circuit barcelona contra la violÈncia vers les dones€¦ · the barcelona network to fight...

RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDE FOR VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN PERPETRATED BY THEIR PARTNER

OR FORMER PARTNER

THE RVD-BCN

Barcelona, 15 December 2011

CIRCUIT BARCELONA CONTRA LA VIOLÈNCIA VERS LES DONES

2


Institutional author:

THE BARCELONA NETWORK TO FIGHT VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Authors and originators of the idea:

• MartaÁlvarezFreijo Equipd’AtencióalesDones(Women’sServicesTeam,BarcelonaCityCouncil)

• AntonioAndrés-Pueyo FacultyofPsychology(UniversityofBarcelona)

• MónicaAugéGomà Equipd’AtencióalesDones(Women’sServicesTeam,BarcelonaCityCouncil)

• AnnaChoyVilana Mossosd’Esquadra(CatalanPoliceForce,MinistryoftheInterior)

• RocíoFernándezVelasco ServeideMesuresPenalsAlternatives(AlternativePenalMeasuresService,MinistryofJustice)

• CarmeFernándezRodríguez Casad’Acollida(Shelter,BarcelonaCityCouncil)

• HubertFoulon AreaBàsicadeSalutBesòs(BesòsBasicHealthDivision,CatalanHealthInstitute)

• SandraLópezFerré Equip d’Assessorament Tècnic Penal de Barcelona (Criminal Technical Advisory Team of Barcelona, MinistryofJustice)

• M.TeresaMartínez-Izquierdo EmergencyService(HospitaldelMar–ParcdeSalutMar)

• CristinaMartínezBueno SexualandReproductiveHealthProgramme(CatalanHealthInstitute)

• MargaridaSaizLloret DirecciódelProgramadeDona(Women’sProgrammeDirectorate,BarcelonaCityCouncil)

• LídiaSerratusellSalvadó ÀreadeReparacióiAtencióalaVíctima(VictimRecoveryandSupportDivision,MinistryofJustice)

Theauthorswillbestatedinanyexploitationoftheworkauthorisedunderthelicense.

3


4


5


PARTI:THE ORIGIN OF THE RVD-BCN

RiscViolènciaDona[RiskofViolenceAgainstWomen]–Barcelona)

(p. 7)

PARTII:THE RVD-BCN AND SHORT USER MANUAL

(p. 17)

PARTIII:THE RVD-BCN MANUAL

(p 27)

CONTENTS

6


7


THE ORIGIN OF THE RVD-BCN(RiscViolènciaDona[RiskofViolence

AgainstWomen]–Barcelona)

1The Barcelona Network to Fight Violence

Against Women

2The RVD-BCN responds to the shared need

of various services and institutions

3The process of scientific validation

4The keys to success

PART I

8


9


1The Barcelona Network to Fight Violence Against Women

Itwasfoundedin2001,promotedbyBarcelonaCityCouncilandtheBarcelonaHealthConsortium,withthecompellingmissiontofostercoordinationandcooperationbetweenthedifferent institutionsinvolvedinthefighttoeradicateviolenceagainstwomeninBarcelona,asapre-requisiteinordertoofferqualitycaretowo-menexperiencingsituationsofviolence,aswellastotheirchildren,andtakingthepreventivedimensionintoaccount.

Theorganisationseekstogiveimpetustoeffectivecollaborationandcooperationbetweenthedifferentservicesandprofessionalsthatinterveneindifferentsectors(socialservices,health,police,justice,thejudicialsphereandeducation)inordertotakemoreefficientactioninsituationsofviolenceagainstwomen,toaffordbetterqualitycaretothoseaffectedandtopromotepreventivestrategies.

TheBarcelona Network to Fight Violence Against Women presentsitselfasastrategytomovetowardsachie-vingthefollowingobjectives:

• Tofostercollaborationandcooperationbetweenthevariouspublicservicesinvolvedinordertoafford comprehensive,effectiveandqualitycaretowomenthatexperienceorhaveexperiencedsituationsof gender-basedviolence,aswellastotheirchildren.

• Topromotethepreventionofviolencethroughpro-activemeasuresandproposalsthatputanendtothe perpetuationofthecausesandmanifestationsofviolence.

• Topreventsecondaryvictimisationthroughcoordinationmechanismsbetweendifferentservices,and provideprofessionalswithspecialisedtrainingingender-basedviolencethatfacilitatestheimprovement ofthecomprehensiveinterventionapproach.

• Toadvanceandinnovatebywayoftheanalysisandreflectiononprojectsandpracticesthatarebeing developedinthedomainsofcareservicesandprevention,toimproveinterventionapproaches,toadapt theservicestonewscenariosandtoputforwardfuturecoursesofaction.

Thenetwork comprisesmanagers andprofessionals from institutionsandpublic services fromall theareasinvolved in addressinggender-based violence inBarcelona: thehealth, social, police, education, justiceandjudicialsectors.TheGovernmentofCatalonia(regionalgovernment),BarcelonaCityCouncil(localgovernment),OfficeofthePublicProsecutor(centralgovernment)andhealth,educationandsocialservicesconsortiaofthecityofBarce-lonaaredirectlyinvolved.

10


The network’s structure comprises:

• TheTechnicalDirectorate,ownedand led jointlyby theBarcelonaHealthConsortiumandBarcelona CityCouncil.

• Thenetwork’sTechnicalCoordinationCommitteeintheareaofthecity,inwhichrepresentativesfromall thepublicinstitutionsinvolvedinthefighttoeradicategender-basedviolencetakepart.

• TheTechnicalSecretariat,coordinatedbytheBarcelonaHealthConsortiumandBarcelonaCityCouncil.

• Territorialcommitteesmadeupoftennetworksatdistrictlevel.

• Inter-institutionalandmulti-disciplinarysub-committeesforspecificissues.

It is within this context that the RVD-BCN Guide came into being.

TheexistenceoftheBarcelonaNetworktoFightViolenceAgainstWomenforthepasttenyearshasmadeitpossibletobuildacommondiscoursethathasallowedusnotonlytoagreeontheguidepresentedherein,butalsotoobtainaqualitativelybetterresult thananyof thevariousassessment instrumentsemployedbytheparticipatingservicesthusfar.

Forthisreason,institutionalauthorshipcorrespondstotheNetworkasawhole,whiletheconceptionofideasissharedbyallthosecomprisingtheworkinggroupthatcompiledit.

ItcanbesaidthatwithouttheBarcelonaNetworktoFightViolenceAgainstWomen,theRVD-BCNwouldnothavebeenpossibleand,bythesamemeasure,theexistenceoftheRVD-BCNisanindicatorofthesuccessoftheNetwork.

Why?BecausetheexistenceoftheNetworkhascreatedtheclimatenecessarytocombinetheservicesofvariousinsti-tutionalunitsindevisinganewinstrumentofusetoallofthem.Thisclimatehasemergedfrom:

• Mutual knowledge:overandabovetheformalpowersandresponsibilitiesofeachservice,belongingtothe Networkhasgiventhemaninsightintothescopeandlimitationsofthedifferentservicesfromthepointofview ofreality,andhasfacilitatednotonlytheadaptationoftheexpectationsandrequirementsoftherespective servicesbutalsomethodologiesofanalysisandcombinedwork.

• Mutual trust and respect: which has been earned over a decade of collaboration among the different services.

• Possibility of joint growth and technical creation:throughabroadspectrumofmeans:

- Theexchangeofinformationbetweenservicesanddevices. - Thematicdebates. - Casestudiesandthecreationofaprocedureandacommontechnicalcultureintheprovisionofcareand coordinationbetweenservices. - Sharedongoingtrainingonspecifictopicsofcommoninterest. - Settingupworkinggroupsonvarioustopics,suchastheonedrawnupbytheRVD-BCNforinstance -Organisingannualconferencesopentoalltheprofessionalsoftheentirebodyofparticipatingservicesboth inthecityaswellasinthetendistricts.

Inconclusion,theNetworkhasmadeitpossibletoachievethenecessaryrequirementsforeffectiveandproduc-tivecollaborationandcooperationwhichhasfacilitatedthecreationofasharedtoolthatismuchbetterthananyofthoseemployedtodatebythedifferentparticipatingservices.Itisforthisreasonthattheguideincorpo-ratestheinitialsofthecityofBarcelonainitsname.

11


2The RVD-BCN responds to the shared need

of various services and institutions

THE SITUATION PRIOR TO THE RVD-BCN

The situation prior to the RVD-BCN is characterised by the following:

• Eachserviceorinstitutionemploystheirownassessmenttool,forinternaluse,whichisnotsharedwiththe rest of the services offered by other institutions that are also involved in the intervention. This renders collaborationdifficultsinceriskassessmentsforthesamecasemaydifferaccordingtotheinstrumentused.

• Manyoftheseinstrumentsaresubjecttoahighdegreeofprofessionalsubjectivity:theydonotquantifythe riskfactorsorestablishamatrixfortheriskassessment(low,moderateorhigh).Assessmenthingesonthe criterionandinterpretationoftheprofessionalinquestion.

• NotalltheriskassessmentinstrumentspriortotheRVD-BCNtakeperiodicreappraisalsofthesituationinto consideration.

• Notallthecurrentinstrumentsallowappropriateassessmentstobeundertakeninsituationsthatareunique.

• Mostoftheinstrumentscurrentlyuseddoincluderiskfactorsthatdependonthewoman’svulnerabilityor herperception.

• Mostoftheinstrumentsuseddonotincorporatethefunctionofwarningofforeseeablecircumstancesthat mayheightentheriskinthefuture.

WHY WAS THE RVD-BCN CREATED?

Because a risk assessment tool is needed which:

• Issharedamongthedifferentservicesthatinterveneinagivencase,sothatthesameinformationyieldsthe sameassessment.

• Eliminatesprofessionalsubjectivitytoassessrisk,butatthesametimeallowsthisassessmenttobeadapted totheuniquenatureofspecificcases.

• Featuresreappraisalasoneofitsdefiningcharacteristics.

• Incorporatesthewoman’svulnerabilityfactorsandherperception.

• Incorporatesthefunctionofwarningofforeseeablecircumstancesthatmayheightenthelevelofriskinthe future.

12


WHAT IS THE RVD-BCN?

Atoolthathelpsprofessionalsthatdealwithwomenexperiencingsituationsofgender-basedviolencetoassesstheriskofsevereactsofviolenceperpetratedbytheirpartner or former partner occurringintheshorttemporaldelay.

Theguide,theexplanationofitscharacteristicsanditsinstructionsforusearepartofthesecondandthirdsectionsofthisdocument.

13


3The process of scientific validation of the RVD-BCN Guide

(from February 2010 to June 2011)

TheRVD-BCNGuidewassubjecttoaprocessofscientificvalidationthatbeganinFebruary2010andendedinJune2011.ThisvalidationprocesswasledbytheUniversityofBarcelona’sGroupofAdvancedStudiesonViolence(GEAV),andwasfinancedequallybyBarcelonaCityCouncil,theBarcelonaHealthConsortiumandtheCatalanInstituteforWomen(ICD).

Professionalsand services fromall the sectors involved, i.e. justice,health, social servicesandpolice forces(Mossosd’Esquadra[CatalanPoliceForce]andGuàrdiaUrbana[BarcelonaMunicipalPoliceForce])havetakenparttherein.

ItshouldbementionedthathealthservicescannottakepartinresearchinCataloniawithoutthepriorapprovalofaclinicalresearchethicscommittee.Inthiscase,on1April2010,theEthicsandClinicalResearchCommitteeoftheIDIAPJordiGoliGurina(PrimaryCareResearchInstitute)granteditsfinalapprovaltotheRVD-BCNpro-ject.

The objectives of the validation process are as follows:

• ToverifytheusefulnessoftheRVD-BCN. - Tocomparepredictivevalidity. - Tocomparereliability. •Internalconsistency •Inter-observerreliability - Tocomparethesensitivityandspecificityfordifferentformsofviolence/severity.

• Toadjustthescaleandcut-offpointsaccordingto: - Theseverityofviolence - Thetimeinterval - Thepopulationofvictims

• TocomparetheusefulnessoftheRVD-BCNinthedifferentservicesthatareusersoftheNetwork.

Inviewoftheresultsofthevalidationprocess,theworkinggroupthatauthoredtheguidecametogetheronceagaintomakepertinentdecisionsonimprovingtheinitialversion,toobtainaninstrumentthatadaptsbettertotheobjectivesproposed,thatistosay,tooptimiseitspredictivepower.

TheRVD-BCNManualcontainedinthethirdpartofthisdocumentfeaturesasummaryofthemainfindingsofthevalidationprocess.Forafulldescriptionofthisprocessandtheresultsobtained,pleaseseethereportsubmittedbyDr.AntonioAndrés-Pueyo,directoroftheAdvancedStudiesGrouponViolence(GEAV),tothetwoinstitutionsthatmanageandcoordinatetheNetworkandthemembersoftheTechnicalMonitoringCommitteefortheProcessofValidationandImplementationoftheRVD-BCN.

14


4The keys to success

1.The RVD-BCN was conceived from a real need felt by professionals in different services and institutions thatcaterforwomenexperiencingsituationsofgender-basedviolence.Itwaspreciselyonesector ofprofessionalsthatputforwardtheproposalofcreatinganinter-institutionalworkinggrouptotheNetwork’s plenary session,whichbasedon the instrumentsusedbyeachservice,wouldbuildanew joint tool that wouldimprovethepredictivepoweroftheriskofviolentactsagainstwomenperpetratedbytheirpartneror formerpartner.

2.Institutional backingbothindrawinguptheRVD-BCN,whichtooktenmonths,andtheprocessofscientific validationproposedbytheworkinggroupthatauthoredtheguideinpresentingthefindingstotheNetwork’s TechnicalCommittee.

Thisbackingisparticularlyvisibleonthefollowingoccasions:

• Threeinstitutionsfinancedthevalidationprocessinequalmeasures:BarcelonaCityCouncil,theBarcelona HealthConsortiumandtheCatalanInstituteforWomen.

• A letterwassent,signedbythecouncillor forWomenandYoungPeopleofBarcelonaCityCouncil, the generalcoordinatoroftheHealthCorporationofBarcelonaandthepresidentoftheCatalanInstitutefor Women,addressedtotheupperechelonsofthedifferentinstitutionslikelytotakepartinthevalidation processoftheRVD-BCN,andwithinwhichtheircollaborationwasrequested.

• Each institution designated the services and the professionals that would participate in the validation process.

• Subsequently,atechnicalmonitoringcommitteewasappointedandeachinstitutionappointedtheirrepre- sentatives.

• Oncethisprocesswascompleted,thereportoutliningthefindingsofthescientificvalidationprocesswas submittedtothehighestauthoritiesofthetwoinstitutionsthatcoordinateandmanagetheNetworkandthe membersoftheMonitoringCommittee.

3.Scientific rigour was guaranteed at all times:

• Fromtheoutset,theworkinggrouphadthecollaborationofanexternalexpert,Dr.AntonioAndrés-Pueyo, directoroftheUniversityofBarcelona’sAdvancedStudiesGrouponViolence(GEAV).

• ExpertmanagementoftheRVD-BCNscientificvalidationprocesswasguaranteedbywayoftheGEAV.

15


4.An institutional body was appointed that assumed the role of coordinating the entire process with the agreement of the other institutions involved. This functionwasundertakenby theWomen’sProgramme DirectorateofBarcelonaCityCouncil.

5.The participation of all the institutions involved was ensured in the overall monitoring of the validation process and implementation of the RVD-BCN in the day-to-day practice of beneficiary services throughthe constitution of a technical committeewith the capacity to introduce the necessary regulationmeasures throughouttheprocesstofacilitatetheachievementoftheproposedobjectives.

ThisCommitteeismadeupofrepresentativesfromthefollowinginstitutions:

• BarcelonaCityCouncil • MinistryofJustice • Mossosd’Esquadra(CatalanPoliceForce) • SexualandReproductiveHealthCareService(ASSIR) • PrimaryHealthCareDivision • BarcelonaHealthConsortium • GuàrdiaUrbana(BarcelonaMunicipalPoliceForce) • SocialServicesConsortiumofBarcelona

16


THE RVD-BCN(Risc Violència Dona [Risk of Violence

Against Women] – Barcelona)and

SHORT USER MANUAL

17


THE RVD-BCN(Risc Violència Dona [Risk of Violence

Against Women] – Barcelona)and

SHORT USER MANUAL

PART II

18


19


THE RVD-BCN.Risk assessment guide for violence against women perpetrated by their partnerFile no. / Record no.: Date of assessment: / /

Woman’s name and surname:

Spanish or Foreign National Ientification no. / Passport no.: Date of birth: / /

History of violent conduct by partner or former partner YES NO UNKNOWN

1 Assaultsorphysicaland/orsexualviolencetowardsthewomanorformerpartnersinthelasteighteenmonths.

2 Assaultsorviolenceagainstotherpersonswhetherornotfamilymembers(childrenorothers).

3 Assaultsonthewomanduringpregnancy.

4 Police/criminalrecordofviolenceagainstthepartner/formerpartner(currentpartnerorotherpartnersinpreviousincidents).

5 Theoffenderhasbreachedthewoman’scourtprotectionmeasures.

Aggravating circumstances YES NO UNKNOWN

8 Thewomaninformstheallegedoffenderofherwishtoseparateortheseparationoccurredlessthansixmonthsago.

9 Increaseinthefrequencyorseverityoftheviolentincidentsinthelastsixmonths.

10 Theallegedoffenderabusesdrugsand/oralcohol.

11 Diagnosisorhistoryofseverementaldisorderintheallegedoffender.

12 Possessionoreasyaccesstoweaponsbytheallegedoffender.

13 Suicideattemptsorideationonthepartoftheallegedoffender.

14 Extremecontrolofwomen’sconductoutofjealousyorsimilarfeelings.

Threats and/or severe abuse of the woman YES NO UNKNOWN

6 Thewomanhasreceivedseriousandcrediblethreatstoherphysicalintegrity,and/orwiththeuseofweapons.

7 Thewomanhassufferedsevereemotionalandverbalabuseinthelastsixmonths.

Woman’s vulnerability factors YES NO UNKNOWN

15Woman’s social isolation and/or lack of personal resources, and/or thewoman’sjustificationoftheviolenceinflictedbytheallegedoffender,and/orthepresenceofthewoman’schildrenthatareminorsand/ordependents.

