Facing criticism for having no plans to replace the system, a study commissioned by the family ministry evaluating the DASH (Domestic Abuse, Stalking and Honour Based Violence) risk assessment tool has now thankfully been presented.
Intimate partner violence touches the lives of hundreds of Maltese. The criminal justice system is faced with the task of protecting victims of intimate partner violence while, at the same time, ensuring that the rights of the accused are not violated.
This tension is evident at different stages in the criminal justice system’s process, such as bail, sentencing and parole. One approach that is adopted to manage the above-noted issues is assessing the risk that offenders pose for reoffending and how to best manage these offenders.
Risk assessment tools can provide a common language that can be used among the many professionals involved in cases of intimate partner violence and can provide information to service providers. These tools also allow for a more accurate method of assessing danger compared to relying solely on professional judgement.
It is important to first understand what is meant by risk assessment. By estimating, identifying, qualifying or quantifying risk, it examines the probability that the examinee will engage in a certain kind of behaviour in the future. Yet, should the goal be to predict recidivism or violence prevention and risk management?
Malta currently makes use of the Domestic Abuse, Stalking, and Honour Risk Identification System of 2009. In general risk assessment, the unstructured clinical approach has been found to predict risk with less accuracy than structured approaches, often only above chance. Furthermore, I am afraid that the time it takes to complete the risk assessment is not minimal.
Other available systems consist of fewer items and, thus, are less time-consuming to complete. For example, assessments that require file reviews, interviews with offenders and other contacts and reviewing psychological reports are more time-consuming than assessments that do not require these steps. Furthermore, some tools require input or assessment by a psychologist.
One must consider the availability of the psychologist to conduct the assessment and the time it may take him or her to do so. Some risk assessments focus on the offender while others are focused on the victim and the risk that they will be re-victimised.
Depending on the purpose of the risk assessment, different specialised instruments exist to help assessors achieve their goals.
Intimate partner violence touches the lives of hundreds of Maltese
Some risk assessment tools provide information regarding the nature, form and degree of the danger of violence while others allow the assessor to make a probability statement regarding the likelihood of recidivism and some do both.
The majority of risk assessment tools normally used in criminal justice settings abroad contain two types of risk factors: static and dynamic. Static risk factors are risk factors that are fixed and unchangeable, such as demographic factors (like age, gender), childhood history and criminal history. Dynamic risk factors fluctuate over time and reflect internal states or temporary circumstances of the individual, such as beliefs and cognitions, everyday associates and feelings of hostility.
Perhaps it is time to put more emphasis, here in Malta, on victim-focused risk factors that are present in our domestic violence risk tool. These should include the victim’s concern about future violence by the accused, victims who have a biological child with a different partner, victims who have been assaulted by the accused while pregnant and barriers for the victim in accessing support.
Intimate partner violence risk assessment tools are used by a number of different professionals. The professionals who conduct such assessments include psychologists, nurses, victim service workers and criminal justice system professionals such as the police and probation workers.
I contend that structured clinical judgement appears to be the most suitable risk tool for our typology. In the structured clinical judgement approach, assessors follow a set of guidelines that include specific risk factors that should be considered, both static and dynamic. These risk factors are determined based on theoretical and general empirical support.
They also typically include recommendations for information gathering, communicating opinions and also implementing violence prevention strategies. Because the risk factors are chosen based on empirical evidence, this tool is more generalisable than tools that were developed based on particular populations abroad, which seems to have been the case locally.
One approach to assessing the risk of intimate partner violence is to ask the victim to determine the risk that the offender will reoffend. Research has demonstrated that female victims of intimate partner violence are able to predict their risk of re-victimisation with moderate accuracy.
It is recognised that it is important to consult with the victim in these cases as they are able to provide information pertinent to dynamic factors such as the offender’s personality, mental health and violent behaviour.
Intimate partner violence risk assessment tools serve many purposes in the criminal justice system. They are used in a number of different capacities and settings, including at sentencing, in treatment provision and in victim safety planning.
They are also used by a range of professionals, including law enforcement personnel, psychologists and victim service providers. The benefits of intimate partner violence risk assessment tools are many but they also come with a number of limitations.
Yet, keeping the above elements in mind, it is possible for our assessors to choose the most appropriate tool to guide the assessment of the risk that an offender poses to an intimate partner. Domestic abuse is a horrendous crime.