The Effects of Race and Gender When Predicting Intimate Partner Violence Recidivism in Police Reports Using the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online May, 2024
The Effects of Race and Gender When Predicting Intimate Partner Violence Recidivism in Police Reports Using the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment
Despite a growth in risk assessment for intimate partner violence (IPV), validation research has focused on men’s violence against women leading to a dearth of research among other genders and racialized populations. We examined validity of an IPV risk assessment tool in 448 Black and White men and women identified as IPV perpetrators by a United States urban police service. The Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA) predicted new police reports of IPV in a fixed 2-year follow up (baserate = 33%, AUC = 0.59). Predictive effects were mostly small, with few significant differences between groups. Further research should examine the benefits and potential harms of IPV risk assessment to individuals who identify within minority race and gender groups.
BallucciD.CampbellM. A.GillC. (2020). Use of the ODARA by police officers for intimate partner violence: Implications for practice in the field. Journal of Community Safety and Well-Being, 5(3), 91–102. https://doi.org/10.35502/jcswb.150
2.
BontaJ.AndrewsD. A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). Routledge.
3.
BourgonG.MugfordR.HansonR. K.ColigadoM. (2018). Offender risk assessment practices vary across Canada. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 60(2), 167–205. https://doi.org:10.3138/cjccj.2016-0024
CampbellM. A.FrenchS.GendreauP. (2009). The prediction of violence in adult offenders: A meta-analytic comparison of instruments and methods of assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(6), 567–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809333610
6.
ChoH. (2012). Racial differences in the prevalence of intimate partner violence against women and associated factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(2), 344–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260511416469
7.
ChoH.WilkeD. J. (2010). Gender differences in the nature of the intimate partner violence and effects of perpetrator arrest on revictimization. Journal of Family Violence, 25(4), 393–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-009-9300-1
8.
del Río-GonzálezA. M. (2021). To Latinx or not to Latinx: A question of gender inclusivity versus gender neutrality. American Journal of Public Health, 111(6), 1018–1021.
9.
DouglasK. S.OttoR. K. (2020). Handbook of violence risk assessment. Routledge.
10.
DuhaneyP. (2021). Criminalized Black women’s experiences of intimate partner violence in Canada. Violence Against Women, 28(11), 2765–2787. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012211035791
11.
EdwardsK. M.SylaskaK. M.NealA. M. (2015). Intimate partner violence among sexual minority populations: A critical review of the literature and agenda for future research. Psychology of Violence, 5(2), 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038656
12.
GerstenbergerC.StansfieldR.WilliamsK. R. (2019). Intimate partner violence in same-sex relationships: An analysis of risk and rearrest. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(11), 1515–1527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819871984
13.
GerthJ.RosseggerA.BauchE.EndrassJ. (2017). Assessing the discrimination and calibration of the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment in Switzerland. Partner Abuse, 8(2), 168–189. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.8.2.168
14.
GerstenbergerC. B.WilliamsK. R. (2013). Gender and intimate partner violence: Does dual arrest reveal gender symmetry or asymmetry. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(8), 1561–1578. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512468325
15.
GoelS.ShroffR.SkeemJ. L.SloboginC. (2021). The accuracy, equity, and jurisprudence of criminal risk assessment. In VoglR. (Ed.), Research handbook on big data law (pp. 9–28). Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
16.
GonzalezF. R.BenutoL. T.CasasJ. B. (2020). Prevalence of interpersonal violence among Latinas: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21(5), 977–990. https//:doi.org/10.1177/1524838018806507
17.
GrahamL. M.SahayK. M.RizoC. F.MessingJ. T.MacyR. J. (2021). The validity and reliability of available intimate partner homicide and reassault risk assessment tools: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 22(1), 18–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018821952
18.
GutierrezL.HelmusL. M.HansonR. K. (2016). What we know and don’t know about risk assessment with offenders of Indigenous heritage. Journal of Threat Assessment and Management, 3(2), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/tam0000064
HansonR. K. (2022). Prediction statistics for psychological assessment. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000275-000
21.
HegelJ.PelletierK. D.OlverM. E. (2021). Predictive properties of the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA) in a northern Canadian prairie sample. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 49(3), 411–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548211033631
22.
HelmusL. M.BabchishinK. M. (2017). Primer on risk assessment and the statistics used to evaluate its accuracy. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(1), 8–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816678898.
23.
HenningK.CampbellC. M.StewartG.JohnsonJ. (2021). Prioritizing police investigations of intimate partner violence using actuarial risk assessment. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 36, 667–678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-021-09466-7
24.
HiltonN. Z. (2021). Domestic violence risk assessment: Tools for effective prediction and management (2nd ed.). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000223-000
25.
HiltonN. Z.EkeA. W. (2017). Assessing risk of intimate partner violence. In CampbellJ. C.MessingJ. T. (Eds.), Assessing dangerousness: Domestic violence offenders and child abusers (3rd ed., pp. 139–178). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1891/9780826133274
26.
HiltonN. Z.HarrisG. T.RiceM. E.EkeA. W.Lowe-WetmoreT. (2007). Training front-line users in the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA), a tool for police domestic investigations. Canadian Journal of Police & Security Services, 5, 92–96.
27.
HiltonN. Z.HarrisG. T.PophamS.LangC. (2010). Risk assessment among male incarcerated domestic offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 815–832. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854810368937
28.