Woman’s appraisal of the risk situation YES NO UNKNOWN

16 Thewomanbelieves that theallegedoffender iscapableofkillingherpersonallyorhavingherkilledbythirdparties.

LOW RISK (1 to 7 positive responses)MODERATE RISK (8 to 9 positive responses)

HIGH RISK (10 to 16 positive responses)

SUM OF POSITIVE RESPONSES / RISK ASSESSMENT TOTALUNKNOWNSTheRVD-BCN isuseful if informationis available on seven or more risk factorsOtherwiseit isrecommendedthat final assessments not be madeuntiltheminimumnumberoftheafo-rementionedriskfactorsisreached.

Theau

thorswillbestated

inanyexploita

tionofth

eworkau

thorised

und

erth

elicen

se.

20


Other rellevant risk factors to assess the violence risk for this woman that are missing in the above list (list but do not score)

Sheispregnantwhenthisassessmentisbeingundertaken.

Thereareindicationsthatthepartnerorformerpartnersintendstokillher.Other(specify):

-

-

-

RISK ASSESSMENT CONDUCTED BY THE PROFESSIONAL

Theriskassessmentbytheprofessionalismadebasedontheaforementionedsections(scoreobtained,numberofriskfactorswithoutinformationandthepresenceofotherimportantriskfactorsforthisassessment).

LOW RISK MODERATE RISK HIGH RISK

Observations

MANAGEMENT PLAN ACCORDING TO THE CURRENT EXISTING RISK ASSESSMENT

FORESEEABLE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MAY HEIGHTEN THE LEVEL OFRISK IN THE FUTURE (ALERT)

(For instance: the offender is released from prison, the offender is returning from their country of origin or otherdestinations,etc.)

Professional conducting the assessment:Name and surname(s) or identification no.:

Email address: Tel.: Fax:

Spanish or Foreign National identification No. / Passport No. Address:

Theau

thorswillbestated

inanyexploita

tionofth

eworkau

thorised

und

erth

elicen

se.

21


THE RVD-BCN SHORT USER MANUAL

1. Objective

Toaffordprofessionalsthatdealwithwomenexperiencingsituationsofgender-basedviolencewithatoolthat helpsthemassesstheriskofsevereactsofviolenceperpetratedbytheirpartnerorformerpartneroccurring intheshortterm.

2. Characteristics

• It includescomparedandvalidriskfactorstoassesstheprobabilityandimmediacyoftheriskofactsof violenceoccurring. • Ithasanindicativebutnotevidentialnature. Ithelpstheprofessionalassesstheriskofactsofviolence occurring.

3. Functions

• Toassesstherisk. • Torecordwhatactionisbeingundertakenaccordingtothecurrentexistingriskassessment. • Toprovidewarningofpossibleforeseeablecircumstancesthatmayheightenthelevelofriskinthefuture.

4. When is the use of the RVD-BCN necessary

• Whentheprofessionalisawarethatthewomanisexperiencingasituationofviolenceorthewomanherself statesso. • Intheeventofchangesinthewoman’scircumstancesthatmayinsomewayaltertheriskofviolence. • Asapreventivemeasureeverythreemonths.

5. When is it the use of the RVD-BCN not necessary

• Whenthereisacurrentriskassessmentandwedonothaveadditionalinformation. (For instance: the woman has 24-hour police protection by court order; when another service has already applied the guide in the last month and the circumstances have not changed since then, etc.).

• Theoffenderhasbeenimprisonedwithoutprobation,exceptwhen:

- Thereisapossibilityofhimofcausinganassaultbywayofthirdparties(familymembersorothers). - Hisreleasefromprison(probationordefinitiverelease)isdueandthewarningfunctionofRVD-BCN mustbeactivated.

6. Structure

6.1 Risk assessment

• List of factors:atotalof16riskfactorswereselectedwiththreeresponseoptions(“yes”,“no”and “unknown”).Theyaregroupedunderfive categories:

1.Historyofviolentconductbypartnerorformerpartner 2.Seriousthreatsand/orabuseofthewoman 3.Aggravatingcircumstances 4.Woman’svulnerabilityfactorsr 5.Woman’sappraisaloftherisksituation

A description of each risk factor can be found in the final section of these instructions.

22


ThesumofaffirmativeresponsesindicatesalevelofriskaccordingtotherangescoredefinedbyRVD-BCN norms:

1. Lowrisk(1to7points) 2.Moderaterisk(8to9points) 3.Highrisk(10to16points)

• Number of risk factors on which information is held:thisguideisusefulifthereisinformationonseven riskfactorsormore.Otherwise,itisrecommendedthatdefinitiveassessmentsnotbemadeuntilthemini- mumnumberoftheaforementionedriskfactorshasbeenreached.

• Presence of other rellevant risk factors toassesstheriskthattheprofessionalismissingintheabovelist:there areriskfactorsthat,thoughimportant,onlyoccurinsomecases,whichiswhytheyhavenotbeenincluded inthelist;however,theymustbeborneinmindwhenmakingthefinalassessmentoftheexistingrisk.

For instance: - She is pregnant when this assessment is being undertaken. - There are indications that the partner or former partners intends to kill her.

6.2 Description of the action undertaken according to the risk

Briefdescriptionoftheinterventioncarriedoutwhichisdirectlylinkedtotheriskassessment.

6.3 Foreseeable circumstances that may heighten the level of risk in the future (alert)

For instance: the offender is released from prison (on probation or definitive release), the offender is returning from their country of origin or other destinations, etc.

7. Methodology

• Theprofessionaldealingwiththewomanmustfillouttheform. • Theymustdosobasedontheinformationgiventothembythewomanherself,andiftheyshouldhave access,alsobasedontheinformationprovidedtothembyotherservicesandavailabledocuments(court rulings,etc.). • Thequestionsdonothavetobeformulatedasifaquestionnairewerebeingadministered.Oftenthewo- manprovidesusefulinformationspontaneously,oritistheprofessionalwhoposesquestionstothewomen inaflexiblemannerandattheopportunetimeinthecontextofaninterview,or,dependingonthetypeof serviceinquestionandhowthewomanfeels,overthecourseofseveralinterviews. • Itisnotdesignedtobeaquestionnairethatthewomanmayfilloutdirectly.

23


History of violent conduct on the part of the partner or former partner

1. Assaults or physical and/or sexual violence towards the woman or former partners in the last eighteen months.

Non-accidentalactionthatduringthelasteighteenmonthshasledtophysicaland/orsexualharm.Physicalviolenceisunderstoodtobeanyassault(punching,slapping,scratching,pushing,kicking,etc.)withtheresultorriskofcausingphysicalinjuryorharm.Sexualviolencecoversanyactofasexualnaturewithouttheconsentofthewoman,inclu-dingexhibition,observationandtheimpositionofsexualrelationsbymeansofviolence,intimidation,abuseoftheoffender’spositionoremotionalmanipulation.

Forfurtherinformationonthisriskfactor,pleaseseetheRVD-BCNGuidemanualonpage48.

2. Assaults or violence against third parties whether or not family members (children or others)

Theallegedoffendercommittedaphysical/sexualassaultorattemptedassaulton:

•Membersofthefamily(whetherbloodorpoliticalties)and/or•Acquaintances(maleorfemalefriends,workcolleaguesorneighbours)and/or•Strangers.


3. Assaults on the woman during pregnancy

Physicaland/orsexualassaultduringthewoman’spregnancybyherpartner/formerpartner.Italsoincludessevereandpersistentpsychologicalabuse.


4. Police/criminal record of violence against the partner/former partner (current partner or other partners in pre-vious incidents).

Thecriminaland/orpolicerecordoftheallegedoffendershowsahistoryofphysical,sexualoremotionalabuseofacurrentorformerintimatepartner.


5. The offender has breached the woman’s court protection measures

Theoffenderhasbreachedaprotectionmeasure.Hehasbeensubjecttoconvictionsorpoliceinvestigationsasaresultofhavingbreachedaprotectionmeasureforhispartnerorformerpartner.


6. The woman has received serious and credible threats to her physical integrity, and/or with the use of weapons.

Theallegedoffenderthreatens,intimidatesorcoercesthewomanwithorwithouttheuseofweapons.


7. The woman has suffered severe emotional and verbal abuse in the last six months.

Nonaccidentalactionthathascausedemotionalharminthelastsixmonths.Severeemotionalandverbalabuseco-versdegrading,humiliating,insulting,threatening,criticising,belittling,ridiculing,vexing,demandingobedienceandsubmission,verbalcoercionoranyotherlimitationoftheirfreedom.


8. Description of risk factors

24


Aggravating circumstances

8. The woman informs the alleged offender of her wish to separate or the separation occurred less than six months ago.

Atthetimeoftheassessmentand/orincident,thewomaninformedtheallegedoffenderofherintentiontoendtherelationshiportheyhavebeenseparatedforlessthansixmonths.


9. Increase in the frequency or severity of the violent incidents in the last six months.

Increaseinthefrequencyand/orseverityoftheaggressiveconducttowardsthepartnerorformerpartneroverthelastsixmonths.


10. The alleged offender abuses drugs and/or alcohol.

Theallegedoffenderisdependentorabuseroflegaland/orillegalsubstances(cocaine,alcohol,hashish,heroin,psy-chotropicdrugs,etc.).


11. Diagnosis or history of severe mental disorder in the alleged offender.

Diagnosisorhistoryofseverementaldisorderintheallegedoffender,consideringassuch,forinstance:

•Personalitydisorderwithanger,impulsivityandemotionalinstability.•Schizofrenicdisorder,majordepression,bipolardisorder,paranoiddisorderandsimilardisorders.


12. Possession or easy access to weapons by the alleged offender.

Theallegedoffenderhasattemptedsuicide,hashadorhasthoughtsaboutsuicide.


13. Suicide attempts or ideation on the part of the alleged offender.

Theallegedoffenderhasattemptedsuicide,hashadorhasthoughtsaboutsuicide.


14. Extrem control of the woman’s conduct out of jealousy or similar feelings.

Theallegedoffendermanifestscontrollingbehaviour,stalkingandrestrictionofthewoman’sfreedommotivatedbyjealousyorsimilarfeelings(forinstance,culturalbeliefsorbeliefsofanotherkind).


25


Woman’s vulnerability factors

15. Woman’s social isolation and/or lack of personal resources, and/or the woman’s justification of the violence inflicted by the alleged offender, and/or the presence of the woman’s children that are minors and/or dependents.

Thewomandoesnotpossessorhavepersonal,social,family,economicand/orworkresourcesathand,ortheyareveryscarce.Isolationoccursinoneorseveraloftheaforementionedareas,

and/orthewomanjustifies,minimisesordeniesthattheallegedoffenderhasinflictedaformofviolenceontheirperson(heisagoodpersonbutwhenhedrinkshelosescontrolandbecomesviolent;hedoesnotwanttodoitbutsometimeshegetsnervous;thethingisthatIdonotdothingswellandhegetsangry,heactsinaccordancewithhiscustomsandbeliefs,etc.).,

and/orthewomanhaschildrenthatareminorsand/ordependentsinhercare,whichmayormaynotbecommontotheallegedaggessor.


Woman’s appraisal of the risk situation

16. The woman believes that the alleged offender is capable of killing her personally or having her killed by third parties.

Thewomanhasarealperceptionofthehighrisktowhichsheisexposedandisconvincedthattheallegedoffenderiscapableofkillingherorfulfillinghisdeaththreatsthroughthirdparties(familymembers,friends,hitmen,etc.).


9. Services that can use the RVD-BCN Guide

TheRVD-BCNisvalidatedforuseinthefollowingareas/services:

• MinistryofJustice(CrimeVictimSupportOffice,CriminalTechnicalAdvisoryTeamandothers) • CoordinatingProsecutionofDomesticViolence(SupremeCourtofJustice) • Policeforces(Mossosd’EsquadraandGuàrdiaUrbana) • Healthservices(emergency,primarycareservices,hospitals) • Socialservices(generalservices,caredivisionforgender-basedviolenceandtheremainderofthecaredivi- sions) • CatalanInstituteforWomen(ICD)

Forfurtherinformation,pleaseseetheRVD-BCN Manual inthethirdpartofthisdocument.

26


27


THE RVD-BCNMANUAL

PART III

1Introduction

2Specific aspects of intimate partner violence (IPV)

3IPV prevention: violence risk assessment and management

4The RVD-BCN: guide and risk factors

4.1Risk factors of the RVD-BCN

4.2Other risk factors

5Technical specifications of the RVD-BCN

6The RVD-BCN Short User Manual

7Conclusions and recommendations for use

8References

29


1Introduction

Theprofessionalactivityofpractitionersdealingwithwomenexperiencinggender-basedviolencecallsforcons-tantattentiontopredictingnewincidentsofviolence.Concernoverthepossibilityofmistreatment,violenceorabuseofthevictim,particularlythemostsevereandirreversibleabuse,continuingorworseningisoneoftheoverarchingreasonsforinterveningandtherebyensuringthesafetyandwell-beingofthevictim.WepresenttheRVD-BCNGuideanditsusermanual,whichistofacilitatethemakingofpredictionsontheoccurrenceorrecurrenceofsevereviolentincidentsagainstwomenperpetratedbytheirpartner(currentorformerpartner).

TheRVD-BCNisusedtoconductriskassessmentsofintimatepartnerviolence.Itconstitutesaprocedurewhichestablishesguidelinesandnormstofacilitatethedecision-makingofprofessionalsthatworkwithwomenexpe-riencingsituationsofviolencethroughoutthestagesoftheirintervention.Thisguidehasbeendesignedforuseprimarilywithfemalevictimsbutcanalsobeused,byextension,withoffenders.Violenceagainstwomeninthecontextofanintimaterelationship,whichshallbeidentifiedwiththeacronymIPV(intimatepartnerviolence),isacomplexandrepetitiveactthatisdifficulttoeradicateandhingesonmanyelements,noteworthyamongwhicharecertainriskfactorsoftheoffender,thevictimandrealitiesthatsurroundtherelationshipheldwiththepartnerandalsowiththeformerpartner.IdentifyingtheriskofIPVemergingisthefirststeptowardspreventingit,andmustbepersonalisedanddesignedaccordingtothedynamicrealityofIPVitself.

Toeffectivelyassesstheriskofintimatepartnerviolence,thefollowingarerequired:

a) knowledgeofthephenomenonofviolenceagainstwomen; b) skillsinassessmenttechniquesandtheevaluationofrelevantinformationinconflictsituations; c) ultimately,knowinghowtomakedecisionsandcommunicatingthemtotheagentsinvolvedinthosesitua- tions.

TheRVD-BCNputsforwardaguideproceduretocontribute–intheviolenceriskassessmentprocess–towardsdecision-makingonthemostprobable futureviolentacts,basedonso-calledstructuredprofessional judge-ment.ThismanualpresentstheRVD-BCNguide,theinstructionsonhowtouseitaswellasotherrelevantinfor-mationinordertoguaranteeeffectiveusethereof.

Asexplainedinthefirstpartofthisdocument,theorigin,creationanddevelopmentofRVD-BCNwereaninitia-tiveoftheBarcelonaNetworktoFightViolenceAgainstWomen.TheNetworkisastructurethatoverseesthetechnicalcooperationoftheservicesandpublicinstitutionsinvolvedinthefighttowardseradicatinggender-basedviolence.Itwascreatedin2001andpromotedbyBarcelonaCityCouncilandtheBarcelonaHealthCon-sortium.Itencompassesthesocial,health,police,educationalandjudicialservicesthatworktowardsgender-basedviolencepreventionandcare.TheRVD-BCNwasdesignedsothatallthepractitionersthatworkintheseservicescouldbenefitformitsuse.ThecharacteristicsandfeaturesoftheRVD-BCNallowdifferentprofessionals–whatevertheirtrainingandqualifications–tohaveaguideforassessingtheriskofintimatepartnerviolence,whichisobjective,reliableandisendowedwithaprovenpredictivepower.

Itwillnodoubtbeofenormoushelpintheirday-to-dayworkinfavourofthesafetyandwell-beingofthevictimsofintimatepartnerviolence.

30


2Specific aspects of intimate partner violence (IPV)

In1991,theUnitedNationsDraftDeclarationonViolenceAgainstWomendescribedviolenceagainstwomenas“anyact,omission,controllingbehaviourorthreatthatresultsin,orislikelytoresultin,physical,sexualorpsychologicalinjurytowomen”.UnderwhattheWorldHealthOrganisation(WHO)calls“violenceagainstwo-men”isintimatepartnerviolence,whichisoneofthemostcommonformsofsuchviolence.Inbothscientificandprofessionalliterature,violenceagainstwomeninwhichtheoffenderisorhasbeentheintimatepartnerofthevictimismostlycalled“intimatepartnerviolence”(IPV).Itissometimescalled“gender-basedviolence,even“domesticviolence”,butitmustbeborneinmindthatIPVisaspecificformofviolenceandisnotexactlythesameastheaforementionedones.Thelegaldesignationof“gender-basedviolence”asdefinedincurrentSpanishlegislationisequivalenttothetermIPVweemployinthismanual.IPVisnotrestrictedtotheviolenceinwhichthevictimisalwaysawomanandtheoffenderisalwaysaman;infact,initsoriginalandstrictsense,itisusedirrespectiveofthegenderoftheoffenderandthevictim.Thetermpartnerrefersspecificallytothe“intimatecouple”,comprisingtwopeople,menorwomenoflegalageoradolescentsthathavehadconsensualintimaterelationsoveraminimumperiodofseveralweeks,whethertheyhavecohabitedornotcontinuouslyatthesameaddress.Therefore,it includesspousesandformerspouses,thoseincurrentorformerdefactorelationships,fiancés,andalsomorecasualintimatepartners.Inthelattercase,accordingtotheprofessional’sjudgement, itmustbeborneinmind, inordertoconsidertheIPV, iftherehasbeenaconsensual,relativelystableand lasting intimaterelationshipbetweenthemembersofthecouple.Needlesstosay,thisdefinitionexcludesfraternal,workorfamilyrelationswhoserelationshipisnotbasedontheexistenceofcurrentorpastsexualandintimaterelations.

IntimatepartnerviolencewasdefinedinastrictsensebytheWHOin2005as“therangeofsexually,psychologi-callyandphysicallycoerciveactsusedagainstadultandadolescentwomenbycurrentorformermaleintimatepartners”.Inthissense,inSpainandCatalonia,gender-basedviolence,thegeneraltermbasedonthedefinitionofOrganicLaw1/2004onComprehensiveProtectionMeasuresagainstGender-BasedViolence,correspondstoaformofpartnerviolenceinwhichtheoffenderisamanandthevictimisawoman.Forthisreason,thefulldescriptionoftheobjectofanalysisoftheRVD-BCNGuideis“violenceagainstwomeninheterosexualpartnerrelationships”.Throughoutthismanual,wewillcallsimplycallit“intimatepartnerviolence”(IPV)forthesakeofsimplicityandrealism.Therealityofintimatepartnerviolencerevealstousthatthefrequencyofsevereviolentactsperpetratedbythemanonhisfemalepartner(orformerpartner)isthehighest(almostover90%)ofthemostsevereformsofviolence(Andrés-Pueyo,2010)1.Onthebasisofthisepidemiologicalobservation,thetermIPVhasbeengeneralisedtoshortentheterm“violenceagainstwomeninheterosexualpartnerrelationships”.

