Predictive Properties of the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA) in a Northern Canadian Prairie Sample

• Author: Mark E. Olver,Karen D. Pelletier,Jennifer hegel
• Published date: 01 March 2022
• Date: 01 March 2022
• DOI: 10.1177/00938548211033631
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2022, Vol. 49, No. 3, March 2022, 411 –431.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548211033631

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2021 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

411

PREDICTIVE PROPERTIES OF THE ONTARIO

DOMESTIC ASSAULT RISK ASSESSMENT

(ODARA) IN A NORTHERN CANADIAN

PRAIRIE SAMPLE

JENNIFER HEGEL

University of Saskatchewan

RCMP “F” Division

KAREN D. PELLETIER

RCMP “F” Division

MARK E. OLVER

University of Saskatchewan

This study examined the predictive properties of the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA) in a large

Canadian, predominantly Indigenous, sample from a geographic region with the highest rates of intimate partner violence

(IPV) in the country. A random stratified sample of 300 men (92.7% Indigenous) court adjudicated for an IPV offense was

drawn from six Northern Saskatchewan Royal Canadian Mounted Police detachment regions. The ODARA was rated from

police records and recidivism data were obtained via official criminal records over a mean 4.7-year follow-up. ODARA

scores had small to moderate predictive accuracy (AUC/C = .58–.67) for IPV and other recidivism outcomes in the aggregate

sample and Indigenous subsample. E/O index analyses demonstrated that the ODARA Ontario norms overpredicted IPV

recidivism at high scores but underpredicted it at lower mid-range scores. Implications for use of the ODARA to assist front-

line police personnel in IPV risk assessment and management are discussed.

Keywords: intimate partner violence; ODARA; Indigenous; recidivism; risk assessment

Intimate partner violence (IPV), or the attempted, threatened, or completed act(s) of phys-

ical, psychological, or sexual abuse, including intimidating and controlling behaviors,

against a former or current romantic partner (Campbell et al., 2018; Canadian Association

of Chiefs of Police [CACP], 2016) is an international societal problem. IPV does not dis-

criminate based on age, gender, sexual identity, socioeconomic status, or cultural back-

ground (CACP, 2016), and remains a prevalent issue in Canada. In 2017, 30% of all

police-reported violent crime consisted of IPV complaints, with 80% of victims being

female (Burczycka et al., 2018; CACP, 2016). The Canadian province of Saskatchewan has

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

of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the University of Saskatchewan. Correspondence concerning this article

should be addressed to Mark E. Olver, Department of Psychology and Health Studies, University of Saskatchewan, 9

Campus Drive, Arts Building Room 154, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7N 5A5; e-mail: mark.olver@usask.ca.

1033631CJBXXX10.1177/00938548211033631Criminal Justice and BehaviorHegel et al. /

research-article2022

412 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

the highest rate of IPV occurrences (682 victims per 100,000 population) in the country

(Burczycka et al., 2018); however, Northern Saskatchewan, in particular, has the highest

violent crime rate against young women and girls (13,886 victims per 100,000 population),

a rate five to six times higher than that found in Southern Saskatchewan (Rotenberg, 2019).

Although Canada has been a leader in the development and validation of IPV risk assess-

ment tools (Hilton, 2021; Hilton & Ennis, 2020) to assess and manage risk, IPV remains a

pervasive social and health concern.

IPV RISK ASSESSMENT AND LAW ENFORCEMENT

From a police perspective, the CACP (2016) believes that responding to the issue of IPV

is not only a police matter, but a shared responsibility among law enforcement, public

health, and community and social agencies. As IPV occurrences are some of the most com-

plicated and high-risk calls a police officer can respond to (Campbell et al., 2018), risk

assessment is an important part of this process. Law enforcement considers multiple factors

to be a priority in regard to dealing with IPV occurrences and risk assessment, including:

relationship status (i.e., recently separated, cohabitating); frequency and level of violence

(i.e., choking, sexual assault); current incidents of harassment, threats, and/or stalking;

access to weapons; substance abuse; age difference of perpetrator and victim; mental health

of perpetrator and victim; suicide risk; children from previous relationship(s); and preg-

nancy (Campbell et al., 2018; Hilton et al., 2004). With a primary goal of risk assessment

being to prevent further violence against the victim and contribute to ideas regarding moni-

toring, supervising, and treating IPV perpetrators (CACP, 2016), the use of empirically

based risk assessment tools by frontline law enforcement officers contributes positively to

public safety, proper allocation of resources (physical and financial), and coordinated

responses to IPV occurrences (Campbell et al., 2018; Olver & Jung, 2017).

OVERVIEW OF IPV RISK MEASURES AND THEIR PREDICTIVE PROPERTIES

The forensic risk assessment literature has clearly established the superior predictive per-

formance and clinical utility of structured assessment approaches over unstructured clinical

judgment, including IPV risk assessment (Helmus & Bourgon, 2011; Messing & Thaller,

2013; van der Put et al., 2019). A risk instrument, however, is not the same thing as a risk

assessment (Mills, 2017); the latter is a dynamic process of combining and integrating infor-

mation from multiple sources, using multiple methods, across multiple domains of function-

ing (Olver, 2016). Per the principles of risk (i.e., recidivism can be predicted and service

intensity should be matched to risk level), need (prioritize dynamic risk factors, aka crimino-

genic needs for treatment), and responsivity (tailor service delivery to individual client char-

acteristics) or RNR model (Bonta & Andrews, 2007), risk assessment informs intervention

and risk management. A key psychometric attribute of a valid and useful risk assessment

measure, however, is that it has predictive validity (aka predictive accuracy) for the targeted

outcome for which it was designed to appraise risk and ultimately, prevent.

Predictive accuracy, in turn, can be examined through discrimination (relative risk) and

calibration (absolute risk). Discrimination concerns the extent to which recidivists can be

differentiated from nonrecidivists on the basis of risk scores, while calibration concerns the

rates of recidivism associated with risk scores, such as the extent to which observed rates of

recidivism correspond to those expected from a normative reference group (Helmus &