and recommendations –  validation of tools for assessing risk from violent intimate partners. NCJRS. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/209732.pdf

Rollè, L., Giardina, G., Caldarera, A. M., Gerino, E., & Brustia, P. (2018). When intimate partner violence meets same-sex Couples: a review of same-sex intimate partner violence. Frontiers in Psychology9, 1506. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01506

Storey, J. E. (2020). Risk factors for elder abuse and neglect: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior50, 101339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2019.101339

The National Child Traumatic Stress Network. (n.d.). https://www.nctsn.org/

The Scottish Trans Alliance. (2010). https://www.scottishtrans.org/