IPVrepresentsaconstellationofabusiveandviolentactsthatmeninflictonwomen,currentorformerintimatepartners,andwhichrangeformsevereviolentacts,murders,kidnappingsandseverephysicalassaultstonon-sexualharassment,humiliation,coercion,threats,extortion,sexualabuseandeconomicviolence.Therefore,itisacomplexphenomenonthatcoversdifferentformsofviolentconduct,attitudes,feelings,practices,experien-cesandrelationshipstylesbetweenmembersofanintimatecouple(orformercouple)thatcausesharm,malai-seandseriouspersonallossestothevictim.Itisavariedandcomplexpatternofviolentandcoercivebehaviour,

1.Physicalorsexualviolence,threatsofphysicalharmordeathandstalking.(Andrés-Pueyo,2010).

31


whichisgenerallyrepetitiveandincludesdifferentacts(sometimesintentions,suchasinthecaseofthreats)ofintimatepartnerviolence.Alltheseacts,whichcanbecombinedandspreadovertimeinachronicmanner,seektosubjectthevictimtothepowerandcontroloftheoffenderthroughfear,insecurity,suffering,painandphysicalorpsychologicalharm.Ingeneral,andwithoutintervention,IPVisrecurrentandrepetitive,verydifficulttoeradicatebecausesometimesitisaconstituentpartofacouple’srelationship.Insomecases,theprocessescalatesinthefrequencyandseverityofviolentincidentsthatcauseseriousharmandconsequencestothevictim,whichcanevenendupcausingpersonalorsocialincapacitationordeath.

TheWHOdefinesfourformsofviolence:physical,sexual,psychologicalandthatarisingfromcontrollingbe-haviouronthepartofpartnersorformerpartners(husbands,boyfriends,etc.).TheRVD-BCNisbuiltaroundassessingtheriskofsevereviolenceincludingphysical,sexualandcertainthreatsandcontrollingbehaviourandstalkingthat,duetotheirpeculiarities,maybecomephysicaland/orrealsexualactsofviolenceandthatmaybecomearealityinthefuture.

Physical violence2impliesanyintentionalactofforcethatcausesorcouldcausebodilyharmtothevictimassaul-ted(bruises,injuries,burns,fractures,beatings,etc.).Itincludesanyactinvolvingforceagainstawoman’sbodyaswellasanyfailuretoassistawoman,intentionallyornegligently,withtheresultorriskofcausingherphysicalinjuryorbodilyharm.Physicalviolenceisidentifiedempiricallywithactssuchasbeingpunchedorreceivingtheimpactofanobjectthrownwiththedeliberateintentionofinflictinginjury,beingpushedorhavinghairpulled,beingpunchedwiththefistorhitwithanyotherobjectthatcouldcauseinjury,beingkicked,draggedorbeaten,strangledordeliberatelyburnedandthreatenedwithagun,knifeoranotherweapon,attemptingtoknockapersondownwithavehicle,etc.

Sexual violencedescribesabroadrangeofspecificactsagainstthefreedomandrightsofsexualintimacy,exe-cutedagainstthewillofthewomanthroughthreats,intimidation,coercionorwhenthewomanisinastateofunconsciousnessorhelplessness.Itcoversanyactofasexualnaturethatdoesnothavetheconsentofthewoman,includingexhibition,observationandtheimpositionofsexualrelations,bymeansofviolence,intimida-tion,dominationoremotionalmanipulation.Italsoincludesdifferentformsofsexualabusewithpsychologicaland/orphysicalcoerciontoobtainsex,forcingunwantedsexualpracticesonthewoman,forcingthewomantohavesexualrelationswhensheisill,pregnantorpostpartum,forcinghertoswappartners,tohavesexualrela-tionswithanimals,theuseofpornographyorsexualgameswithoutconsent,thefilmingofintercoursesessionsandtheundueuseofnewtechnologies,etc.Thedifficultythewomanhasinidentifyingthisformofviolencein-flictedbyherpartnerisoftenrelatedtobeliefsontheobligationandrighttomaintainintimaterelationswithinthecouple.Sexualviolenceisidentifiedempiricallyaccordingtothefollowingthreeelements:a)beingforcedtohavesexualrelationsagainstthewoman’swill;b)havingsexualrelationsforfearofwhatherpartnermightdo,andc)beingforcedtoperformasexualactsheconsidersdegradingorhumiliating.

2.Violence:strategytoinflictdeliberateharm.Mistreatment:frequentviolence.Abuse:violenceinflictedinthecontextofatrustingrelationship.

32


Psychological violence,alsosometimescalledemotionalabuseand/orverbalviolence,referstoabusiveactsorbehaviourthatmaycausefeelingsofbelittlement,intimidation,guilt,sufferingandunderminingorlossofself-esteeminthevictim.Someexampleswouldincludehumiliating,insulting,belittling,shouting,ridiculing,accu-sing,socialoreconomicisolation,threatening,abandoning,destroyingordamagingpersonalobjects.However,italsoincludesdenyingtheviolence,blamingorattributingtheresponsibilityfortheviolentactstothevictim.Psychologicalviolencecoversanybehaviourordeliberateomissionthatcausesdegradationorsufferingofthewomanasaresultofthreats,humiliation,vexation,thedemandforobedienceorsubmission,verbalcoercion,insults,isolationoranyotherlimitationofherfreedom.Itincludesactssuchasinsultingandfoullanguage,de-grading,ridiculing,humiliating,underminingself-esteem,guilt,blamingandmorbiddistrusttowardsher.Italsoincludesthreateningposturesandgestures(forinstance,threateningviolenceortotakeawaythechildren)andrestrictivebehaviour(forinstance,controllingfriendships,withholdingmoney,limitingthewoman’sfreedomtoleavethehome).Groupedunderthisformofviolenceiscertaindestructivebehaviour(forexample,towardsobjectsofeconomicorsentimentalvaluetothevictimorthemaltreatmentofthevictim’spets)thatseekstofrightenthepartnerandmakethemsufferemotionally.Alsopartofpsychologicalviolenceisthewomanbla-mingherselffortheman’sviolentconduct.

Thoughapparentlycertainactionssuchasbreakingordestroyingobjects,spacesoranimalsbelongingtothewomanmaybeconsideredphysicalviolence,forthepurposesofIPVriskassessmenttheyaredeemedtobepsychologicalviolence.Thisformofviolencemayhaveasymbolicvalue,forinstance,tearingupphotographsorletters,oramaterialvalue,suchasmakingjewellerydisappear,takingoverthecar,breakingfurniture,torturingorevenkillingpets,burningthehousedown,etc.

Threats and stalking.Thesetwoformsofviolence,verycommoninintimatepartnerviolence,deservetobementionedseparatelyandspecifically.Firstly,onaccountoftheformofbehaviourinvolvedinthesetwoformsofassault,weconsiderthempsychological(thereisnodirectphysicalcontact)buttheyarespecificbecausetheyshow,whentheyaregenuine,theoffender’sintentiontocarryoutcertainformsofphysicalviolence.Inthefirstcase,threats,especiallywhentheyrefertoanticipatingphysicalassaultsandactions,areverysimilartophysicalviolencenotsomuchbecauseoftheirconsequencesbutratherbecausetheyindicatethemotivationandanticipatefutureassaults.Generallyspeaking,itisappropriatetoconsiderthemasmoreaformofphysicalthanpsychologicalviolencewhentheyarenotfleetingandverycircumstantial(Kroop,2008).Itmustberemem-beredthatcertainthreats,especiallythosethatcauseafirmbeliefand/oruncontrollablefear,inflictedonthewomanbyherpartner,shouldbeconsideredanalogoustootheractsofphysicalviolence(Andrés-Pueyo,2009).

Withregardtoharassment,itshouldbementionedthatthisformofviolencethatgenerallyinvolvesharassingone’spartner isusually identifiedasnon-sexual harassmentorstalkingtodistinguish it fromotherformsofharassmentwithaclearsexualintentinflictedbymenonwomen.Itisaphenomenonthathasacquiredmuchprevalencesincelegalmeasuresimposedontheabuserforcehimtostayawayfromhispartner.Actsofstalkingincludefollowingorspyingonthewoman,sendingletters,emailsormakingdirectorindirectphonecalls,ma-kingthemselvesvisibleinplacesfrequentedbytheirpartner,stealingtheirpostandnotgivingthemthepostthatcorrespondstothem,sendingthemanonymousletterswiththreatsandinstructionsonwhattodo,etc.

33


Alsoincludedinthissectionisbehaviourthatdoesnotrespecttheprivacyofthewoman,forinstance,contro-llingphonecalls,email,correspondence,etc.

ThelastcategoryofviolenceagainstwomenwhichhasbeendistinguishediswhattheWHOcallscontrolling behaviour anditisalmostalwayscharacteristicofviolenceinflictedinthedomesticorintimatepartnercontext.Controllingbehaviourincludesactssuchaskeepingthewomanfromseeingherfriends(threateningthem),res-trictingthewoman’scontactwithherfamilyofbirth,insistingonknowingwheresheisatalltimes,ignoringortreatingherindifferently,gettingangrywithherifshespeakswithothermen,constantlyaccusingherofbeingunfaithful,controllingheraccesstohealthcareandothersimilarbehaviour,economiccontrol,etc.Infact,itisamixedcategorywhichencompassesmanyformsofbehaviourandattitudesonthepartoftheoffenderthatarealreadyidentifiedtoanextentinpsychologicalviolence,threatsandstalking.

AlltheseformsofviolencearecommoninIPV.Somenewandimportantelementsmustbeaddedtohaveafullpictureoftherealityofthisphenomenon.ThesearefeaturesofIPVwhicharecommontootherformsofvio-lenceagainstwomen.Threeofthemaresetapart:severity,recurrenceandacombinationofformsofviolence.

• Severity.Althoughallviolence,evenlow-intensityviolence,inevitablycausesharm,andtheeffectsare subjective,wecandistinguishdifferentlevels.Thereisagraduation,whichisdifficulttoquantify,which rangesfrommilderincidentsofpsychologicalabusetosevereandrecurringtrauma,oreventoassaults thatresultindeath(lethality).TheseverityofphysicalviolenceisanessentialfeatureinIPVassessments. Forinstance,physicalviolenceisstabbingaknifeintheabdomenandalsokickingorpunching.Infact, theriskofdeath,themostsevereformofphysicalviolence,mustbeconsideredseparatelyduetoits greatspecificity(Campbell,1985,2003),especiallyifwewishtoassesstheriskthisactionmaycause. The RVD-BCN Guide is not created to specifically assess the risk of murder of the woman (Andrés Pueyo,2009,2010).Forthisformofviolence,thereistheDangerAssessmentTool(DA)(Andrés-Pueyoet al.,2008).Differencesinthedegreeofviolentconductarehighlyimportant.Sexualviolencecanvary fromforcingunwantedsexualrelationstoforcingthewomantoengageinsexualrelationswiththird partiesorinpublic.Psychologicalviolencecanvarybetweenoccasionalhumiliation,coercionandthe threatofassaultanddeathonchildrenorparentsofthevictim.Kidnapping,telephonestalking,etc., anyformofviolencecanbyconsideredin levelsofseverity.Whenit isaquestionofanticipatingthe likelihoodoffutureviolence,thisisaparameterthatmustnotbeoverlooked,andtheRVD-BCNhasvery muchtakenthisintoaccountinitsdesign.

Thisrankingaccordingtotheseverityoftheviolenceappliestothreats,thatrangefromgeneraland unspecificstatementstoothermorespecificandexplicitones,suchasthreateningtokillthevictimor their familymembers,andmayalso includetheoffender’ssuicide.Thesamecanbesaidofstalking, whichmaybemild,suchasasporadicphonecallorananonymousletterintheletterbox,orveryserious, suchaspermanentlyfollowingthevictimonthestreet,constantlyenteringthehomeofthepartneror formerpartnerillegallywhentheynolongerlivetogether,etc.Thecasuistryisveryextensivebutthe severityoftheincidentsandtheirpotentialconsequencesshouldbedistinguishedand,inaddition,they shouldbebrokendownindividuallyaccordingtothevulnerabilityofthevictim.

34


Table1.Formsofviolenceandseverityofviolentactions

• Recurrence, frequency and chronicity.IPVisarepetitivephenomenon,whichisveryoftenchronicand issometimescalled“habitualabuse”.Infact,themodelsthatspeakofthecycleofviolence,suchasthat ofL.Walker(Walker,1999)showthisrecurrence,whichinmanycasesconcealsaverylonghistoryspan- ningfivetotenyearsonaverage.

• The combination of forms of violence.Veryoftenmorethanoneformofviolencepresentsitself;specifically,themostcommoncombinationisphysicalandsexualviolence(whichdoesnotoccurinother formsofviolentcrimes).Psychologicalviolenceisomnipresentandappearstogetherwiththeabove. Thiscombinedmanifestationmaybelastingornot,accordingtohowthecouple’srelationshipevolves. Inintimatepartnerviolence,thethreeformsofabuse–physical,sexualandpsychological–generally occurtogether.

IPV, inadditiontothecomponentsandcharacteristicsdescribedabove,andwhicharecommontoviolenceagainstwomen,onaccountofitsspecificmake-up(surroundingtheintimaterelationsbetweenmembersofthecouple),hasaseriesofspecificfeaturesthatmustbeunderstoodtopreventit.Theyare:

1. High recurrence.Fortworeasons,IPVhasahighlevelofrecurrence:a)itoccursbetweenpeoplethat have(orhavehad)acloseandongoinginterpersonalrelationshipovertime,andb)duetotheveryfact thattherelationshipisclose,itismorelikelythatconflictsandviolentactswillarise. 2. There is marked inequality in the relationship between offender and victim; this inequality can be identifiedbycomparingages,resources,powerrelations,etc.

Physical Sexual Psychological Threats Stalking

Severe

Injurieswhichrequiremedicalattentionand/orhospitalisation

Imposingviolentanddangeroussexualrelations

Publichumiliationandcoercion

Publicthreatsmakingreferencetohowandwhentheywillbecarriedout

Constantphysicalfollowing,whichisveryapparentandintrusive

Mild

Assaultsthatdonotcauseinjuriesorwhichareoflittlemedicalimportance

Demandingsexualrelationsasamaritalduty

Insultsandocca-sionalemotionalbelittlement

Expressionsofagenericnatureinargumentsandsituationsofanger

Occasionalpho-necallswithhurtfulcontent

35


3. Generally,IPVoccursinverymuchfrequentedprivatesurroundings(withinthehome,thefamily,etc.). Therefore,itcanveryeasilygounnoticed,andcanevenneverbediscoveredunlessthevictimreportsit.

4. The forms of violence against women are often varied and can occur successively or simultaneously intme.Infact,changingtheuseofviolenttacticsdependingonthecourseofthechro- nicityoftheabuseisverycommon. 5. IPV,especiallythatwhichoccurswithinthefamily,takesplaceinacontextinwhichthe separation and break-up of the offender and the victim are very difficult,sometimesimpossible,whichfacilitatesthe recurrenceofIPV.

6. The victim’s feelings towards the offender tend to be contradictoryandmuchmorecomplicatedthat thoseofa victimtowardsanunknownoffender, therefore future incidentsmay suddenlyoccurasa resultofchangesinfeelingsandtherelationsofbothmembersofthecouple.

7. Thepattern of violenceinflictedbythepartneronthewoman,farfromcorrespondingtoanaccidental incident,usuallyfollowsapatternofongoing abuse.

Finally,inordertogetafullpictureofintimatepartnerviolence,wewillbrieflyoutlinetheconsequencesofIPVactions.Likeanyviolentact,theconsequenceshaveacertainnaturedependingontheformofviolenceand,naturally,willbethecentralaspectofpreventionsinceitisthesethatdeterminethemalaiseandseverityoftheincidents.WewillsummarisetheconsequencesofIPVbasedonaWHOreport(2002).Theycanbegroupedaccordingtotheirseverity,whotheyaffect(besideswomen)andwhethertheyaffectphysicaland/ormentalhealth.Themaineffectscategorisedasfatalinclude:immediatedeath(homicideorsuicide)anddeathduetolateorchronicconsequencesofIPV(injuries,suicide,HIV/AIDS,etc.).Inphysicalhealth,itiscommontofind:variousinjuries(bruises,traumatisms,wounds,burns,etc.,thatcanendupcausingincapacity),functionalim-pairment,non-specificphysicalsymptoms(forinstance,headaches),worsesubjectivehealth,obesityorextre-methinness.Inchronichealtheffects:chronicpain,irritablebowelsyndrome,othergastrointestinaldisorders,somatic complaints, cardiovascular disorders,metabolic or endocrine disorders, the failure to followhealthtreatmentanddisinterestinpersonalcare.Withregardtosexualandreproductivehealth:lossofsexualdesire,menstrualdisorders, sexually transmitteddiseases includingHIV/AIDS, vaginalbleedingandfibrosis, chronicpelvicpain,urinaryinfection,unwantedpregnancy,miscarriage,etc.Inaddition,andforviolenceduringpreg-nancy,thefollowingmayappear:vaginalbleeding,thethreatofmiscarriage,ariskpregnancy,prematurebirth,lowbirthweightofbaby,etc.

36


Intheareaofmentalhealth,theappearanceofdepression,anxietyandsleepdisorders,post-traumaticstressdisorder,eatingdisorders,suicideattemptsandalcohol,drugandsubstanceabusearecommon.Withregardtotherelationship,commonaresocialisolation,joblossandabsenteeismatwork.Inthiscontextliestheproblemof“mentalpainandsuffering”,whichisthemostcomplexlegalaspectofpsychologicalviolencetoassessandidentify.Emotionaldistress,thelegalequivalentofso-called“psychologicaldamage”isarealphenomenonbutthedifficultyofrecordingitobjectivelyishuge,andthereforethemotivebehindmajorlitigations.Likeallotherpsychologicalphenomena,itcannotbeobserveddirectly.Itsexistencecanbeconfirmedbywayofanalysingthepresenceofcertainindicatorsinthefieldofmotorbehaviour,verbalbehaviour,physiologicalresponsestoemotionalchangesassociatedwithpsychologicaleventsaswellastheireffects.Themostwidelyacceptedem-piricalreferenceof“emotionaldamage”intheforensiccontextisapsychopathologicalconditionthatiscalledpost-traumaticstressdisorder(PTSD).

