[originally printed in Education Wife Assault Newsletter, V. 9 # 1, June 1998]
It is
difficult to assess the risk of abusive men violently re-offending against their partners. More often than not, there is neither adequate information on how to do good risk assessments nor adequate training for
front-line workers in a community setting. Inevitably, practical difficulties such as lack of time, increasing volume of case loads and limited access to risk assessment instruments, affect the way risk
assessments are done.
In assessing risk one must be well acquainted with the multifaceted dimensions of risk measurement. For one thing, batterers are not a homogenous group and there is no clear batterer
typology to 'mark' men as such. The men in any batterers program may vary in terms of class, age, language, culture, ethnicity, literacy and education. Their offense history, risk levels and attitude to
counselling interventions also vary. In addition varying approaches and methods make the risk assessor's job a difficult one.
There are no short cuts to assessing a batterer's risk of re-offending against his
current or potential partner. An assessor needs to keep in mind the following principles: 1) Risk assessments need to be grounded in a theoretical framework rather than occurring as a standalone activity. 2)
Risk assessments must base their findings on multiple sources of information. Good sources of data would include: information from the partner, reports from the probation or parole officer, police reports, reports
from case workers, victim impact statements, children's testimonies, clinical judgments of counsellors, psychological tests and paper and pencil measures. An over- reliance on any one method may be problematic. 3)
Risk assessments need to speak to a specific time frame. For instance, the assessment should specify whether the batterer is likely to re-offend ever again, within a few months or in the next few days. 4) The findings
must present the conditions under which a batterer is most likely to reoffend. (i.e., under the influence of alcohol, on threat of separation, etc.).
It is generally better to use a structured risk
assessment than to use an assessment relying on clinical judgment alone. It has been shown that, if properly administered, a few well-chosen risk factors can assess risk with an impressive level of accuracy
(Andrews, 1989). Key risk factors in re-offending include: history of offending, substance abuse, attitude toward women, compliance with conditions, antisocial behavior, antisocial personality and life stressors.
(Kerry, 1998).
Risk assessments are generally presented as probabilities, i.e. educated guesses about events as they are likely to happen, when they may happen, what
frequency and at what intensity
they may happen. Given that the nature of risk is influenced by the past and present, by personal and environmental factors it is important to look at the role context plays in risk prediction. It is also important to build in time for follow-up after the counselling program, whether or not the men complete the program. Measuring change over different periods of time, such as the time spent in a program, or in the few weeks or months following termination can be critical in determining the level of risk or a change in risk status.
Several paper and pencil measures can be administered in a pre and posttest format. These can be easily incorporated into the service delivery model of a community-based male batterers program. These include:
Index of Controlling Behaviors (Meredith & Burns, 1990), Inventory of Beliefs About Wife Beating (Saunders, Lynch, Grayson & Linz, 1987), Balanced Inventory of Desired
Responding-Form40A (Paulhus, 1991), Multidimensional Anger Inventory (Siegal, 1986), Hostility Toward Women Scale (Check, 1985), Attitudes Toward Women Scale and Sexism Scale
(Hanson, Cox & Wosczcsyna, 1991) Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, 1979), etc. Each measure has limitations and strengths, requiring the user to be familiar with the relevant literature in order to assess the
validity and reliability of each tool with different populations. The Spousal Assault Risk Assessment
(SARA) (1) is a scale that has been developed for use with Corrections populations. Users must be trained before being permitted to use it. Some or all of the measurement tools may have copyright issues to be addressed before they are used.
No matter what strategies are employed, the ultimate goal in assessing risk is to alert women to possible danger or threat posed by the batterer and to permit the community at large to take appropriate and timely
action to prevent further violence.
Smita Vir Tyagi is a counsellor who works with male batterers and assaulted women in Toronto.
Notes
(1) Developed by the Institute for Family Violence in British Columbia.
References
-----------Andrews, D. (1989). "Recidivism is predictable and can be influenced: Using risk assessments to reduce
recidivism." Forum on Corrections Research, 1(2),11-17.
Check, J,VP. (1985). The Hostility Toward Women Scale. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Manitoba.
Hanson, K.R., Cox, B., & Wosczcsyna, C. (1991).Sexuality, personality and Attitude, Questionnaires for Sexual Offenders: A review.
User report 1991-13, Corrections Branch, Ministry of the Solicitor General, Ottawa.
Kerry, G. (1998). Risk assessment of male batterers in a community setting.
Training workshop, Counterpoint Professional Development Workshop, Toronto.
Meredith, C.,& Burns, N. (1990). The Index of Controlling Behaviors. Ottawa, ON: Abt Associates.
Monahan, J., & Steadman, H,J. (1996). "Violent people and violent storms; How meteorology can inform risk communication in mental health law". American Psychologist, 51(9), 931-938.
Paulhus, D.L. (1991). "Measurement and control of response bias". In J.P Robinson, P.R. Shaver & L.S Wrightsman (eds), Measures of personality and Social Psychological attitudes.
Saunders,
D.G., Lynch, A.B., Grayson, M., & Linz, D. (1987). "Inventory of Beliefs About Wife Beating: The construction and initial validation of a measure of beliefs and attitudes." Violence and Victims,
2 ,39-55.
Siegal, J.M. (1986). "Multidimensional Anger Inventory". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,51, 191-200.
Straus, M.(1979). "Measuring intrafamilial conflict and
violence, The Conflict Tactics Scale". Journal of Marriage and Family, 45, 75-88.