HiltonN. Z.HarrisG. T.RiceM. E.LangC.CormierC. A.LinesK. J. (2004). A brief actuarial assessment for the prediction of wife assault recidivism: The Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment. Psychological Assessment, 16(3), 267–275. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.16.3.267
29.
HiltonN. Z.PophamS.LangC.HarrisG. T. (2014). Preliminary validation of the ODARA for female intimate partner violence offenders. Partner Abuse, 5(2), 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.5.2.189
30.
HiltonN. Z.RadatzD. L. (2021). Criminogenic needs among intimate partner violence offenders: Association with recidivism and implications for treatment. Psychological Services, 18(4), 566–573. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/ser0000450
31.
HollidayC. N.KahnG.ThorpeR. J.ShahR.HameeduddinZ.DeckerM. R. (2020). Racial/ethnic disparities in police reporting for partner violence in the national crime victimization survey and survivor-led interpretation. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, 7(3), 468–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-019-00675-9
32.
Jolliffe SimpsonA. D.JoshiC.PolaschekD. L. L. (2021). Predictive validity of the DYRA and SAFVR: New Zealand Police’s family violence risk assessment instruments. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 48(10), 1487–1508. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854821997525
33.
KronerD.HansonR. K. (2021). Measuring what matters: Standardized risk levels for criminal recidivism risk. In LiellG.JonesL.FisherM. (Eds.), Challenging bias in forensic psychological assessment and testing—Theoretical and practical approaches to working with diverse populations (pp. 95–110). Routledge Taylor & Francis.
34.
LauriaI.McEwanT. E.LuebbersS.SimmonsM.OgloffJ. R. P. (2017). Evaluating the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment in an Australian frontline police setting. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(12), 1545–1558. https://doi:10.1177/0093854817738280
35.
McEwanT. E.SheaD. E.OgloffJ. R. P. (2018). The development of the VP-SAFvR: An actuarial instrument for police triage of Australian family violence reports. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(4), 590–607. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818806031
36.
MearsD. P.CochranJ. C.LindseyA. M. (2016). Offending and racial and ethnic disparities in criminal justice. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 32(1), 78–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986215607252
37.
OlverM. E.SowdenJ. N.KingstonD. A.NicholaichukT. P.GordonA.Beggs ChristoffersonS. M.WongS. C. P. (2016). Predictive accuracy of Violence Risk Scale – Sexual Offender Version risk and change scores in treated Canadian Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse, 30(3), 254–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063216649594
38.
Perley-RobertsonB.Maaike HelmusL.ForthA. (2019). Predictive accuracy of static risk factors for Canadian Indigenous offenders compared to non-Indigenous offenders: Implications for risk assessment scales. Psychology, Crime & Law, 25(3), 248–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316x.2018.1519827
39.
PotterH. (2006). An argument for Black feminist criminology: Understanding African American women’s experiences with intimate partner abuse using an integrated approach. Feminist Criminology, 1(2), 106–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085106286547
40.
RadatzD. L.HiltonN. Z. (2019). Determining batterer intervention program treatment intensities: An illustration using the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment. Partner Abuse, 10(3), 269–282. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.10.3.269
41.
RadatzD. L.HiltonN. Z. (2022). The Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment: Predicting violence among men with a police record of intimate partner violence in the United States. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 49(3), 371–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548211035816
42.
RiceM. E.HarrisG. T. (2005). Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC, Cohen’s d and r. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 615–620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-6832-7
43.
RobinX.TurckN.HainardA.TibertiN.LisacekF.SanchezJ.MullerM. (2011). pROC: An open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinfomatics, 12, 77. https://doi.org/10.1186/147121051277
44.
SaxtonM. D.JaffeP. G.StraatmanA.-L.OlszowyL.DawsonM. (2020). Measuring intimate partner violence risk: A national survey of Canadian police officers. Journal of Community Safety and Well-Being, 5(3), 103–109. https://doi.org/10.35502/jcswb.144
45.
SentürkA. B.WesemüllerM.RettenbergerM. (2016). Kriminalprognose bei häuslicher Gewalt Validierung der deutschsprachigen Version des Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA) an weiblichen und männlichen häuslichen GewalttäternRechtspsychologie—Rpsych, 2, 330–344. https://doi.org/10.5771/2365-1083-2016-3-330
46.
SkeemJ. L.LowenkampC. T. (2016). Risk, race, and recidivism: Predictive bias and disparate impact. Criminology, 54(4), 680–712. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12123
47.
StansfieldR.WilliamsK. R. (2014). Predicting family violence recidivism using the DVSI-R: Integrating survival analysis and perpetrator characteristics. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(2), 163–180. https://doi:10.1177/0093854813500776
SvalinK.LevanderS. (2019). The predictive validity of intimate partner violence risk assessments conducted by practitioners in different settings: A review of the literature. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 35(2), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-019-09343-4
50.
van der PutC. E.GubbelsJ.AssinkM. (2019). Predicting domestic violence: A meta-analysis on the predictive validity of risk assessment tools. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 47, 100–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2019.03.008
51.
Van VoorhisP.WrightE. M.SalisburyE.BaumanA. (2010). Women’s risk factors and their contributions to existing risk/needs assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(3), 261–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809357442
WilliamsK. R.GrantS. R. (2006). Empirically examining the risk of intimate partner violence: The Revised Domestic Violence Screening Instrument (DVSI-R). Public Health Reports, 121(4), 400–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/003335490612100408