PTSDcorrespondstothe“psychologicalimprint”causedbyactionsoreventsexperiencedbythevictimatthehandsoftheiroffender.PTSDisconsideredtobesimilartothephysical injuriesresultingfromdifferentactsgroupedunderthelabelofphysicalviolence(punching,pushing,stabbing,etc.).ForthesamefeaturesofPTSD,thisisatransientphenomenonandthereforethepreciseevaluationmustbedoneinalimitedtimespan(con-cerningtheactionstheycaused).ItisconsideredthatoncethePTSDhasdisappeared(atleastthesymptomsthatcharacteriseit),certainsymptomatologicaldisordersofanemotionalnaturesuchasdepression,dysthymiaandanxietydisorderscan last.Followingtheanalogywithphysicalviolence, thesesecondarysymptomsareconsideredchronicorpermanentconsequencesofemotionaldamage(similartothescarsproducedbyhealedwounds).

Indirectlyonthehealthofchildren,alterationsinintegraldevelopment,feelingsofthreat,learningandsociali-sationdifficulties,adoptionofviolentconductwithclassmates,andtheincreaseinthefrequencyofpsychoso-maticillnessesmayappear.Violencemayalsoaffectotherdependentsofthewomanandthoselivingwithher.

37


AconclusionmostlyacceptedbyallIPVspecialistsisthatthebestwaytoFIGHTviolenceanditseffectsispre-vention(WHO,2006).Noteworthyamongthestrategiestodiminishanderadicateviolenceagainstwomenarepreventioncampaigns,earlydetection,theenactmentoflawsagainstIPV,theallocationofresourcestoavoidrevictimisationofabusedwomen,etc.Violenceriskassessment,forwhichtheRVD-BCNwasdesignedandbuilt,isacross-cuttingelementinmanypreventionstrategies.ThepredictionoffutureviolenceisinitselfoneofthemainIPVpreventionmeasuressince,withitsuse,newassaults,andeventhewoman’sdeath,canbeavoided(DuttonandKropp,2000;ZoeHiltonandHarris,2005).

Forpreventiontobeeffective,therearemanyandvariedstrategies.AllofthemconvergeonthefactthattoreduceIPV,theriskfactorsmustbereducedandthevictimandoffenderprotectionfactorsmustbeincreased.Theenvironmentalconditionsthathinderviolentactionsmustalsobe improved.Thus,providingprotectionresourcestoknownorpotentialvictims(empowerment)andreducingtheviolentpotentialofoffendersmaybecomplementaryobjectivestothefightagainstIPV.Thepreventionofviolenceinvolvesthosesectorsrelatedtocriminaljustice,education,socialwelfare,security,transport,housingandthemedia,aswellasassociationsthatrepresentvictimsandothersocialgroups.Prevention involves integratedcommunityactionaimedspe-cificallyatachievingthisobjective.TheRVD-BCNGuideisthereforeanotherelementinIPVpreventionandisdesignedsothatallprofessionalscanuseitonaregularbasis.

Primarypreventionpoliciestargettheentirepopulation,meaningthatitseffectsareraisingtheawarenessofpossiblefuturevictims,reportingpossibleabusers,makingtheresourcestoFIGHTIPVknown,etc.However,preventionpoliciesstretchwellbeyondthat,especiallywhenwespeakofsecondaryandtertiaryprevention.Se-condarypreventionisdonewithsubjectsthataremembersofpopulationsorgroupsthatarelikelytobevictimsoroffenders,thusitismuchmoreselectiveandmoreeffectiveatthesametime.Thethirdtypeofpreventionisoncasesthathavealreadybeenidentifiedasgender-basedviolencevictimsoroffenders.Bothinsecondaryandtertiaryprevention,theinvolvementofprofessionalsisdirectandpersonalised.Theseprofessionalsbelongtogroupssuchassocialworkers,securityagents,justiceofficialsandprofessionals,healthworkers,etc.Alltheseprofessionalsatsomepointintheirtaskofassistingwomenmayencountercasesofintimatepartnerviolenceandhavetoacttopreventitsconsequences.

Inanypreventionprogrammeofasecondaryortertiarynature,itisnecessarytoascertaina priorithemagnitude,typeandriskoftheactwewishtoprevent,naturallytoactbothaccordinglyandproportionatelytotheriskdetec-ted.Thisobservationisfundamentalbecausepreventionrequiresefforts,whichareveryoftencostlyandwhosebenefitsarespacedoutovertime,tobemodulatedaccordingtotherealorestimatedrisks.Forexample,letusconsiderforaminute,thelaunchofemergencyserviceswhenamajorstormisapproachingorwhenaninfectionisdetectedthatposesthethreatofanepidemic;theactionsthataredecided(evenincludingevacuationofthepo-pulationatriskordetentionincasesofquarantine)dependontheassessmentthathasbeenmadeofthemeteo-rologicalormedicalrisk.Thisassessmentisstillaprognosisofwhatcouldhappenandthefirststepinprevention.

3IPV prevention:

violence risk assessment and management

38


Secondly,thisanticipationorpredictionmustbecarriedoutefficiently,objectivelyandguaranteeing,inthecaseofwishingtopredictfutureviolence,therightsofthepeopleweareassessing.Thepredictionofviolenceises-sentialinthepreventionofitseffects.Letusconsiderthesituationofafemalevictimofgender-basedviolencewhenherpartnerisreleasedfromprisonwiththeexplicitthreatofmakinghisthreatsofrevengeareality.Thepreciseassessmentoftheriskrunbythiswomanisthekeytopreventingfutureassaultsandsafeguardinghersafetyandwell-being.Thisriskassessment–anticipatingwhatcanhappenwithacertainrealisticestimationoftherisk–withthisoffenderinthefuturemayexplicitlyfallonaprisonofficer,asocialworker,apoliceman/womanorapsychologist,oranyotherprofessionalthatdealswiththewomanatrisk.

Seeninanorderlyfashionovertime,preventionfirstcallsforexplicitandcarefulriskassessments.Themostroutineinterventionsdonotalwaysactinthismanner,butwebelievethatthistaskshouldbegeneralisedtoothersituationsinwhichriskassessmentmayseemunnecessary,sincethereasonbehindtheinterventionofapractitionerwithawomandoesnotaimtodirectlyprotectherasaknownvictimofIPV.However,whenthe-seprofessionalsintervene,theymakeaprediction.Generallyspeaking,itisaninformalorimplicitpredictionbutwhichbearsaninfluenceontheintervention.Whenawomanseeksadvicetofindgainfulemploymentinordertobegintheseparationprocessinthefuture,shemaybeinasituationatriskofviolencethatmustbeexplored.Othertimes,aconsultationwithaphysicianforchronicandextensivehealthconditionsmaybetheresultofanactiveIPVprocess.Inmanysituationsofconsultationandrequestsforassistancemadebywomen,implicitestimatesoftheriskoffutureviolencearerequiredoftheprofessional.Inthesesituationsinwhichthepredictionisimplicit,theuseofappropriateproceduresisnotusualandtheprognosisisa“by-product”ofthegeneraltreatmentofthecasemanagedbythepractitionersthemselves.Inothercases,themakingofpredic-tionsismuchmoreformalandexplicit,forinstancewhenaforensicpsychologistsubmitsareporttothejudgeforpenitentiaryissuesontheriskofrecidivismofaninmateconvictedofIPVforwhomaleavepermitisbeingconsidered.

Thepreventionofviolenceagainstwomeninvolvesthefourfollowingphases:

a) Identificationoftheproblem:defining,assessingandmonitoringit.Wehavealreadyseenthatviolence againstwomenhasmanyfacetsandthisdistinctionisparamountinthisfirstphaseofpreventiveaction. Itanswersthequestion:whatdowewishtoprevent?

b) Identificationof the riskandprotection factors forviolenceagainstwomenthatarecharacteristicof differentformsofviolence.Itisinthiscontextofpreventionthatviolenceriskassessmenttakesonavery specialandimportantsignificance.Itanswersthequestion:whichriskfactorsmaybepresentintheim- mediatefuturethatfacilitatetheemergenceofviolence?

c) Thedevelopmentofinterventionstrategiestoactinrisksituations.Itanswersthequestion:howcanwe reduceoreliminateriskfactorsorrendertheconsequencesofviolencelessserious?

39


d) Broad implementation of intervention and action processes in situations of violence. It answers the question:whatresourcesdoesthevictimhavetostopbeingone?

Violenceriskassessmentspecificallydealswiththefirsttwophasesandcontributestowardsdevelopingthefollowingstages.TheRVD-BCNGuideisdesignedtomeettheneedsofexpertsintheinitialtwophasesandtoorientatethethird.Naturally,thefourthphasewilldependontheprofessionalcontextinwhichthevictimisfound.

The risk of violence and its prediction

Violenceisacomplexissueand,fortunately,severeviolenceislessfrequent;this,initself,hinderstheprecisionofprognoses.Wemustconsiderthatthefrequency(inepidemiologicalterms)ofverysevereabusestandsataverysmallproportionperhundredthousand(theriskofmurderisaverysmallnumberpermillion),whichmakethemeventsthatareextremelydifficulttopredict.Oneofthereasonsforthecomplexityofviolence,andtheirprediction,istheirmulti-causalnature.Asingleandexclusivereasonthatfullyjustifies(whichexplainsinacau-salsense)violentactsorbehaviourdoesnotexist.Butthesignificanceofviolentconductanditsconsequencesisthemainreasonbehindtheneedtopredictit.Violenceandviolentactsaresomewhatuncertaineventsakintootherphenomenasuchasatmospheric,technologicaloreconomicchanges.Knowingwhicharetheso-calledriskfactorsandthetriggersofviolentconductconstitutestheconceptualcoreofpreventionandthepredictionofviolentconduct.

Predictingoranticipatingaviolent incidentrequires,aboveall,knowledgeofthepasthistoryofthispheno-menon.Therein lies the foundation, thebasis, forpredicting futureviolence. Inaddition,veryoftenpreciseknowledgeofthecausesandprocessesthatproduceaphenomenondoesnotguaranteethecapacitytoeffecti-velypredictit.Forinstance,weknowwhyanearthquakeoccurs,butthisknowledgeisnotsufficienttopredictiteffectively.Thereasonissimple.Anindividualevent,suchasanearthquakeorasharpdropinthestockmarket,aswellasanassault,aredeterminedbymanydifferentelementswhich,regardlessoftheirorigin,acttogetherandthereforethereisnowaytoascertaintheisolatedeffectsofeachoneofthemandlesssotodeterminetheresultoftheirmultipleinteractionsatagiventime.Therefore,asporadicact,aviolentaction,cannotbepredic-ted.Wecanonlyestimatetheprobabilityofthatactoccurring.Thispredictionisalwaysarelativeestimationoftheriskofthatspecificactoccurring.Thissubtlechangeisessentialforunderstandingthelimitsandstrengthofthepredictivepower,andobviouslyaffectstheRVD-BCN,whichisnotlikeacrystalballoradeckofcardstopredictthefuture.TheRVD-BCNisaguidetoestimatetheriskofsevereintimatepartnerviolence.

Researchersandprofessionalsworkinginthedomainofviolencehaveworkedintenselytoascertaintheriskfactors(and,toalesserextent,protectionfactors)which,whethertheyaresociodemographic,family,individualorcommunityfactors,orfactorsofanothernatureareassociatedprobabilisticallywithviolentacts.Riskfactors

40


arecharacteristicsassociatedwithagreaterlikelihoodofagivenactoccurring,inthiscaseanactofphysicalorsexualviolenceorofanothernature.Theyconstitutethecoreelementofriskassessmentsand,thoughthepresenceofoneormoreriskfactorsdoesnotnecessarilyindicatethatacertaincausalrelationshipexists,theprobabilityofaneventassociatedwithriskfactorsdoesincrease.Muchoftheresearchmotivatedbythedesiretopreventandassesstheriskthatmayoccur–inthiscase,violenceagainstwomen–istheresultofepidemio-logicalandcriminologicalresearch.Acommonresultistofindastoreofthesefactorsthatsometimesmustbetreatedaccordingtotheweightorquantitativeinfluencetheyexertontheprobabilityofaviolentactemerging(AndrewsandBonta,2003).RiskfactorsdonotalwayshavetoberelatedwiththecausalityofIPVbecausetheycanbe“triggers”or“modulators”,atothertimestheyarecombinationsofcauses,etc.Itisimportant,inthetaskofriskassessment,toconstantlyavoidanalysingtheeffectofeachriskfactorasifitwerethe“solecause”.

Whatdoestheriskassessmentoffutureviolentconductentail?Estimatingtheriskofviolenceisnothingmorethanaprocedure,atechnique,toidentifytheprobabilityofviolentconductappearinginalimitedtimeperiodandunderconditionsthataremoreorlessdefined(wecallthemfuture“scenarios”).Therefore,andfromthispointforth,wemustbearinmind: a) thattheriskofIPVischangeableandthechangesareassociatedwiththevariabledynamicofthecouple’s circumstances(co-habitation,separation,custody,etc.)and

b) thatthisvariabilitymakesitnecessarytomakerepeatedriskestimations,sincetheestimationmadeat agiventime(forinstance,intheformalseparationofacouple)maybedifferenttotheestimationmade afewmonthslater(forinstance,whenthewomanentersanewintimaterelationship).

Itispossibletopredicttheriskofviolentconductmoreaccuratelythanbysimplechance(Webster,1997;Hart,2001;Andrés-Pueyo,2009).Inaddition,riskestimationthatfollowguidelinesandguidesheightensthepreci-sionofpredictionsoverintuitionorclinicalassessment(Hart,2001).Moreover,theuseofaguide,suchastheRVD-BCN,facilitatesthetransparencyofreviewsofanydecisionregardingtheprognosisanditsfulfilmentornot.

Theriskofanychoiceordecisioncanbepredictedifweknowthedeterminingfactorsofthischoiceandwehaveinformationonsimilarchoicesmadepreviouslyandwhoseresultsareknown.Forthisreason,wemustanalysethepastcarefullyandrigorously.TheproblemofIPVcanbeanalysedwiththesecoordinates.Violentconduct,inwhicheverform,suchasthatofanabuserontheirpartner,isintentionalbehaviour;itistruethatthisbehaviourishighly“automatedoruncontrolled”but,intheend,itisalwaysanactledbythemantocontrolandharmtheirpartner.Violentconductisalwaystheresultofthedecisiontoactinthismanner.

Violenceriskassessmentisessentiallyaprocedurethatenablesustounderstandthedangerofviolentconductappearinginthefuturewiththeobjectiveofeliminatingthisappearanceorlimitingitspotentialadverseeffects.Toundertakethisprocesssuccessfully,weareinterestedinrecordinginformationondifferentaspectsofthe

41


violence:whattypeofviolentconductmayoccur?,howoften?,underwhatconditionsorinwhatscenarios?,whatconditionsarepresent?,hasithappenedbefore?,whatinterventionwasundertaken?,whathappenednext?,etc.

Inrecentyears,newmethodsofviolencepredictionhavebeendevelopedbasedontheassessmentofriskfac-torsthatanticipateviolentconduct(Hart,2001).Thesemethodshavespecialisedinassessingspecificformsofviolenceandhaveemergedfromthecollaborationbetweenresearchersandprofessionalstoresolve,firstofall,thepracticalrequirementofmakingeffectivepredictions(Andrés-Pueyo,2009,Andrés-PueyoandEcheburúa,2010).

Wewillbrieflydefinewhatweunderstandbyrisk,wewilldescribethemainIPVriskfactors,andhowariskassessmentprocedureisprepared(concisely)onthebasisofthestructuredprofessionaljudgementapproach(ArbachandAndrés-Pueyo,2007).

Riskisa“dangerthatmayoccurwithcertainprobabilityinthefutureandofwhichwedonotfullyunderstandthecauses,ortheycannotbefullycontrolled”(Hart,2001).Thisconcept isapplicabletoviolence likeothernaturalorhumanphenomenathathaveharmfulconsequences.Wespeakofthe“riskofviolence”asanalter-nativeconceptto“dangerousness”(Andrés-PueyoandRedondo,2007).

Predicting,anticipatingtheriskofviolenceagainstwomeninthecontextofintimaterelationshipsisdifferenttoexplainingandunderstandingthecausesofthisformofviolence.Riskisourgoal,notviolence,northestateoftheoffenderorvictim;inriskassessmentthiselementbecomesourconcern.Violenceriskassessmentandmanagementiscapableofreducingtheriskwithouthavingafullandvalidtheoryonwhyithappens,whatareitscausesandwhatareitstriggeringmechanisms.Predictingandexplainingarenotalwaysthesame.

Thesearchforriskfactorsinthecontextofintimatepartnerviolence,needlesstosay,hasbeentheobjectofmanysystematicstudiesforthelasttwentyyears.Mostofthemhavefocussedonidentifyingthefactorsthatmakethemanapossibleoffenderand,inparticular,takingintoaccountphysicalorsexualviolenceasacriteriontobepredicted.Lessstudieshavedealtwithanalysingthevariablesassociatedwithvictimisationandpsycholo-gicalviolence.Inaddition,inthecaseofpsychologicalviolence,studieshavenotprovensuccessful.

Itisveryimportanttorememberthereareriskfactorsforspecificformsofviolence.Amongtheriskfactorsforviolenceagainstwomen,threegroupsofcriteriamustbesetapart:thosecharacteristicofviolenceriskpre-dictioningeneral(historyofviolence,age,poorsocialadaptation,irritabilityandimpulsivity,drugandalcoholuse),thosespecifictoviolenceagainstwoman(traditionalgenderroleattitudes,beliefsofmalesuperiorityandtoleranceofviolence,partnerdissatisfaction,etc.),andthosethataremoretypicalofintimatepartnerviolence,suchasrapeoraprevioushistoryofsexualabuse,breachesofthewoman’ssecuritymeasures,uxoricideorho-micidaland/orsuicideideation(Campbell,1995;Dutton,1995).Thereismajorconsensusonthelistsofthesefactorsandmostpredictioninstrumentstakethemintoconsiderationwhenassessingtheriskoffutureviolence.

