12/07/2012 1 Family and Domestic Violence Common Risk Assessment and Risk Management Framework Tori Cooke Family and Domestic Violence Unit Department for Child Protection 1 Screening Assessment If family and domestic violence has been identified through the screening process the screening agency either: • undertakes a risk assessment* OR • refers to a ‘specialist’ family and domestic violence service for a risk assessment ** Only in instances where the screening practitioners/ agency has the skills and expertise required for an assessment 2 What/Who are Specialist Services? • Agencies who have a role in responding to family and domestic violence • Agencies/practitioners who meet the ‘minimum standard’ for risk assessment ** **we will unpack this further through the course of the morning 3
Transcript
12/07/2012
1
Family and Domestic Violence Common Risk
Assessment and Risk Management Framework
Tori Cooke
Family and Domestic Violence Unit
Department for Child Protection
1
Screening � Assessment
If family and domestic violence has been identified through the screening process the screening
agency either:
• undertakes a risk assessment* OR
• refers to a ‘specialist’ family and domestic violence service for a risk assessment
** Only in instances where the screening practitioners/ agency has the skills and expertise required for an assessment
2
What/Who are Specialist
Services?
• Agencies who have a role in responding to
family and domestic violence
• Agencies/practitioners who meet the
‘minimum standard’ for risk assessment **
**we will unpack this further through the course of the morning
3
12/07/2012
2
Risk Assessment Definition
“Risk assessment is the process of identifying the presence of a risk factor and determining the
likelihood of an adverse event occurring, the consequences of that event and timing of when
that even may occur. Understanding the
relationship between likelihood, consequence and timing will promote structured decision making”
CRAF Victoria, 2007
4
Risk Assessment Definition
“the formal application of instruments to assess the
likelihood that intimate partner violence with be repeated and escalated. The term is synonymous
• Inform service responses and criminal justice approaches
• Help victims understand their own level of risk and/or validate their fears
• Provide a basis from which a case can be monitored by service providers
Laing, 2004
6
12/07/2012
3
Risk Assessment Approaches
• Clinical – the professional has complete discretion in determining the level of risk. This approach is not guided by a risk assessment tool.
• Actuarial – uses a risk assessment measurement e.g., a scale or matrix that can be ‘scored’.
• Structured professional judgement – combines clinical and actuarial approaches. A risk assessment tool, in combination with professional experience and knowledge, is used to make determinations of risk.
7
Good Practice
Research demonstrates that ‘structured professional judgement’ + victim assessment of risk is the most accurate/effective approach in determining risk in family and domestic violence situations.
Effective use of ‘structured professional judgement’ requires knowledge of risk and risk indicators in situations of family and domestic violence.
8
Minimum Standard
9
12/07/2012
4
Risk Indicators
• Risk indicators are circumstances, behaviours or events that are associated with a likely
escalation or re-occurrence of violence/harm
• Risk indicators can be regarded as ‘universal’
• Risk indicators are evidence based
10
Risk Indicators
REFER TO WORKBOOK PAGES 22-25
• In your group review these excerpts from
coroners reports:
– Ann Chantell Millar, Northern Territory 2005
– Andrea Lee Wrathall, Tasmania, 2007
• What are the common events/circumstances/ behaviours between these three cases?
11
Aide Memoir
12
12/07/2012
5
The Evidence Base
• Considerable research in Australia and Internationally has examined the association of different risk factors with homicide and serious
assault.
• Jacqueline Campbell & Carolyn Block (both USA) in particular have undertaken significant work in this field.
13
Unpacking the Evidence
• Obsessive controlling behaviour – monitoring and surveillance of victim’s movements
(Campbell, 2003)
• Separation (perceived or actual) increases the risk of homicide by 10 times (Campbell, 2003)
• Jealousy and possessiveness (sense of
ownership and entitlement)
14
Unpacking the Evidence
Past violence is one of the best predictors of futurehomicide or life threatening injury in particular type of pastviolence, recency and frequency (Campbell, 2003).
– Type of past violence – increased risk of homicide ifthreatened with a weapon or attempted choking
– Recency – homicide events were typicallyprecipitated by recent physical or sexual violence.Recency also increased risk that a DV victim wouldbecome a homicide offender
– Frequency - increased frequency of violence wasassociated with homicide (Block, 2008).
