Risk Assessment Tools and Case Documentation used by Frontline Responders

IMPRODOVA Project-Deliverable (2.3): Country Reports and Cross-National Comparison on the Risk Assessment Tools and Case Documentation used by Frontline Responders

Published: March 2020
Authors (VICESSE): Paul Herbinger, Marion Neunkirchner, Norbert Leonhardmair

Full Text: Available Here

Executive Summary:

Risk assessment protocols for domestic violence (DV) cases vary on a large scale

concerning their methodological background in the participating countries – whether they have been individually and locally, as well as developed by scientists, or whether they are the implementations of standardized, national-level or internationally used tools. In one third of the countries participating in the IMPRODOVA project, no formalized risk assessment protocols exist. In some countries where formalized tools are used, such as some parts of Austria (Vorarlberg)and Hungary, risk assessment tools are rather static, meaning that risk is examined and evaluated at a certain stage of the procedure and the timing of the risk assessment imposes certain limitations towards the procedure. In three countries, Finland, Portugal and Scotland, and the city of Berlin (Germany1), the risk assessment is dynamic and is processed on an on-going basis as new information is received or incidents occur.

In Austria a risk assessment tool, ‘SALFAG2’ has been developed within the framework of a pilot project by the Ministry of Interior. Its mandatory use was restricted on a trial basis mainly to the state Vorarlberg between 2013 and 2014. Since then it has continued to see discretionary use in this location. It was designed primarily for the use by prosecutors, and is therefore not specifically adapted to the needs of the police. In practice, it is predominantly employed only after the police officer has left the location at which a case of DV occurred. Mainly due to issues in practical on-site applicability and lacking procedural refinement, the tool is rarely employed or able to provide guidance on decision making, especially when filing charges or to issue a restraining order.

In Berlin, it is mandatory to classify domestic violence according to its threatening potential if further incidents of domestic violence are suspected. This risk assessment includes all relevant information about the affected parties and all observations of the police officers classified as relevant and thus depict essential police expertise. A checklist integrated into POLIKS3 also provides additional information. The final classification is made on an eight- point scale, which can be updated at any time. The information on the case is also written continuously. In Münster (federal state North-Rhine Westphalia), Hannover (federal state Lower-Saxony), in Mannheim and Freiburg (federal state Baden-Württemberg), there are no standardized tools to measure/indicate risk. As risk assessment is part of handling a DV incident, police officers do risk assessment as part of the documentation procedure without any specific, standardized guidelines or set of criteria.

In Finland, crime investigation units use risk assessment tools discretionally. Response operations units (patrol units who work with DV cases on the sight) do not use any formal, standardized risk assessment; police, however, use different risk assessment tools in the different locations. In one of the locations MARAC4 is applied, a dynamic risk assessment process, used with the participation of the different agencies and monitoring the victim’s situation on a regular base. Concerning MARAC, it is important to mention that it focuses on violence between intimate partners, excluding all other types of DV. Therefore, a large amount of violence within families and other close relationships falls outside the scope of MARAC risk assessment. At another location a modified tool developed by The National Bureau of Investigation is used for screening and predicting serious and targeted violence (e.g. mass shooting), which is sometimes also used when investigating domestic violence cases. It is based on a checklist, considering risk factors such as changes in life situation, previously known violent behaviour, how persistently the suspect has tried to approach a person previously, if the suspect has damaged the victim's property, if the suspect has done something concrete for preparing violent acts or hurting the victim.

In Portugal there is a DV risk assessment checklist, created as part of a project led by the Ministry of Interior and based on the review and implementation of the most frequent items of several risk assessment instruments, including DASH5. The implementation process involved reliability tests, pilot applications and an experimental test phase. Since the tool’s implementation in 2013, its use has been mandatory.

In Scotland police use the DAQ6 questionnaire mandatorily. This is a standardised risk assessment tool based on the 24 DASH RIC questions, extending the DASH RIC with additional three questions relating to children and dependents, totalling 27 questions.

In France, in Slovenia and in Hungary there are no formal, standardized risk assessment procedures designed for cases of DV in use by the police.

In Slovenia the police are a member of a multidisciplinary team, managed by the Centre for Social Work that has its own risk assessment tool, and the police receives the results of the Centre’s risk assessment. Some interviewees explicitly stated that there is no need for a second assessment by the police. In Hungary, there is a semi-formal risk assessment procedure related to the ordering of restraining orders. The police officer who is in charge of ordering a temporary (72 hour) restraining order (it can be a patrol or an investigation officer) has a checklist (regularity, time of the incident, physical injuries, residence of the perpetrator, emotional status of the victim, previous measures taken by the police, etc.) based on risk assessment tools used in the IMPRODOVA countries.

In France, there is a generic procedure of risk assessment which is applied for all crimes, and not just DV cases under the terms of “Personalized evaluation of the needs of the victim”7. This procedure is imposed by the code of penal procedure. The idea is that law enforcement pay attention not only to identifying and arresting suspects, but also to protect and accompany victims. Once the criminal complaint report is transmitted to the prosecutor’s office, the prosecutor can decide to further examine the victim’s situation, having recourse to a specialized NGO (funded by the Ministry of Justice) which has developed acknowledged expertise in conducting “social investigations” (that is examining the psychological and social aspects of the DV situation with emphasis on victim security). In addition, all the French gendarmerie and some police units use DV pre-hearing questionnaires. Nevertheless, these tools are not specifically designed for risk assessment. They are interview guides including details necessary to assess the risks and to define protection measures; to make sure that investigators don’t forget to ask important questions during the hearing of the DV victim. The use of DV pre-hearing questionnaires are components of the case management software, their use is mandatory in the gendarmerie and discretional in the police.