42


Amongtheriskfactors,threetypescanbedistinguished.Thefirstareso-called“historicorstatic”riskfactors(forinstance:youthviolenceinadults,historyofchildhoodabuse,etc.),sincethetimeinwhichtheyoccurred(thepast)cannotbemodifiedandtheyplayanimportantroleaslong-termpredictors.Therearealso“dynamic”factorswhich,unlikehistoricfactors,arechangeableandhavearelativelyshortduration.Thesedynamicfac-tors,inturn,aredividedinto“acute”,whichhaveaveryshortdurationandarechangeable(forinstance,alcoholpoisoningorseparationordivorceofthecouple),and“chronic”factors,whicharechangeablebutoccurrepea-tedlyandpermanently(alcoholismorachronicseverementaldisorder,etc.).Ofcourse,theeffectsofdynamicfactors,whichmaybeverysignificant,arelimitedintimeandaremanageable(toacertaindegree),unlikestaticfactors.Thischaracteristic,whichisbasedonestimatingtheprobabilityofriskfactorspresentinthepast(inaspecificsituationalcontext)continuingoremerginginthefuture,rendersriskassessmentvariableovertime.

Amongtheexpertsinfutureviolenceriskassessment,thereisagreementthatarelativelysmallnumberofpre-dictors,combinedinacertainmanner,aresufficienttomakegoodgrouppredictions,andifappliedrigorouslyarealsoeffectiveatanindividuallevel.ThemostimportantriskfactorsinIPVriskassessmentarethosewhichrevealinwhichdirectionandwhatwehavetolookforintheprevioushistoryofthecouple,therespectivemem-bersthereofandpreviousviolence.Riskfactorspointustowardschoosingthe“minimum”relevantinformation.Theremainingstepsinriskassessmentareeasierandmoreflexibletoperform.RVD-BCNriskfactorsaredescri-bedlateron,asistheirmeansofassessment.

General IPV risk assessment procedure

Riskassessmentisnotatechniqueexclusivetopsychologyorthehealthsciences. Itpossessessophisticatedtechniquesofgreatapplicability inmanyareasofscienceandtechnology:meteorology,seismology,medici-ne, economics and systemengineering, amongothers. In the areaof penitentiary techniques, violence riskassessmenthasarisen fromtheproblemofviolence recidivism,particularly incasessuchas sexualassaultsandintimatepartnerviolence(Andrés-Pueyo,2008).ThecaseofIPVassessmentisafurtherapplicationofthistechnology.

Theeffectiveassessmentoftheriskofviolenceis,inessentialterms,alogicalprocessthataimstoestimatetheprobabilityofcertainevents(naturally,violentconduct)occurringinthefuture.Riskassessmentdoesnotseektopredictthefuture,describinginadvancewhat,howandwhenafuturecrimewilloccur(asinthefantasydescribedinthefilmMinority Report).Violenceriskassessmentcanbedefinedoperationallyas“theformulationofarisklevelinarangefromlowtohighandwhichisimminent,theresultoftheweightedcombinationofcertainriskandprotectionfactorsas-sociatedempiricallywiththeriskofaspecificformof(violent)behaviouroccurringinagivenfuturescenario”.TheseparametersareeasilyappliedtotheproblemofIPVassessmentandprevention.

43


Tomakesuccessfulpredictions,dataandinformationonvariousbiographicalaspectsoftheallegedoffender,therelationshipofthecouple,etc.,arerequired.Weshouldmentionthattheeffectivenessofriskassessmentdirectlydependsonthequalityoftheinformationontheriskfactorsweareabletocollectandanalyse.

Thegeneralviolenceriskassessmentprocedure,especiallywhenusingguidessuchastheRVD-BCN,comprisesfourphasesthat,insequentialorder,areasfollows:

Fist phase:thecollectionofinformation.Thisisaninitialphasethatdependsmostparticularlyontheavailabilityofdetailedbiographicalinformationonthepersonsinvolvedinviolentacts,especiallytheoffender.Thisinformationgenerallycomesfrominterviews,questionnairesandinformationcompiledinfiles(fromthesocialservices,prisons,doctors,etc.),whichareincreasinglycommoninourprofessionalenvironment.Inaddition,muchofthisinformationcanbecompared,reviewed,deniedorincorpora-tedfromcollateralinformation(workfiles,verbalreportsfromfamilymembers,neighbours,etc.).As-sessmentshingeonthe“faithfulness”ofthisdata,anditisforthisreasonthatrigourandcautionmustbeexercisedwhencompilingallthisinformation.Itmustbepointedoutthatinmostcases,especiallyinthecontextofviolenceagainstwomen–mostlyoccurringincouplesorwithinthefamily–thereisagreatdealofinformationonsomecasesthatisdistributedbysocial,judicial,policeandmedicalservi-ces,whichmustbecombined;professionalsmustnotberequiredtorepeatinterviews,examinationsorstudiesthathavealreadybeenundertakenonthesamepersons,becauseeventuallythisendsupbeingprejudicial.Itistruethatinthisregard,goodcoordinationisrequiredbetweentheservicesinter-veninginviolenceagainstwomen,butitisnecessarytoachievethatanditisnoeasyfeat.Itisstronglyrecommendedthattwotasksofenormousbenefitbecoordinated:a)preparingwritteninformationtobestored,andb)facilitatingtheaccessofallprofessionalstosaidinformation(forinstance,bymeansofashareddatabasesystem).

Thesecond phaseoftheassessmentprocessisdecidingonthepresenceorabsenceofriskfactorsineachformofviolence,andtheirimportance.TheRVD-BCNGuidecontainsalimitedseriousofitemsthatcorrespondtoriskfactorsofadifferentnature,whichpredictfutureviolentconduct.Itmustbedecided,followingtheanalysisoftheavailableinformation,ifthesefactorsarepresentorabsentineachcaseandpoint intimeoftheassessment.Generallyspeaking–forthisreasonthattheseitemshavebeenincludedinguidesandassessmentguides–itisnotdifficulttodecideonthepresenceornotoffactorsinthehistoryorcurrentsituationoftheassessedsubject,butthisdecisionsometimespresentsqueries.Hence,theseguidesoutlinepreciseandreplicablecriteriainwritingthatcontributetothereliabilityofdecisions.

In addition to thepresenceor absenceof theassessed item, in the third phase of violence risk as-sessment,theassessor,notthevictim,isaskedtoassesstheimportanceofcertainitemsinthecaseunderevaluation,whichmayprovecriticaltodecidingon,aboveall,theimminenceoftheriskofvio-

44


lenceortheunexpectedappearanceofanelement(whichmaybeathreattochildreninthecontextofassaultsonpartners).Oncethisdetaileddecision-makingstagehasbeenundertakenaroundeachriskfactor,thefinalassessmentmustbemade,whichentailsdecidingontheoverallriskofviolenceofthecase.Twopreviouselementsthatframetheoutcomeoftheassessmentmustbepointedout.

Thefirstisthateveryassessmentislimitedtoatimeperiodspecifictothecase(sometimes,sixmonthsorayear,butinthecaseofRVD-BCNbetweenthreetosixmonths).Itshouldbenotedthatdecisionsofindefinitevalidityintimearenottaken.

Thesecondisthateveryassessmentconcernsagivenformofviolenceandcannotbegeneralisedindiscriminately.InthecaseofRVD-BCN,itisseverephysicalandsexualviolence.Thatistosay,ifweassesstheriskofsexualviolence,wecannotassumethatitcanbeusedtopredictthepsycho-logicalabuseofpartnersortheriskofsuicide.

Thetaskofsummarisingviolenceriskassessmentbywayof“guides”isnotdoneinaregulatedmannerinsomeofthem(SpousalAssaultRiskAssessment,SARA),withtheexceptionofsomeguidessuchastheRVD-BCN,whichhavesomequantitativeguidelinesandrangesofresponsetocontributetothefinaldefinitionofthelevelofriskdeclared.Thefinalassessmentisdividedintothree(orfour)levels,whichare:low,moderateorhigh(andsometimesimminent),verycommoninallriskassessmentproceduresasdiverseasmeteorology,economicsornaturalhazards.

Thefinal phase intheriskassessmentprocesscorrespondstothecommunicationanddisseminationoftheassessmentfindings.Itshouldbenotedthatgenerallyviolenceriskassessmentsarepartofdifferentprocesses,suchas:decisionsoncourtorprisonproceedings,forensicreviewsofpersonalsituationsofoffendersand/orvictims,victimcareservices,etc.Therefore,theyareassessmentssometimesgearedtowards responding toquestionsposedbyexternalagents to those inchargeof theassessments. Itisworthnotingthattheinformationaffordedbytheseassessments,onaccountoftheirverynature,dependsonthedurationoftheprognosisandtheirprobabilisticrelativity,since,aswehaveinsisted,thepredictionoftheriskofviolencedoesnotdeterminetheguaranteeofoccurrenceofaspecificact.Atothertimes,theseassessmentsaretocommenceaprogrammeofspecificprotectionmeasuresandinterventionsoralsotomakethevictimawareofthesituationthatmayariseintheirrealityofviolenceinthefuture.

Thisentireprocessallowstheassessortodeduceelementstomanagetheriskoffutureviolentconduct.Theex-haustiveanalysisofthevictim’sresources,thehistoryoftheoffenderandthevictim,thein-depthexaminationoftheclinicalstatusatthetimeoftheassessment,andspeculationonthefutureofthesubjectunderdifferentconditionsand/orscenarios,enableshighlyindividualproposalstobeputforward,andthereforepracticesforallthoseresponsibleforviolenceagainstwomen.

45


ThetargetaudienceoftheRVD-BCNareallthoseprofessionalsfromthepublicandprivatesector,involvedinviolenceriskmanagement:prisonofficers,careservicesforwomen,agentsinvolvedinjuvenilejustice,foren-sics,etc.Morespecifically,withtheproperpreparationandtraining,itmaybeusedbyforensicpsychologistsandcriminologists,psychologiststhatworkwithprisonofficers,clinicalpsychologists,clinicalandforensicpsy-chiatrists,forensicpathologists,criminologists,policeandStatesecuritybodies,otherjusticestaff,socialwor-kers,primarycarephysicians,nursingstaff,etc.Theseguidescanbeemployedinvariouspopulationsectors,noteworthyamongwhicharepeoplewithcriminalrecords,psychiatrichistory,aswellasindividualsaccusedorimplicatedinactsofdomesticviolencewhetherornottheyhavecriminalorpsychiatricrecords.Theyaredesig-nedtobeappliedtothoseover18yearsofage(minimumagevariesaccordingtothepartnerroleconsideredintheanalysedcase)andtherefore,withtheexceptionofsomeveryraresituations,arenotsuitableforpredictingtheriskofviolenceinadolescents.

Thefirstconsequenceofriskassessment–therefore,thefirstmanagementaction–isrelatedtoriskmeasu-rement.Aswementionedpreviously,threeorfourlevelsofriskaregenerallyused:imminent,high,moderateormedium,andlow.Infact, imminentandhighconstitutethesamelevelofrisk,onlythefirst indicatestheimmediacyoftheriskemergingandcallsforanextremeemergencyintervention.Inthecaseoflowrisk,theriskmanagementactionischaracterisedbynothavingtotakespecificmeasuresorfollow-upmeasuresinthecase.Iftherisklevelisratedasmoderateormedium,actionattwolevelsisrecommended:monitorandfollowuponthecase,interveneifnecessary,andreassess,withinarelativelyshortperiod,therisktoascertainwhetheritincreasesordecreasesoverthecourseofweeksormonthsfollowingthepreviousassessment.Iftheoutcomeoftheassessmentrevealedahighrisk,thenthesituationshouldbetreatedasanemergency:intenseandpriorityaction.Thisprioritybecomesveryurgentwhenthelevelofriskisimminent.3

Meaning of the Risk Levels

LowCommunicatethefindingsoftheassessmenttothewomanwithoutexaggeratingthesituation.Informationregardingtheresourcesavailabletohermustbeprovidedandtheautonomyandsafetyofthewomanmustbepromoted.

ModerateWarnoftheriskoffutureviolence,andengageinfollow-upcombiningtheresourcesathandwiththeautonomymeasuresavailabletothewoman.

High Alertthevictimtothehighrisktowhichsheisexposedandworkcloselywiththewomantoensurehersafety.

3.Imminent:Itsignifiesahighandvalidriskwithin24to48hours.

46


Needlesstosay,therearemanymeasurestobetakentointerveneincasesofviolenceagainstwomen,whichaffectmanyagentswithinwhose(sometimesexclusive)remitofpowerstheyfall,assetforthbylaw.Alltheseagentsmayplayaroleinviolenceriskmanagement.Byandlarge,managementstrategiesareassociatedwithreducingand/oreliminatingriskfactors(alcoholconsumption)orincreasingthoseprotectionfactorsthatmaymitigatetheeffectsofunmodifiableriskfactors.Riskmanagementisabalancebetweenwhatwecandoandwhatwecannotchange,whichaffectsthelikelihoodofviolenceoccurring.

OnaccountoftheveryrepetitivenatureofIPV,riskmanagement,whichisderivedfromassessment, isverydynamicandchangeable,asmuchastheriskofviolenceitself.

Wemust insistthattheefficiencyofviolenceriskpredictionprocessesdoesnotsomuchdependontheas-sessmentprocedureasonthequalityoftheinformationathandtomaketheappropriatedecisions,andwhichmustbeobtained–asmuchaspossible–fromdifferentinformationsourcesandbywayofdifferentinstru-ments.Moreover,theaccuracyofviolenceriskpredictionsdepends,inpart,ontheprevalenceofwhatwewishtopredict,sincethisprevalencedeterminesthelikelihoodofmakingtrueorfalsepositives.Therefore,intimatepartnerviolence,aswehaveseen,hasaprevalenceofaround2%to5%incasesofsevereviolence,10%to20%incasesofnotsosevereviolence,andthisfacilitatesthemakingofaccurateandreasonablepredictions.Wewillnotmakepredictionsoffuturebehaviourbutestimationsoftheprobabilityofcertainviolentincidentswithatimevaliditythatisalsolimited.Inthecaseofphysicalintimatepartnerviolence,havinginformationregardingthepersonality,biographyandrecentstateoftheoffenderthatmaybeprovidedbythevictim,isofgreathelpfortheprofessionaltopredictthelikelihoodoftheoffendercontinuingtheprogressionofassaultsornot.

47


TheRVD-BCNisatoolforassessingtheriskofsevereviolenceagainstwomenperpetratedbyhercurrentorformerpartnerthatmayoccurinthenearfuture(betweenthreeandsixmonths).Itisbasedonthestructuredprofessional judgement approach (Hart, 2001;ArbachandAndrés-Pueyo, 2007),whereby thefinal decisiononriskarisingfromtheassessmentmadeusingthisguidefallsonthepractitionerusingit.Theguideprovidesinformationandresourcestofacilitatethisdecision.TheRVD-BCNdoesnotautomaticallydetectthelevelofrisk,detectionistransferredtothepractitionerasafixedandinvariablevalue.Responsibilityforthedecisiontopredicttheprobabilityofnewincidentsofintimatepartnerviolencefallsonthepractitioner,andtheuseoftheRVD-BCNheightenstheaccuracyandtransparencyofthisdecisionandactsasthefirststepinthefutureinterventionwiththewomanbeingassessed.

TheRVD-BCNcontainsasetofelementswhichrequiretheassessortoundertakeaseriesofstepstoturntheinformationreferringtoaspecificintimatepartnerviolencecaseintoaprognosis.Italsooutlinesguidelinesforactiontopreventtherecurrenceofsevereviolenceagainstwomenperpetratedbythecurrentallegedoffenderinthefuture.

Theguidecollectsinitialinformationonthecase,whichistobeassessedaswellasthedateofassessmentanddetailsconcerningthepersonconductingtheassessment.

Secondly,itincludesalistofriskfactors,whichamounttosixteen,whichareofmandatoryassessmentforallIPVcases.

Theguideispresentedinatablewiththenameofthefactorandtheresponseoptions,ofwhichtherearethree:presence,absenceoftheriskfactor,or“informationnotavailabletogradetheriskfactor”.

Following the listof risk factors, theprofessionalacquiresafirst riskestimationbywayofcounting the riskfactorsthatare“present”inthecaseassessment.ThisinitialassessmentmustbegradedaccordingtotheRVD-BCN’sthreelevelsofrisk:low,moderateandhigh.Toperformsaidcodification,cut-offpointsareoutlinedintheguide.

ThefollowingelementintheRVD-BCNGuideisacontroltoascertainhowmanyriskfactorsinthepreviouslistcouldnotbeassessedduetoalackofcredibleinformation.Thiscontrolallowsustovalidatetheaforemen-tionedcodification,sinceitindicatesthenumberofriskfactorsuponwhichtheinitialassessmentisbased.AminimumofsevenfactorsmustbeassessedintheRVD-BCN.

Beforeconcludingtheriskassessmentprocess,theRVD-BCNprovidesforthepossibilityofincludingotherfac-torstheprofessionalconsiderskeyatthattimeandinthatparticularcasetoassesstheriskexperiencedbythewomanandwhicharemissinginthepreviouslist.Itconcernstheintroductioninthecaseassessmentofanyelementasariskfactorwhichispresentandwhichcouldnotbeassessedintheinitiallistoftheprevioussixteenfactors.Onthebasisofthisnewexplorationofthewoman’srisksituationandpreviousprovisionalandquanti-tativeassessment,theassessormustindicate,inthefollowingsection,thefinalassessmentoftheprognosisof

4The RVD-BCN: guide and risk factors

48


futuresevereviolencetowardsthewomanintheboxesdesignatedforthispurpose.Therearethreecategories:low,moderateandhighriskasthefinaloutcome.

TwofurtherelementsconstitutethefullRVD-BCNGuide:thedescriptionoftheactionundertakenortobeun-dertakenaccordingtothecurrentexistingrisk,andtheindication,wherenecessary,offoreseeablecircumstan-cesthatmayheightentheriskofviolenceinthefutureandwhichwouldactasawarningtoactifthatsituationweretoactuallyoccur.

TheGuideRVD-BCNformisfoundinthesecondpartofthisdocument.

Wewillnowdescribeindetailthenature,definitionandotherdetailsconcerningthesixteenriskfactorsoftheRVD-BCN.

