Relationship violence is any form of physical, emotional, spiritual and financial abuse, negative social control or coercion that is suffered by anyone who has a bond or relationship with the offender(s). In the literature, we find words such as intimate partner violence (IPV), interpersonal violence (IVP), neglect, dating violence, family violence, battery, child neglect, child abuse, bullying, seniors or elder abuse, stalking, cyberbullying, strangulation, technology-facilitated coercive control, honour killing, gang violence, social isolation, circulation of intimate images and workplace violence. Violence can be perpetrated by persons in opposite-sex relationships (Carney et al., 2007), within same-sex relationships (Rollè et al., 2018) and in relationships in which the victim is transgender (The Scottish Trans Alliance, 2010). Relationship violence is a result of multiple impacts such as taken-for-granted inequalities, policies and practices that accept sexism, racism, xenophobia, homophobia and ageism. It can span the entire age spectrum and it may start in utero and end with the death of the victim. This chapter highlights some risk assessment tools.

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. Watch Understanding Risk Assessment and Management 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. Visit Description of Tools, Investigative Checklists and Protocols see the inventory of assessment tools used in Canada. Visit Domestic Violence Risk Assessment: Informing Safety Planning & Risk Management [PDF] to read a good summary of risk assessment models. Murphy & McDonnell (2006) review how to assess and respond to the risk of RV. Literature Review on Risk and Risk Assessment Tools for Intimate Partner Violence [PDF] is a review of what constitutes risk .  Locally, he 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).
 

Spousal Violence

Visit Inventory of Spousal Violence Risk Assessment Tools Used in Canada [PDF] 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. Read the full report: Intimate Partner Violence Risk Assessment Validation Study: The RAVE Study [PDF]. A review of intimate partner assessment tools by the Government of Canada (2021) states there are a variety of risk assessment tools available but it is not clear which tool is best at predicting offender behaviour.
In the UK, the MARAC Model is used. It is a risk assessment conference with multi-agencies.

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 [PDF] (Hamel, 2012) and one from Australia (FVRAT).

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: Accounting for Risk and Danger [PDF].

A listing of tools are found at Domestic Violence Homicide Prevention Tools, Strategies, and Assessments. A few other tools that are used are:

MOSAIC: This tool assesses how similar a situation is to other situations that have escalated. It uses a series of questions to create a detailed report and rate the situation on a scale of 1 to 10.

Lethality Assessment Program (LAP): Developed by the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence, this tool is used by first responders to assess the danger level and connect survivors with resources.

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).

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