15
12/07/2012
6
Female Homicide Offenders
• 19% of the homicide offenders in this study were women (26 people). Characteristics of these women include:
• Severe histories of domestic violence
– 81% attempted strangulation
– 64% raped
– 72% escalation in violence
– 68% last experience of violence within a week of the homicide
– 81% had a partner with an alcohol problem
– 94% had sought help (formal and informal)
• 70% had left or tried to leave
(Block, 1999)16
Minimum Standard
“Professionals conducting risk assessments must have a solid understanding of family and domestic
violence, it’s common patterns and dynamics,
factors that affect risk and issues or factors that may make some population groups more
vulnerable to family and domestic violence and
severe harm than others”CRARMF: Minimum Standard for Risk Assessment
17
Victim Assessment• Research has clearly demonstrated that risk assessments
that incorporate the victim’s assessment of their level of risk
are the most effective (Cattaneo & Goodman, 2003).
• Campbell (2003) 49% of homicide victims had told a family
member or friend that they believed their partner would
murder them.
• Why would victims of FDV be good at evaluating their own
level of risk?
• What factors might limit this ability?
18
12/07/2012
7
Primary Aggressor
• In some cases, initial or early perceptions of an incident/ case are that both parties are ‘mutually’ or ‘equally’ violent or that the offender is the adult female.
• In these situations there are particular factor’s that can be considered when determining the main or ‘primary’ aggressor.
p. 58 of the CRARMF Practice Guide
19
Risk Assessment Summary
• WHO: The focus of risk assessments are the adult victim and
children. The main ‘informant’ for a risk assessment is the
adult victim.
• WHAT: The ‘harm’ that we are concerned about can include
physical assault, sexual assault, emotional harm, homicide
etc.
• HOW: The risk assessment process must include:
consideration of risk indicators (the aide memoir), professional
judgement and seeking input from the victim about their level
of risk.
• CRITICAL SKILLS: Knowledge about FDV risk indicators,
sufficient knowledge about FDV to inform a ‘professional
judgement’, ability to think critically and analyse information20
Conditions for a Good
Assessment
• What things can you do to ensure a good
assessment?
• What factors might affect the quality of the
information you receive in your
assessment? e.g., fear and trauma
21
12/07/2012
8
Making an Assessment
• Risk assessment is more than an information gathering exercise – it is about the analysis of
the information gathered to evaluate likely risk of re-occurrence and the likely level of harm if and when the violence re-occurs.
• It is about making a ‘structured professional
judgement’
22
Making an Assessment
• The intended outcome of a risk
assessment is identifying the key risks thatneed to be risk managed (inform safety
planning)
• It’s not about ‘categorising’ the risk – low,medium, high
23
Risk Assessment in Your
Practice
Practice Audit –
see handout
24
12/07/2012
9
Risk Management
• Risk is dynamic and MUST be monitored
• What is involved in risk management?
• How is this done in practice at the moment?
25
Risk Assessment � Risk
Management
Where risk is identified it must be
managed/monitored �
� the risk assessment should alwaysinform the response to the client
26
Principles of Risk Management
• Informed by ongoing & fluid risk
assessment
• Focuses on safety AND accountability
• Involves coordinated inter-agency
responses that are transparent, seamless
and streamlined
27
12/07/2012
10
Minimum Standard
28
Safety Plans
In your groups discuss the following in relation to Personal Safety Plans or Interagency Safety Plans
• What are they?
• Who are they for?
• What are the key features?
• Why are they beneficial?
• Are they monitored and updated? If yes, who is responsible for this?
p. 61 of the CRARMF29
Safety Plans
• Documented Plan of strategies and
actions to provide a response to harmful situations
• Victims/Workers/Agencies
• Specific actions and strategies by victim
(Individualised plan)
• Specific actions and strategies by
agencies (Interagency plan)
30
12/07/2012
11
Individual Safety Plan
• Access victim expert knowledge of
her current strategies
• Add to victim’s current strategies
• Monitor and discuss further strategies
as situation changes (plan is fluid)
31
Interagency Safety Plans
• Should be used when more than one agency is involved in the case
• Key features include
– Transparent
– Provide timeframes
– Provide a mechanism for accountability
– Facilitate feedback loops
– Holistic – focusing on safety and accountability
Excerpt fromCMCS Manual 32
RESPONSIBILITY & ACCOUNTABILITY
• Whose responsibility is it for actioning the safety plan/s
– The victim
– The perpetrator
– The child/ren
– The ‘system’
– Family and friends
• What are the pro’s and con’s of attributing responsibility to each of these stakeholder groups?
33
12/07/2012
12
Children
• What are some of the things that we need
to consider?
• How do we best manage risk when children or adolescents are involved?
34
Risk Management in Your
Practice
Practice Audit –
see handout
35
Evaluation Framework &
‘Staying in Touch’
• CRARMF evaluation
– Following trainings
– Interim follow-ups re. implementation
– Overall evaluation of implementation and FDV coordination (not yet developed)
• Staying in touch
– A distribution list
– Quarterly newsletter
– Opportunities for practice forums/think tanks at a later date