Risk factors of the RVD-BCN

Losdieciséisfactoresderiesgo(FR)delRVD-BCNseagrupanencincocategorías:

1. History of violent conduct towards the partner or former partner

Thesefiveriskfactorsconcernthehistoryofviolenceoftheallegedoffender(partnerorformerpartner)ofthevictim.Theymustbeinterpreted,inthisregard,assomethingthathappenedinthepasteventhoughitcouldbeveryrecent(eventheverydaytheassessmentismade).Itisinterestingtoconsiderthenature,variety,inten-sityandfrequencyoftheviolentactsbutalsotheintentionstoactviolently(whichforvariousreasonshasnotcometopass),aswellasinwhatsituationsithasoccurredandthetimedynamic(increaseordecrease)ofthistypeofbehaviour.Theyconstitutethemostpowerfulgroupofriskfactorsformakingapredictionofviolenceandforthedurationofthevalidityoftheprognosis,becausetheyreflectthehistoryofpartnerviolence(withthecurrentvictimorotherpotentiallyearliervictims)andanticipatewhatmighthappen.Theyareallstaticriskfactorsandreflectthepotentiallastingeffectoffutureandlong-termviolence.

RF1: ASSAULTS OR PHYSICAL AND/OR SEXUAL VIOLENCE TOWARDS THE WOMAN OR FORMER PARTNERS IN THE LAST EIGHTEEN MONTHS

Menwhohavecommittedphysicalassaultsontheirpartner(oronotherpartners)inthepasthaveagreaterriskofrepeatingthisformofviolenceinthenearfuture(Kropp,2008).Therateofrecidivismisestimatedtorangebetween30%and70%inatwo-yearperiod(Dutton,1995).

49


It is importanttobear inmindthatwearemakingaretrospectiveestimationovereighteenmonths,whichareapproximateandflexible.Itisimportanttoconsiderherethehistoryofseverephysicalandsexualviolence(whichhadconsequen-cesthatrequiremedicalattentionorcareforinjuriessustainedfromtheassaults).

Brief definition:Non-accidentalactionthatduringthelasteighteenmonthshasledtophysicaland/orsexualharm.Physicalviolenceisunderstoodtobeanyassault(punching,slapping,scratching,pushing,kicking,etc.)withtheresultorriskofcausingphysicalinjuryorharm.Sexualviolencecoversanyactofasexualnaturewithouttheconsentofthewoman,includingexhibition,observationandtheimpositionofsexualrelationsbymeansofviolence,intimidation,abuseoftheoffender’spositionormanipulation.

Example: “The offender gets angry with his partner because she does not know how to make a potato omelette. He grabs her by the hair, shakes her and closes the door of the fridge tying her hands together.”

RF2: ASSAULTS OR VIOLENCE AGAINST THIRD PARTIES WHETHER OR NOT FAMILY MEMBERS

Thehabitualuseofviolentconduct(generallyphysical)notrestrictedtothepartnerorformerpartnerasavictimisrelevantbecauseitindicatestheallegedoffender’srepertoireofconflictresolutionstrategies.Oneofthemostcommonresearchfindingsisthatoffenderswithaprevioushistoryofviolenceagainstpeoplearemorelikelytobecomeviolentagaininthefuture,andthisprobabilityishigherthatinthosethatdonothaveahistoryofviolenceintheirpersonallife.Ifthisriskfactorispresentandisrelevant(intermsofseverityandfrequency),theprobabilityoffutureassaultscontinuingorwhichmayaffectthevictim’sfamilymembers(parents,children,etc.)shouldbestronglyconsideredintheriskassessmentoutcome.Itisafactorconcerningthegeneralisationoftheriskofviolencetowardspeoplesurroundingthepotentialvictim(particularlyherfamilyanddomesticenvironment).

Brief definition:Theallegedoffendercommittedphysical/sexualassaultorattemptedassaultonfamilymembers(whetherbloodorpoliticalties),and/oracquaintances(maleorfemalefriends,workcollea-guesorneighbours)and/orstrangers.

Example:“The couple’s youngest child claims that his father always slaps his bottom with the cable of the iron when he does something he does not like.”

50


RF3: ASSAULTS ON THE WOMAN DURING PREGNANCY

Themostcommonreasongivenfortheincreasedriskofviolenceagainstwomenduringpregnancyisthatthefather/malepartnerfeelsagreatersenseofstressovertheimpendingbirth.Thestressmani-festsitselfasfrustration,whichisdirectedatthemotherandtheirfuturechild.Womenarefourtimesmorelikelytosufferabuseasaresultofanunintendedorunwantedpregnancy(Heise,1993).Italsoindicatestheallegedoffender’slackofcapacitytoinhibitviolentconductinlightoftheweaknessandvulnerabilityoftheirpartnerandthefoetus.Itisnotacommonfactorbuthasmuchprospectiveinferen-ce.Herewewillnotlimitourselvestoassessingphysicaland/orsexualassaultsandwewillconsiderableplausiblethreats,extremecontrolofthevictim,pressuretoabort,etc.

Brief definition:Physicaland/orsexualassaultduringthewoman’spregnancybyherpartnerorformerpartner.Italsoincludessevereandpersistentpsychologicalabuse.

Example:“When the woman is in the first month of pregnancy, the offender grabs her by the neck, throws her to the ground and insults her while he kicks her in the back. She sustains severe injuries: collarbone strain and multiple bruises.” “Following a physical assault, the woman suffers placenta abruption and as she was seven and a half months pregnant, her daughter was born premature.”

RF4: POLICE/CRIMINAL RECORD OF VIOLENCE AGAINST THE PARTNER OR FORMER PARTNER (CURRENT PARTNER OR OTHER PARTNERS IN PREVIOUS INCIDENTS)

Thisitemreferstotheexistence,inthepreviousbiographyoftheallegedperpetratoroftheviolence,ofsentences,arrests,accusations,appliedsecuritymeasures,etc.,andrelatedtoactsofviolenceagainstthecurrentpartner(orpreviouspartners).Theformsofviolencethatgaverisetothesemeasuresinclu-dedpsychologicalorsexualabuse,threats,bodilyharm,etc.Thepreviousviolence,aswehavesaid,isalwaysthemostimportantreferencepointwhenitcomestothepossibilityoffutureviolence.If,inaddi-tion,thisviolencehasbeeninflictedonawomanthathasbeenapartneroftheoffender,thisindicatesaconsistentpatternofrelationshipbehaviourthatpresentsapoorprognosis.Iftheallegedoffenderhashadpreviousrelatedconvictionsorsanctions,itindicatestheresistanceofhisconducttocourtprocee-dings,thelowdissuasivecapacityofofficialandpunitiveinterventions,aswellastheseriousnessofthepreviousincidents,whichareprobablynotexaggerationsbythecurrentpartner.

Whenthisreferstoviolenceinflicteduponformerpartners,itisverylikelythatthecurrentpartnerdoesnotknowanythingaboutit.

51


Brief definition:Thecriminaland/orpolicerecordoftheallegedoffendershowsahistoryofphysical,sexualoremotionalabuseofacurrentorformerintimatepartner.

Example:“The offender has two convictions because he was involved in a big fight with the use of fi-rearms and because he sexually assaulted his former partner. He therefore served a five-year sentence in prison.”

RF5: THE OFFENDER HAS BREACHED THE WOMAN’S COURT PROTECTION MEASURES

ThehabitandfrequencyofcourtorderviolationsisworryinginIPV,becauseitcansoonbe“imposed”bytheallegedoffenderasa“facility”ofthevictim,andthesesituationsshouldbedistinguishednotsomuchforlegalreasons(inriskassessment)butbecause,forwhateverreason,theysignificantlyincreasetheriskofviolence.Severeassaultsandabusesometimesoccurinthesesituationseveniftheallegedoffenderissubjecttoacourtrestrainingorderorsimilarorder.Theimportanceofthisriskfactormustbenotedasitinformsusofthelowdissuasivecapacityoflegalandcoercivemeasurespreviouslyappliedtotheabuser.

Inthesecases,itisworthaccessingofficialreportsinwhichthistypeofinformationisstated(ifpossible).Considerationmustbegiventothegreaterlikelihoodofsevereorverysevereviolenceoccurringwhentheoffenderviolatesrestrainingorders(Campbell,1995).

Brief definition:Theoffenderhasbreachedaprotectionmeasure.Hehasbeensubjecttoconvictionsorpoliceinvestigationsasaresultofhavingbreachedaprotectionmeasureforhispartnerorformerpartner.

Example:“Despite the existence of a restraining order, the woman sees the offender approaching her on the street, shouting; she locks herself in an ATM booth and calls emergency services. When a patrol of the Mossos d’Esquadra [Catalan Police Force] gets there; they arrest the offender and find a hammer, large knife and axe in his backpack.”

52


2. Threats and/or severe abuse of the woman

Thesetworiskfactorsrefertotherealityatthetimetheassessmentisconducted;theyarealsoconsideredafewmonthsearliertoassess,simultaneously,oneofthemainIPVriskfactors:verbalandemotionalabuse(Stithetal.,2004).Thissectionincludesthreatsasanoteworthyfactorthatrevealsthefutureintentionsoftheoffen-derandthereforemustbeverymuchborneinmindasdynamicriskfactors,validforshort-termprognoses.Bothareusefulfactorsforconsideringtheevolutionoftheriskofviolence.Anotherimportantcriterionisassessingtheseverity,frequencyandalsodynamicchangesofthefactorsincludedhere.

RF6: THE WOMAN HAS RECEIVED SERIOUS AND CREDIBLE THREATS TO HER PHYSICAL INTEGRITY, AND/OR WITH THE USE OF WEAPONS

Threatsalways,oralmostalways,appearincasesofviolenceagainstwomen.TheyconstitutearelevantformofviolenceinIPVandaccompanyotherassaults(usuallyphysicalorsexual).Theyaresometimesverygeneric(theyseemmorelikeaninsult)andothersareveryspecificandrepeated,withdetailedaccountsofwhatthemanwishestodotohispartner(“ifyoufileforseparation,IwillkillyouandIwillkillmyself”).Theymayariseinhighlyconflictivesituationsandinthemidstofafight,eveninthepre-senceoffamilymembers,neighboursorthepolice,orjustassecretandpersistenttelephonemessages.Threereferencepointsallowustoassesstheimportanceofthesethreats:thefeartheygenerateinthevictim,theuseofaweapon(ahammer,aropeoranybladedweaponorfirearm)andthelikelihoodofthethreats(especiallywhentheyincludeassaultandtheensuingconsequences).Conductingthisas-sessmentisalwayscomplexbutitisveryimportanttoconfirmorruleoutitspresence.

Thefuturedevelopmentofviolentconductisverymuchassociatedwithearlierthreats,whetherverbal,deathorsuicide-related.Theriskisaccentuatedwhenthesethreatsaremadeinthepresenceofotherpeople,whenthethreatsaremadewithdangerousobjectsordifferenttypesofweaponsandwhenconductcorrespondstoaclearintentiontocauseharm(Corral,EcheburúaiFernández-Montalvo,2009).

Brief definition:Theallegedoffenderthreatens,intimidatesorcoercesthewomanwithorwithouttheuseofweapons.

Example:“I want you to die, and you do not have much time left because you are soon going to die in a car accident.” “Tell your mother that from now on she will have one child less because I am going to come and kill you.” “I will burn down the flat with you in it, nobody will come in here because I am going to kill you.”

53


RF7: THE WOMAN HAS SUFFERED SEVERE EMOTIONAL AND VERBAL ABUSE IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS

Arecenthistoryofsevereemotionalandverbalabuseisanindicatorofhowtheabusehasoccurredinrecentmonths,includingatthetimeofassessment.Roughlysixmonthsistheapproximatereferencepointandanexamination is requiredof therealityofsaidabusewithregardto its frequency (everyweek,everyday,etc.),aswellasitsincrease(thewomanmayseethedoctorwhenithassubsidedandshefeelsmoreconfident,etc.),sincethesetwoelementsarepredictorsoftheimmediatefutureofIPV.InStith’smeta-analysis(2004),itappearedasoneofthefactorsmostcloselyassociatedwithIPVthananyotherkind.

Brief definition:Non-accidentalactionthathascausedemotionalharminthelastsixmonths.Severeemotionalandverbalabusecoversdegrading,humiliating,insulting,threatening,criticising,belittling,ridiculing,vexing,demandingobedienceandsubmission,verbalcoercionoranyotherlimitationoftheirfreedom.

Example:“The offender constantly reproaches her for not knowing how to do the housework and for her physical appearance, saying she is repulsive and is not at all physically attractive. He forces her to wear shoes two sizes too small.”

3. Aggravating circumstances

Theseriskfactors,whichamounttoseven,coverawiderangeofriskfactorsthatincreasetheprobabilityoffutureintimatepartnerviolence.Mostofthemaredynamic,bothchronicandacute,andthepresenceofmanyoftheserisk factorssuggestsapossiblevariabilityof future IPV.Theydonotexclusivelyrefertotheallegedoffender(hehasaccesstoweapons,hassufferedfromamentaldisorder,etc.)butincludesothersassociatedwiththecouplesuchas“defactoseparationortheintentiontoseparate”or“theincreaseinthefrequencyorseverityofIPV”.Thetimereferenceismainlyfromthetimeofassessment,thoughsomefactors,suchas“suici-dality”(RF13)orthehistoryofmentaldisorder(RF11)haveamuchlongertimereference(evenatanystageofthelifeoftheallegedoffender).

RF8: THE WOMAN INFORMS THE ALLEGED OFFENDER OF HER WISH TO SEPARATE OR THE SEPARATION OCCURRED LESS THAN SIX MONTHS AGO

Severalstudieshaveshownthatseparationandestrangementexertaveryimportantinfluence,inapro-portionthatvariesbetween25%and52%inthehomicideofpartners(Kroop,2008).Incidentsofintima-

54


tepartnerviolencearemoreseriousaftertherespectivemembershaveseparatedoraroundthetimeofseparation(Belfrageetal.,2011).Thus,themostseriousviolenceoccurswhenthecoupleseparatesorareintheprocessofseparating,especiallyifthisoccursattheinitiativeofthevictimandisaccompaniedbyharassment,becauseinthesecasesthefinalseparationofthecoupleismorecomplicated(Amor,Echeburúa,Corral,ZubizarretaandSarasua,2002).

Brief definition:Atthetimeofassessmentand/ortheincident,thewomaninformedtheallegedoffen-derofherintentiontoendtheintimaterelationshiportheyhavebeenseparatedforlessthansixmon-ths.

Example:“The offender finds out from a friend that his partner has met with a solicitor to initiate the separation process.”

RF9: INCREASE IN THE FREQUENCY OR SEVERITY OF THE VIOLENT INCIDENTS IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS

Ingeneral, therepetitivenatureof IPVallowsustoobservethefrequencyand/orseverityofviolentincidentsinthepast.Hereitisespeciallyinterestingtorecognisetherealityofthelastsixmonthswithregardtowhethertheviolencehasreduced,remainedthesameorincreasedintermsofthenumberofincidentsaswellastheseriousnessandtriggerspresent.Itmaybeconsideredthatarecentriseoresca-lationforeseesahighriskofrecurrence,especiallyintheshorttermandinrelationtopossibleconflicts(trialfordivorce,separation,policereport,etc.).Analysingthisriskfactormayalsoservetoidentifyapossible“cycleofviolence”andtodetermineitsstatewithregardtothecouple’srelationship.Episodesofviolencemaybevaried(physical,sexual,etc.),whatisofinteresthereiswhethertherearechangesinthepatternandhistoryofabuse.

Brief definition:increaseinthefrequencyand/orseverityoftheaggressiveconducttowardsthepartnerorformerpartneroverthelastsixmonths.

Example:“The woman claims that the assaults endured previously were more sporadic but this week she has borne the brunt of physical assaults virtually every day; finally, she cannot tolerate the situation to which she is subject any longer. In one such assault, her eardrum burst and, as a result of the serious injury sustained, lost her auditory capacity.”

55


RF10: THE ALLEGED OFFENDER ABUSES DRUGS AND/OR ALCOHOL

ThediscussionontheeffectofalcoholanddrugsinIPV,likeinmostformsofviolence,isindisputable(Felson,2007),althoughmanypublicationsandpublicdiscoursesinsistonconsideringthatIPVisnotcausedbytheuseofsaidsubstances.Adiscussiononthe“causality”or“responsibility”ofdruguse/abuseinIPVisnotofinteresthere.Fortheprediction,thisdiscussionisirrelevant.Withoutadoubt,theassociationbetweenviolenceanddruguse/abuseisveryevidentandshouldalwaysbeconsideredinthesenseofanalysisofpastcontingenciesinwhichviolenteventsoccurred(withorwithoutdrugoralcoholabuse)inordertoreasonablyspeculateaboutthefuture.Ithasbeendemonstratedthatalcoholuseandabuse,andtoalesserextent,useofotherdrugsisassociatedwithallformsofassaultagainstpartners(Felson,2007).Internationalresearchconstantlyindicatesthatalcoholconsumptionisariskfactorforintimatepartnerviolence.Amongthedrugsmostparticularlyassociatedwithseriousintimatepartnerviolencearealcoholandcocaine.

Thethreeclinicalcategoriesrelatedtodrugsmustalsobedifferentiated:occasionalorsocialconsump-tion,abuseanddependence,whichshowusthechronicnatureofprobableconsumptioninthefuturesincetheyhavedirectbutdifferentrelationswithIPV.However,thisisthemajorexcuseofmanyvictimstorejecttheaggressivenatureoftheirpartnerorformerpartner:theyusuallyassociateviolencewithdruguseandtheytrustthat,whenthisproblemdisappears,IPVwillalsovanishfromtherealityofthemistreatedwoman.

Althoughdrugshavedifferenteffectsonusers,asariskfactortheyareequivalent.ThemostrelevantasregardstheassociationwithIPVarealcoholandcocaine.Heretheriskfactorconcernsdrugusebytheoffender,but,ifitwerenecessarytoassessthecase,thevictim’sproblemswithsubstanceuseshouldbeincludedintheadditionalfactorsoftheRVD-BCNandconsideredinthefinalRVD-BCNassessment.

Brief definition:Theallegedoffenderisanaddictorabuseroflegaland/orillegalsubstances(cocaine,alcohol,hashish,heroin,psychotropicdrugs,etc.).

Example:“The offender consumes large amounts of alcohol at the weekend and the woman hides in a wardrobe in the home until he leaves again, for fear of assault when he is under the effects of alcohol.”

56


RF11: DIAGNOSIS OR HISTORY OF SEVERE MENTAL DISORDER IN THE ALLEGED Offender

There ismuchdebateontheroleplayedbymentaldisorders inviolentactionand,especially, inthefieldofIPV(Kroop,2008).Intheeventofsevereviolence,weoftenconsidertheplausiblehypothesisofthepresenceofamentalorpersonalitydisorderintheoffender;however,manylegalandsociologicalstudies,orevenhealthstudies,emphasisetheideathatthisisnotthecase,thatattitudeandsocialroleunderlieIPV,andthatassociationwiththementalillnessoftheoffenderisamyth.

