Predicting Recidivism in a High-Risk Sample of Intimate Partner Violent Men Referred for Police Threat Assessment

• Author: Anna T. Pham,N. Zoe Hilton,Liam Ennis,Kevin L. Nunes,Sandy Jung
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00938548221143535
• Published date: 01 May 2023
• Date: 01 May 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2023, Vol. 50, No. 5, May 2023, 648 –665.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548221143535

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2023 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

648

PREDICTING RECIDIVISM IN A HIGH-RISK

SAMPLE OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENT

MEN REFERRED FOR POLICE THREAT

ASSESSMENT

ANNA T. PHAM

Sexual Misconduct Response Centre, Department of National Defence

N. ZOE HILTON

University of Toronto and Waypoint Research Institute

LIAM ENNIS

Forensic Behavioural Science Group and University of Alberta

KEVIN L. NUNES

Carleton University

SANDY JUNG

MacEwan University

It is unknown whether existing intimate partner violence (IPV) risk assessment tools can predict recidivism within threat

assessment samples. We examined the predictive validity for IPV, any violent, and general recidivism of four commonly used

IPV risk appraisal tools (Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment [ODARA], Spousal Assault Risk Assessment version 2

[SARA-V2], SARA version 3 [SARA-V3], and Brief Spousal Assault Form for the Evaluation of Risk [B-SAFER]) with 247

men charged with IPV and referred to a threat assessment service. Total scores of the ODARA and SARA-V2—but not

SARA-V3 or B-SAFER—significantly predicted IPV recidivism and any violent recidivism. The SARA-V2 Criminal

History subscale and the B-SAFER subscale of “Past” events—but no other subscales of the SARA-V2, B-SAFER, or

SARA-V3—significantly predicted IPV recidivism. Although effect sizes were smaller than in past research, our results sup-

port the use of the ODARA and SARA-V2 with threat assessment IPV populations.

Keywords: intimate partner violence; threat assessment; ODARA; SARA; B-SAFER

AUTHORS’ NOTE: The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the

Department of National Defence Canada. This research was supported by funding from the Social Sciences

and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Grant #890-2014-0007). We would like to thank the Integrated

Threat and Risk Assessment Centre (ITRAC), and Sean Bois, Jessica Brandon, and Ethan Davidge for their

assistance in the data collection. We also wish to express our appreciation to the following research assis-

tants: Renee Bencic, Martina Faitakis, Sacha Maimone, Adam Morrill, Alicia LaPierre, Lynden Perrault,

Carissa Augustyn, and Farron Wielinga. Dr. Hilton is an author of the ODARA and declares a financial

interest in a publication cited in this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to

Anna T. Pham, Sexual Misconduct Response Centre, Department of National Defence, Ottawa, Ontario K1A

0K2, Canada; e-mail: PhamAnna89@gmail.com

1143535CJBXXX10.1177/00938548221143535Criminal Justice and BehaviorPham et al. / Recidivism in IPV Threat Assessment

research-article2022

Pham et al. / RECIDIVISM IN IPV THREAT ASSESSMENT 649

Critical decisions in criminal justice, mental health, and child protection realms are pred-

icated on appraisals of the risk of harm (Nunes et al., 2022). Traditionally, violence risk

assessments have been conducted primarily by forensic mental health professionals to

inform courts, parole, and mental health boards for decisions about sentencing, supervision,

or release of persons currently in custody with a view of protecting the general public at

large. More recently, however, police frequently assess risk, especially in relation to inti-

mate partner violence (IPV; e.g., Saxton et al., 2020). IPV places a tremendous burden on

the criminal justice system, and on law enforcement in particular, as IPV represents the

largest single category of calls for service to police in the United States (Klein, 2009) and

Canada (e.g., Burczycka et al., 2018). Policing policies and procedures provide for indi-

viduals accused of IPV to be screened for violence risk and, where needed, referred for

more comprehensive evaluations of risk or threat assessment (Cook et al., 2014; Ennis

et al., 2015). There is an established literature on the predictive validity of IPV risk assess-

ment tools used at the level of routine police service (e.g., Jung & Himmen, 2022; Svalin &

Levander, 2019). In contrast, the predictive validity of these tools when used in the context

of specialized threat assessment services has not yet been evaluated. The current study

examines the predictive validity of risk assessment tools to assess and predict IPV recidi-

vism in a high-risk threat assessment sample.

PREDICTIVE VALIDITY OF IPV RISK ASSESSMENT

Researchers and practitioners have recommended that risk assessment and IPV threat

management should be informed by the principles of risk, need, and responsivity (RNR;

Bonta & Andrews, 2017; e.g., Hilton & Ennis, 2020; Radatz & Wright, 2016). The RNR

model comprises an iterative process of assessment and intervention, enacting the most

effective strategies to manage the riskiest individuals in ways that facilitate the greatest

response. In correctional research, the most effective criminal justice interventions adhere

to the three key principles (e.g., Andrews et al., 1990), and the model shows promise for

improving the effectiveness of IPV treatment (Travers et al., 2021). RNR begins with the

risk principle, which asserts that the most intensive interventions (custody, supervision,

treatment, and other actions aimed at limiting reoffending) should be reserved for the high-

est risk cases. To effectively adhere to this first principle, the use of a validated risk tool is

necessary and should be employed.

Only a handful of IPV risk assessment tools have shown at least medium effect sizes in

predicting IPV reoffending, such as the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment

(ODARA; Hilton et al., 2004) and Spousal Assault Risk Assessment version 2 (SARA-V2;

Kropp et al., 1995; for reviews, see Graham et al., 2021; Svalin & Levander, 2019; van der

Put et al., 2019). These tools have also been used to identify the risk of other offenses, such

as any violent recidivism or general offending following an IPV incident (e.g., Hegel et al.,

2022; Jung & Buro, 2017; Radatz & Hilton, 2022), which is beneficial given that intimate

partners can be targeted through other offending behaviors (e.g., violence against the part-

ner’s family, break and enter; Hilton & Eke, 2016).

THREAT ASSESSMENT FOR IPV

IPV is considered a form of targeted violence in the sense that both the attacker and

the potential target are known or knowable (Hilton & Ennis, 2020), and IPV cases tend