Empiricalevidencetellsusthatamongthegroupof thosewhoperpetrateviolenceontheirpartner,mentaldifficulties(mild,moderateandsevere)arecommon(Elbogen,2004;Kroop,2008)thoughtheydonotconstitutetheonlyriskfactornoraretheyprobablythemostimportant.Intheenormouscom-plexityofmentaldisorder,ofparticularinterestarethoseproblemsthatpresentanacutelevelofseve-rityandcausetheoffendertostronglydisconnectfromreality(hallucinations,delirium,hyperactivity,verystrangeordangerousbehaviour,pathologicaljealousy,etc.),orchronicdifficultiesinsocialadapta-tion(likesomepersonalitydisorderscharacterisedbyoutburstsofangerorchronicaffectivedisorders).Individualsthathaveamentalorpersonalitydisorderhavegreaterpropensitytowardsbehavingandtakinginappropriatedecisionsinsituationsofrealorimaginedconflictwiththeirpartner(ArbachandAndrés-Pueyo,2007)andviolentincidentscanarisetherefrom,especiallywiththecombinationofalco-holordruguse.

Evidenceofthepresenceorhistoryofmentalorpersonalitydisorderdoesnotalwaysrequireaspecificdiagnosistocompletetheassessmentandmaybeusefulindirectinformationforthisriskfactor.Ifinfor-mationisnotavailable,itisadvisabletorequestitfromexpertsbeforemakingunfoundedassumptionsonthebasisofinaccurateinformation.

Brief definition:Diagnosisorhistoryofseverementaldisorderintheallegedoffender,consideringassuch,forinstance:

•Personalitydisorderwithanger,impulsivityandemotionalinstability. •Schizophrenicdisorder,majordepression,bipolardisorder,paranoiddisorderandsimilar disorders.

Example:“The offender is diagnosed with borderline personality disorder for which he is currently not receiving any psychological or psychiatric treatment, because he believes that in the past he did not see any improvement by following medical guidelines.”

57


RF 12: POSSESSION OR EASY ACCESS TO WEAPONS BY THE ALLEGED Offender

Offendersthat,intheirhistoryofviolencewiththepartner,haveusedweapons(firearms,knives,sticks,tools,etc.),ifonlyinathreateningmannerandhavenotactuallyusedthem,generallyhaveagreaterriskofrecidivism.Obviously,theeaseofuseandaccesstoweapons(suchasprofessionalcriminals,lawenforcementstaff,hunters,sportsmen,etc.)mayrepresentahigherriskofIPVandgreatlyincreasetheseverityofviolence,especiallyfirearms.Realityshowsthattherearemanyandvariedformsofusingim-plementsofallkinds(cookingutensils,ropes,etc.)tocommitseriousassaults.However,thefundamen-talconcerntobeconsideredintheevaluationofthisriskfactorarefirearmsandso-calledbladedwe-apons,whichpresentagreaterriskthantheotherobjectswiththepossibilityofusingthemasweapons.

Brief definition:Theallegedoffenderhasanarmslicense,isinpossessionofweaponsorhasarealop-portunitytoaccessthem.

Example:“The offender is an expert hunter with a firearms license and a collection of guns inherited from his father.”

RF 13: SUICIDE ATTEMPTS OR IDEATION ON THE PART OF THE ALLEGED Offender

Suicideideation,likehomicide,isapowerfulpredictorofveryseriousviolentincidents(amongwhichthereissuicidefollowingthemurder,whichisquitecommoninintimatepartnerviolence).Infact,sui-cidalbehaviourisveryoftenassociatedwithfemicide.Thisriskfactormustalsobeassessedsincethereisaverystrongassociationbetweenaffectivedisordersandsuicideattemptsorideation,thereforeitisinterestingtoascertaintheantecedentsofthisriskfactor.Ingeneral,thetimeintervalofthisriskfactorcoverstheoffender’sentirelife,andthepresenceisconfirmedthoughthepersonhasbeenclinicallytreatedforproblemsofthisnature.Investigationshouldbemadeintowhethersuicideattemptsoridea-tionhaveintensifiedinthelastsixmonthsand,aboveall,whetherthreatsofsuicideinrelationtothefuturedynamicofthecouplehavebeenverbalised.

Brief definition:Theallegedoffenderhasattemptedsuicide,hashadorhasthoughtsaboutsuicide.

Ejemplo:“The offender, during the arrest, self-inflicted injuries in the police car by banging his head against the glass, then attempting to hang himself with his jacket from the prison door.” “During the court proceedings, the offender grabs his partner, goes onto the balcony and acts as if they are about to jump off together, asking the woman: will we kill ourselves?”

58


RF 14: EXTREME CONTROL OF THE WOMAN’S CONDUCT OUT OF JEALOUSY OR SIMILAR FEELINGS

Itisoneofthemostcommonandpowerfulviolenceriskfactorsand,inextremecases,maybeoneofthemostnoteworthywithregardtofatalviolence(sometimesassociatedwithanintensepossessivefeelingoverthewoman).Underthisriskfactorlieaseriesofmotivesrelatedtoastrongfeelingofownershipandverydisturbingemotionthatdestabilisestheoffenderemotionallytoahighdegree.Itismainlyba-sedonjealousyofasexualnature,characteristicofintimaterelationshipsandthatbringstheoffendertodevelopaseriesofdifferentviolenttactics,allwiththesameultimategoal,i.e.controllingtheirpartner(Echeburúa,2009).Studiessuggestthatjealousyispresentinhalfoftheseviolentincidents(O’Leary,2007;FaganandBrowne,1994).Ithasbeenestimatedthatsexualjealousytriggersbetween7%and41%ofintimatepartnerviolenceincidents(Block,2001).Thedifficultyinassessingthisriskfactorisrelatedtoitslevelofseriousness,ariskfactorisconsideredseriouswhenitspresencerendersthesocialandemotionallifeofthevictimuncomfortableanddifficult.

Brief definition: Theallegedoffendermanifests controllingbehaviour, stalkingand restrictionof thewoman’sfreedommotivatedby jealousyorsimilarfeelings(for instance,culturalbeliefsorbeliefsofanotherkind).

Example:“You will not go out with your friend. You are a lesbian. What you want is to go to bed with her.”

4. Vulnerability of the woman

Theoffender’sriskfactors,asperpetratoroftheviolentactaregenerallyconsideredinIPVtheories,especiallyinethicalandlegalterms.Itisnotcommontotakeriskfactorsconcerningtheabusedwomanintoaccount.Howe-ver,realityshowsthattherearewomenthat,fordifferentreasons,aremorevictimisedandvulnerablethanothers(TjadenandThoennes,2000),withoutthisimplyingthatthewomanisconsideredasthecauseofhervictimstatus,butthepresenceofhervulnerabilityfactorsmustbetakenintoaccountfortworeasons:thein-creaseinthepredictivepowerthatmaybeaddedtothesefactorsandthegreaterindividualisationofstrategiestopreventviolencerecidivism.Obviously,wecanconsidermanyfactorsconcerningthevictim,buttraditionallyspeaking,empiricalresearchhasidentifiedanumberofthemsuchasage(especiallyagedifferencebetweentherespectivemembersofthecouple,education,belongingtominorityandmarginalisedgroups,etc.).

59


RF 15: WOMAN’S SOCIAL ISOLATION AND/OR LACK OF PERSONAL RESOURCES, AND/OR THE WOMAN’S JUSTIFICATION OF THE VIOLENCE INFLICTED BY THE ALLEGED Offender, AND/OR THE PRESENCE OF THE WOMAN’S CHILDREN THAT ARE MINORS AND/OR DEPENDENTS

Althoughresearchintowomen’svulnerabilityfactorsthatrenderthemmoresusceptibletoabuseandviolenceisverymuchdebated,itseemsthatbothresearchersandpractitionersagreeontheirimpor-tanceasanIPVriskfactor.Thisconsiderationdoesnotmeanthatthevictimmayberesponsiblefortheirsituation,butitisrelevanttoobserveifriskfactorsthatarecontrollableariseincertaincircumstancesofthevictimthatarekeytoprevention.Regardingtheprofileofthevictimsofviolence,theytendtobemorevulnerableonaccountofage,illness,lonelinessordependence(Corral,EcheburúaandFernández-Montalvo,2009).

Therearemanyriskfactorsgroupedunderthislabel(hencethelengthofthenameofthefactor).Situa-tionsorincidentssuchasthefollowingareincluded:absenceofpersonalresources(ofallkinds)thatmakeherdependentonherpartner,attitudesthatjustifythesituationofpartnerviolenceandthepre-senceofdependents(childrenorparents)inhercare.

Brief definition:Thewomandoesnotpossessorhavepersonal,social,family,economicand/orworkre-sourcesathand,ortheyareveryscarce.Isolationoccursinoneorseveraloftheaforementionedareas,

and/orThewomanjustifies,minimisesordeniesthattheallegedoffenderhasinflictedaformofviolenceontheirperson,

and/orThewomanhaschildrenthatareminorsand/ordependentsinhercare,whichmayormaynotbecom-montotheallegedoffender.

Theriskfactorisunderstoodtobepresentshouldanyoftheaforementionedindicatorsexist.

Example:“He is a good person but when he drinks he loses control and becomes violent; he does not want to do it but sometimes he gets nervous; the thing is that I do not do things well and he gets angry, he acts in accordance with is customs and beliefs, etc. [justifications].”

60


5. Woman’s perception of the risk situation

This lastriskfactor isessentiallyakindofscreeningorsamplingofhowthewomanfeelsatthetimeoftheassessmentandwithregardtothefutureinthemostseriouscontingencythatmayoccur,afatalassault.Itisanoverallapproximationofthevictim’sperceptionatthetimeofassessmentandcanbeverysubjectiveandvariable,butrelevantduetothefactthatitisthevictimherselfwhoprovidestheinformation.

RF 16: THE WOMAN BELIEVES THAT THE ALLEGED Offender IS CAPABLE OF KILLING HER PERSONALLY OR HAVING HER KILLED BY THIRD PARTIES

IntheRVD-BCNGuide,thisriskfactorisderivedfromtheideathatthevictimherselfisaware(ornot)oftheseriousnessoftheviolentsituationbeingexperiencedandherfutureinthissituation.Thereareauthorsandexpertsthatconsiderthat,duetothefactthatwomenaretheonly(oralmosttheonly)observers(togetherwiththeabuser),obviouslytheyknowwhathashappenedanditisthemthatcanreallyanticipatewhatcanhappen.However,therearemanyopinionsandincidentsthatrefutethiscon-siderationandaffirmthat,ingeneral,femalevictimsofviolencetendtounderestimatetherisktowhichtheyareexposedbytheirpartner(Kroop,2008).

Studiespreviouslyundertakentoverifywomen’spredictivepoweroftheriskofbeingphysicallyorpsy-chologicallyassaultedagain,indicatethatthepredictionishigherthanchance.Thus,herriskassessmentandanticipationcanbeausefulsourceofinformationforprofessionals.Ingeneral,ifthehistoryofabu-segoesbackalongway,especiallyphysicalassaults,thegeneralassessmentmadebythevictimontheirfutureriskismorebiased(overestimatingorunderestimatingtherisk)thanwhenthehistoryofabuseismorerecent.Inanycase,thewoman’sexplicitassessmentofwhetherherpartnerorformerpartnercouldkillherisadirectwayofassessingveryextraordinarycircumstancesbutwhichreflectsthevictim’sperceptionoftheperpetrator’scapacitytoharmthem.

Brief definition:Thewomanhasarealperceptionofthehighrisktowhichsheisexposedandisconvin-cedthattheallegedoffenderiscapableofkillingherorfulfillinghisdeaththreatsthroughthirdparties(familymembers,friends,hitmen,etc.).

Example:“The couple live in the same home and are in the process of separation. The woman manifests great fear for her physical integrity and blocks the door of the room, where she lives, with a chair so the offender cannot get in. The woman never leaves the home alone, has the blinds drawn during the day and has changed the lock on the door for fear of the constant death threats made by her former partner.”

61


Other risk factors

NextwewillconsiderotherriskfactorsthatarenotpartofRVD-BCNbutwhichmaybepresentingivencasesandwhichincreasetheriskassessmentconductedbytheprofessional.

TheassociationbetweenpossibleIPVriskfactorsisveryextensivesincetheyareconnectedwiththepersonalandrelationshipcircumstancesoftheoffenderandvictim.Suchacomplexrealitybyheterogeneitymakes itdifficult tohaveasingleandvalid list foreveryvictim.The individualisationofassessments,which isoneofthestrongargumentsofclinicalassessmentadvocates,requirestheRVD-BCNlisttobecomplementedalmostcompulsorily(especiallyinmoderate-andhigh-riskcases)withriskfactorswhichtakeongreatimportanceinthespecificcase.

Amongthemostcommonare:

1. Theoffenderwasthevictimorwitnessofdomesticabuseintheirchildhoodoradolescence.

2. The offender experiences situations of significant emotional and/or personal crisis that, despite not beingrelatedtoapsychiatricdisorder,maybesimilartotheeffectsofthelossofemotionalcontrol.

3. Thevictimhasexperiencedrecentincidentsofstalkingbytheoffender.

4. Existenceofahistoryofsadistic(sexual)behaviourorextremeviolence(notnecessarilypartnerviolence).

ThelistofRVD-BCNriskfactorsconstitutesthebasiccoreoftheriskassessment,butisnottheentireRVD-BCN.It is simply toofferactuarialguidelines inorder toconductafinal riskassessment,whichwillbeadecisionfundamentallydeterminedbythepersonconductingtheassessmentsubsequenttofollowingsomenecessarystepstocompletetheprognosis.Thesestepsincludetheverificationofaminimumnumberofassessedfactorsandtheinclusion,whereappropriate,ofnewspecificriskfactorsincertaincasesthatheightentheriskofvio-lencebeingassessed.

62


4.TheentirestudywasdrawnupinaccordancewiththeethicalandprofessionalstandardsapplicabletothistypeofresearchandtheprojectwasapprovedbytheEthicsandClinicalResearchCommitteeoftheIDIAPJordiGoliGurina(PrimaryCareResearchInstitute).TheUniversityofBarcelona’sGroupofAdvancedStudiesonViolencedesignedanddevelopedthestudy.ItshouldbenotedthatalltheWHOrecommendationsconcerningstudiesofdomesticviolencevictimswerefollowedsincethestudyitselfcouldincreasetheriskofvictimisationofthewomenparticipating(WHO,2005)..

TheRVD-BCNGuide,especiallythelistofriskfactorsthatcompriseitsmainstructure,hasbeenrigorouslyas-sessedbeforeformalisingtheguideasausefulprofessionalinstrument.Bywayofaprospectivelongitudinalstudy,aseriesofmetricpropertieswerecomparedthataresummarisedbelow.Firstly,itmustbepointedoutthatgiventheobjectiveofRVD-BCNanditslogic,basedonthestructuredprofessionaljudgementapproach,itisnotapsychometrictestsimilartothoseusedinthecontextofpsychologyandwhichpsychologicaltestshavetraditionallyrepresented.DespitetheappearanceoftheRVD-BCNandotherviolentriskpredictioninstruments,whichmaybereminiscentofapsychologicaltest,theyarenotanddonotworkassuch.Generally,psychologicaltestsareusedtoassesscapacities,personalitytraits,symptomsandotherclinicalproblems,etc.Theyusuallyhavescalesthatallowpeopletobeawardedgradesthatpsychologistsuseintheirdiagnosis,selectiontasks,etc.Psychometricpropertiesguaranteethequalityofthetestsbutcannotbetransferredinanequalmannertoviolenceriskassessmentguides,whichhavetheirownquantitativeparametersofquality.

Weavailofthiscommentonpsychologicalteststopointoutthatriskassessmentguidesarenotatechniquespecificandexclusivetopsychology,butwhichallpractitionerscanusewhenmakingdecisionsthataffecttheriskofviolencerecidivismbyoffendersorcriminals.Theyarenotdesignedtoperformdangerousness,clinicalorcriminologicalassessments,theysimplyallowustoreviewtheriskfactorsthatmustessentiallybeassessedtomakeapredictionofviolencethatissuperiortoarandomprediction.

However,theRVD-BCN,especiallyitscombinationofriskfactors,doesnotceasetobeariskestimationinstru-mentbasedonquantitativeproceduresandmustacquirepropertiesthatproveitsqualityforuseintheprofes-sionalenvironment.Amongthemostimportantfeatures,whichwillbeoutlinedbrieflybelow,are:reliability,convergentvalidityandpredictivevalidity.Beforedescribingtheseindices,wewillbrieflydescribetheworkthathasbeencarriedout.

AllthedataistakenfromalongitudinalstudyundertakeninBarcelona,during2010and2011,whichentailedtheapplicationoftheRVD-BCNGuidetoasampleof216womenthatareusersofservicesassociatedwiththeBarcelonaNetworktoFightViolenceAgainstWomenandfollowinguponthesewomenoverthreeorsixmon-ths.

Thelongitudinalstudy4wascarriedoutatthreedifferentpointsintime(witharetentionrateof80%).Inthefirstphase,theRVD-BCNwasadministeredtoallthewomenparticipating.Agroupofpractitionersfromthesecuritysector(policeforceandCatalanregionalpoliceforce),socialservices(socialworkers,psychologists,etc.),legalservices(psychologists,solicitorsandcriminologists)andhealthservices(doctorsandnurses)appliedtheguide,allofwhomhadprofessionaltrainingandexperienceinthefieldofIPVandprevioustrainingintheuseoftheguide.OncetheRVD-BCNwasadministeredandbeforequantitativelyassessingtheoutcomeofthesumofriskfactorspresentineachcase,thepractitionerswereaskedtheiropinionontheoverallriskassessmentofeachofthewomenparticipatingatthatpointintime.Thisvariable,assessedbymeansofclinicaljudgement,willbeusedtocomparetheconvergentvalidityoftheRVD-BCN.

5Technical specifications of the RVD-BCN

63


Followinganintervalofthreemonths(T2)andthreemonthsafterthat(T3),thesameassessorscontactedthewomenparticipatingtoascertainwhether theyhadbeenvictimsofviolentactsby theirpartnersor formerpartnersoverthatperiod.Inthisfollow-up,aseriesof21questionswereposedwithregardtoviolentincidentsgroupedintofivecategories:physicalviolence,sexualviolence,psychologicalviolence,threatsandstalking.

ThefollowingtableillustratesthemaindescriptorsoftheRVD-BCNvalidationsamplepersectorandintheirentirety.

Table2.DescriptorsoftheRVD-BCNvalidationstudypersectorandfollow-upperiodNote:T2:assessmentafterthreemonths;T3:reassessmentthreemonthslater;SD:Standarddeviation;NS:Notspecified

Security SocialServices Justice Health Total

RVD-BCN N 44 106 16 50 216

Meanage 39,25 37,88 36,13 44,65 39,09

SDage 10,06 10,83 9,97 16,07 12,31

Totalmean 5,7 7,82 6,87 7,02 7,93

SDtotal 3,01 2,49 2,78 2,98 2,84

Nivelldelrisc Low(%) 77,3 45,3 56,3 46,01 52,8

Moderate(%) 13,6 31,1 25,01 38,01 28,7

High(%) 9,1 23,6 18,7 15,98 18,5

T2(%) No. 40 96 9 41 186

Physicalviolence 10 4,1 nse 24,3 9,3

Sexualviolence 5 3,3 nse 19,4 6,8

Psychologicalviolence 22,5 37,1 44,4 76,3 42,4

Threats 7,5 19,6 11,1 44,7 20,8

Stalking 12,8 24,2 11,1 44,7 25,4

T3(%) N 39 83 10 36 168

Physicalviolence 7,7 10,1 10 12,5 10

Sexualviolence 2,6 5,2 nse 13,3 5,8

Psychologicalviolence 15,4 38,5 20 41,2 32,3

Threats 12,8 22,8 nse 26,5 19,8

Stalking 7,7 23,8 10 38,2 22,1

64


SeveralimportantconsequencescanbededucedfromthemethodologicalstrengthoftheRVD-BCN,andespe-ciallyduetothepossibilityofgeneralisingresultstothegeneralpopulationofwomenthatarevictimsofintimatepartnerviolencethatresorttothepublicservicestoresolvetheirproblems.Firstly,noteworthyisthecontinuityoftheparticipantsthatwereanalysed.BetweenT1andT2,continuitywas86.11%andbetweenT1andT3,itwas77,78%.

Secondly,theprevalenceofviolentincidentsinT2andT3is,generallyspeakingandforeachspecificcaseandformofviolence,similartothatdescribedintheepidemiologicalstudiesofIPVinCataloniaandSpain(seetheSurveyonDomesticViolenceinCatalonia,2010,andtheMacro-SurveyonGender-BasedViolenceinSpain,2006).

Thirdly,worthyofmentionisthattheRVD-BCNquantitativeassessmentofthevarioussectorsonlyshowsasig-nificantdifference(p>0,005)betweenthevaluesobtainedbetweenthepoliceservicesandsocialservices,suchthattheformerarelower.Significantdifferencesdidnotappearbetweentheremainingservices.

ThegraphpresentedbelowillustratesthedistributionofthetotalgradingoftheRVD-BCNscale,inwhichabiascanbeseentowardsthelowvaluesofdistribution.

Figure1.DistributionofthetotalscoresoftheRVD-BCNGuide

AnimportantelementintheuseoftheRVD-BCNreferstotheaccessibilityoftheinformationconcerningthedifferentriskfactorsbytheassessor,sincemostoftheinformationemployedcomesfromthewomanthatistheIPVvictim,butalsofromtheoffender.Thetablepresentedbelowshowsthemannerinwhichmostoftheriskfactorshavebeenevaluated.Inallthecases,informationontheriskfactorswasobtainedandisrelativelysimilartothatfoundinprevalencestudiesofIPVriskfactorsonanepidemiologicalscale.

40

30

20

10

00,00 5,00 10,00 15,00 20,00

Histogram

Freq

uenc

y

Mean = 7,13Standard devioation = 2,836

N = 216

65


Table3.PrevalenceofthesixteenRVD-BCNriskfactorsinthevalidationstudy

WithregardtothenumberofriskfactorsassessedintheT1ofRVD-BCN,in82.8%ofcases,answerscanbegiventotheriskfactorsineachcase.Infact,in98.1%ofcases,aminimumofsevenriskfactorswereabletobecomple-ted,whichwillbetheminimumadvisedtovalidateapredictionbasedonRVD-BCN.

Naturally, it is idealtoobtain informationonalltheriskfactors,butanyassessmentmadeof lessthansevenassessedriskfactorsistobeconsideredinvalid.Itisstronglyrecommendedthat,inadditiontothesevenriskfactors,endeavoursbemadetoextendtheinformationthatallowsthesixteenRVD-BCNriskfactorstobecom-plemented.

No. RISK FACTORS PRESENCE %

15 Vulnerabilityofthewoman 88,4

7 Emotionalabuse 71,8

14 Extremecontrol 66,7

1 Intimatepartnerviolence 63,8

6 Seriousthreats 60,6

10 Alcohol/drugs 58,3

2 Non-partnerviolence 53,2

8 Announcementofseparation 45,4

3 Violenceduringpregnancy 41,2

16 Riskperception(ofthewoman) 37,0

9 Increaseinseverity 32,9

4 Criminalrecord 31,0

13 Suicidality 22,7

5 Breachofprotectionmeasures 18,1

12 Accesstoweapons 14,8

11 Mentaldisorder 8,3

66


Reliability

ThestudyanalysedthereliabilityoftheRVD-BCNwithregardtotheinternalconsistencyandinter-observerrelia-bilitys.5TheinternalconsistencywasobtainedusingtheCronbachalphatechniqueandaffordedaresultof0,716.Theinter-observerreliability,calculatedusingtheKendallTautest,gavearesultof0,729.Inlightoftheinternalconsistencyvalue,ofamoderatelevel,andtheinter-observerreliabilityvalue,ofagoodlevelforthistypeoftest,wecanconsiderthattheRVD-BCNisareliabletestforassessingtheriskofviolence.Itisnoteworthythatitisinter-observerreliabilitythataffordsthebetterresult,whichimpliesthattheassessmentsconductedbyindepen-dentpractitionersonthesamecasearesufficientlyreliableforustoconsiderthosemadebyotherprofessionalsusingtheRVD-BCNvalid.

Validity

Asforvalidity,twodifferentestimationswhichwereemployedinthestudyoftheRVD-BCN’spropertiesmustbesetapart.Thepredictivevaliditywasassessed,thatistosay,thecorrespondencebetweentheriskassessmentmadeusingtheRVD-BCNandtheincidentswhichoccurredafterthreeandsixmonths,andtheconvergentvali-dity,whichindicatestheextenttowhichriskassessmentsconductedusingthequantitativeestimationresultingfromaddingthepresenceofriskfactorstogether(betweenaminimumof0andmaximumof16)aresimilartoclinicaljudgement(theoverallassessmentbyexperts)ineachcase.

Wewillbeginthedescriptionwithpredictivevalidity.

Inordertoassessthepredictivevalidity,theprocedurewasconductedasfollows,onthebasisofthedatafromthelongitudinalstudy.Firstly,thedataconcerningviolentincidentswerecategorisedunderT2andT3.Secondly,thepredictivevaliditywascalculatedusingthelogisticregressiontechnique,inwhichthepredictivevariablewasthetotalscoreoftheRVD-BCNscaleof16riskfactors.Foreachdependentvariable(physicalviolence,sexualvio-lence,psychologicalviolence,threatsandstalking),theAUC(areaundercurve)valuewasobtained,whichrepre-sentsaglobalestimateofpredictiveefficiency,aswellastheoddsratio(“relativeopportunity”),whichprovidesasimpleapproximationontheprobabilityofgettingtheprognosisrightonthebasisof1andrevealstheincreaseinpredictivepowerofthetestandforeachformofviolencethatmustbeanticipated.

5.Theinter-observerreliabilitywasanalysedonthebasisofthecomparisonofthirteencasesinwhichtwoindependentobserversas-sessedthesixteenRVD-BCNriskfactors.

67


Table4.ParametersofthepredictivevalidityoftheRVD-BCNaccordingtotheformofviolenceandtimeintervalofthepredictionNote:OR:oddsratio;AUC:areaundercurve

Ascanbeseen,thepredictivepowerissignificantatthreemonthsforphysicalviolenceandthreats(significantAUC),andatsixmonthsforphysicalviolenceandstalking.Asfortheoddsratio,itcanbeunderstoodthatthepredictivepowerisreallyimportantwhenwedealwithsevereintimatepartnerviolence.

TheobjectiveoftheRVD-BCNistoassesstheriskofsevereintimatepartnerviolence.Intermsofdefinition,thistraditionallyincludesphysicalandsexualviolenceaswellassometypesofthreats(ofphysical/sexualharm)andstalking(themostchronicandintrusive).Anewvariablewascreatedwhichcombinedincidentsofthiskindinasinglevariable,severeviolence,whichwasalsobrokendowntocomparetheoverallcharacteristicsoftheRVD-BCNand,alsoespeciallytofindapproximatecut-offpointsforthelevelsofrisktoreport(low,moderateandhigh).

Toobtainthepredictivepowerresultforthenewvariable,severeviolence–whichaddsdataonformsofviolen-ce,allofwhichareimportant–logisticregressionwasalsousedandanAUCvalueof0,72resulted.Ingeneral,amoderate-mediumvalueofpredictivepowerisconsideredacceptableifweconsiderthatthemeanAUCvaluesofmostoftheexistingviolenceriskassessmenttoolsis0,70(FazelandJay,2010).Fromthiscalculation,cut-offpo-intswereputforward,calculatedonthebasisoftheROCcurve,todividetherisklevelsoftheRVD-BCN(ofwhichtherearethree:low,moderateandhigh)sothatwemaintainthebestbalancebetweencorrectandincorrectan-swers.Wemusttakeintoaccountthaterrorsmaybeoftwotypes:falsepositives(violentincidentsdidnotoccurincasesratedhighrisk)andfalsenegatives(violentincidentsoccurredincasesratedlowrisk).Thecut-offpointsproposedare:lowrisk,1to7points;moderaterisk,8and9points,andhighrisk,10to16points.Inthefollowinggraph,thedistributionofrisklevelsisshownbasedonthesecut-offpoints.

Criterion3 months 6 months

OR AUC OR AUC

Physicalviolence 1,28* 0,72 1,33** 0,72

Threats 1,28** 0,68 1,11 0,59

Psychologicalviolence 1,12* 0,59 1,08 0,56

Stalking 1,05 0,55 1,17* 0,63

Sexualviolence 1,04 0,54 0,98 0,50

*p<0,05;**p<0,01

68


Figure2.DistributionoftheRVD-BCNrisklevels

Withthesenewcut-offpoints,thepropertiesoftheRVD-BCNwereassessedintermsoftheirpredictivepowertakingintoaccounttheprobabilityoftwotypesoferrors:falsepositivesandfalsenegatives.Thesetwotypesoferrorsareinverselyproportional,sincethetotalnumberoferrorsinthepredictionscorrespondtothesumofthetwoaforementionederrors,buttheassessor,inmanagingtheguide’scut-offpoints,candecidewhichofthetwotypesoferrortheyprefernexttooneanother.

Asisevident,inviolenceriskassessment,wemustalwaysseektoreducethenumberoffalsenegativesasmuchaspossiblebutmaintaininga levelof falsepositivesas lowaspossible.Thereare statisticalparameters thatinformuswhichisthebestdecisiononthisbalance.Theseindicesarecalled“sensitivity”and“specificity”.Thefirstreferstofalsenegativesandthesecondtofalsepositives.Twofurtherindicesalsoappear,thePPV(positivepredictivevalue)andNPV(negativepredictivevalue).ThetablebelowshowsthevaluesoftheseindicesintheRVC-BCNinpercentages.

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0Low Moderate High

52,8

28,7

18,5

69


Table5.PredictivepowerparametersoftheRVD-BCNGuide(valuesin%)Note:PPV:positivepredictivevalue;NPV:negativepredictivevalue

ThegeneralinterpretationofthevaluesthatappearintheprevioustablehelpenormouslytounderstandtheusefulnessoftheRVD-BCNinpredictiveterms.Firstly,itshouldbenotedthattheprevalenceofsevereviolenceatthreeandsixmonths,ascanbeseen,israthersignificantandrelativelystable,9,3%and10%respectively.Asfarasthepredictivepowerisconcerned,fourpossibilitiesmustbesetapart:sensitivity,whichhasavaluebetween88,2%and81,3%,whichrepresentsthelevelofcorrectidentificationoftheexistingriskofviolence;thespecificityvaluerangesbetween57,2%and59,7%atthreeandsixmonthsrespectively,whichindicatesthecapacitytorejecttheriskwhenitdoesnotexist;thePPVindexconfirmsthelikelihoodofthepositiveresult,andrangesbetween17,4%and18,3%(letusrecallthatprevalenceis9,3%and10%respectively).ThelikelihoodofNPV,thatistosay,torenderatruenegativeisbetween97.4%and96.6%.Inbrief,theRVD-BCNisaverysensi-tiveguidefordetectingthepresenceoftheriskofviolencethoughattheexpenseofasomewhatrelevantleveloffalsepositives.Letusrememberthatwehadassessedthepredictivepowerasmoderate-medium(AUC=0,74).Inanycase,withtheuseoftheRVD-BCN,wecanimprovetheprognosiswithregardtothevictim’ssafetyinexchangeforaleveloferrorwhichaffectstheallegedoffendersinstatisticaltermsandonagroupratherthanonanindividualscale.Inthisregard,theparametersobtainedaresimilartootherguideswiththesamepurpose(Andrés-PueyoandEcheburúa,2010).

Finally,whatremainsistodescribethelevelofconvergentvaliditybetweentheRVD-BCNandglobalassessmentsconductedbyexpertsinT1.Inthiscase,acorrelationbetweentheexpert’slevelofriskallocation–alsointhreecategories:low,moderateandhigh–withthegradingofthelevelofriskassignedbycalculatingtheaforemen-tionedcut-offpoints,andtheresultwasacorrelation(accordingtoSpearman’stechnique)ofavalueof0,534(p<0.001),whichguaranteesagoodlevelofconvergentvaliditybetweenthesetwocriteria:theexpertopinionofpractitionersandtheconversionintothreelevelsofthesumofthepresenceofriskfactorsaccordingtotheRVD-BCN.

RVD-BCN 3 months 6 months

Prevalence 9,3 10

Sensibility 88,2 81,3

Specificity 57,2 59,7

PPV 17,4 18,3

NPV 97,4 96,6

70


Nowthatwehavepresentedtheguideanditsfeatures,weshalldescribetheRVD-BCNapplicationprocedure.

Toconductariskassessment,itisimperativetousealltheavailablesourcesofinformation.Itisadvisablethatallassessorsanalysisall information,oralorwritten,asthoroughlyaspossible, tocompletethe informationuponwhichtheriskassessmentshallbebased,aswellasconsiderthelimitations,ifnecessary,relatedtotheomissionofinformationorabsenceofrelevantdata.

ThesequenceofoperationstocompletetheriskassessmentusingtheRVD-BCNinvolves:

1. Completion of the particulars of the woman to be assessed and the date of the assessment.Thissection,seeminglyunimportant, isofgreatsignificance.Firstwemusthavetheaccuratedetailsconcerningthepersonshouldanyincidentoccur(suchasuncommonforeignnames,womenthatmovewithinthemunicipality,thataredealtwithbydifferentservices,etc.).Theaccuracyoftheparticularsisofparamountimportance.Thedateoftheassessmentisalsoofinterestifwewishtocompareitwithpreviousassessments.

2. Exploration of the presence or absence of the sixteen RVD risk factors.Theinformationtoconducttheseassessmentcanbeobtainedfromdifferentsources,whichinclude:theinterviewwiththevictim,reportsandinformationtakenfromfilesorofficialdocumentation,informa-tionprovidedbyotherpeopleandservices,etc.

Onceevidencecharacteristicofeachriskfactorisobtained,theirpresenceorabsenceisdetermined.Intheeventoftheabsenceofevidence,additionalresearchisadvised(ifpossible)inordertomakethedecision.Letusrememberthatthevalidityoftheprognosishingesfirstandforemostonthecorrectidentificationoftheriskfactors.

3. Measurement and grading of the level of initial risk.Itisdonebyaddingalltheriskfactorspresent(eachistheequivalentofonepoint)afterdecidingonthepresenceorabsenceofthesixteenriskfactors.Itshouldbeborneinmindtherearethreeriskfactorsresponses:YES,itispresent;NO,itisnotpresent–butinbothcasesthejudgmentmustbebasedonha-vinginformationthatallowstheopiniontobemade.Ifnoinformationisavailable,theboxND(nodata)isticked.TheRVD-BCNGuidewillbedeemedinvalidifaminimumofsevenriskfactorsarenotassessed.

Oncethesumtotalofpresentriskfactorsisobtained,therisklevelisgradedinoneofthreecategories:low,ifthesumisequaltoorlessthan7;moderate,ifthesumisequalto8or9,andhigh,ifthesumisequaltoorhigherthan10points.

6The RVD-BCN Short User Manual

71


4. Inclusion of new risk factors specific to the case in the assessment.Incertaincases,theprofessionalcanfindriskfactorsthatdonotappearinthelistofthesixteenassessedintheRVD-BCNandwhichareconsideredtoheightenthelevelofexistingrisk.Whenthefirstquantita-tiveriskassessmenthasbeenperformed,itisanalysedwhetherotherriskfactorsmustbeincorporatedinthatcaseandwhich,underthecurrentandreasonablyforeseeablecircumstances,inashortintervalofdaysorweeks,couldincreasethelevelofriskorrenderitveryimmediate.Itisessentialtomakeare-lativelydetailedrecord,inwriting,ofthisinclusionofnewriskelementsintheassessment,andtherebyguaranteetheinformationwewillcombinewiththeinitialassessmenttoformulatethefinalassessmenttobemadebythepractitionerinthefollowingphase.

5. Final assessment and proposed risk level. Thefinalriskassessmentwillbemadetakingintoaccounttheinitialassessmentguidedbyascoreofsixteenriskfactorsandtheinclusion,ifnecessary,ofspecificinformationthatjustifiestheincreaseintheexistingrisk.Basedonthesesourcesof information,thepractitionerwillformulatetheirfinalas-sessmentinthethreecategoriesdefinedintheguide.

6. Description of the action undertaken or to be undertaken based on the currently existing risk assessment. Thepractitionerwillbrieflyrecordwhatactionshavebeenimplementedand/orarebeingcarriedoutas adirectconsequenceofthecurrentlyexistingriskassessment.

7. Foreseeable circumstances that may increase the level of risk in the future (alert).ThissectionoftheRVD-BCNhasthetaskofalertingpractitionersontheincreaseofriskcausedifcertainforeseeablecircumstancesbecomeareality.ThisalertfunctionoftheRVD-BCNallowspreventivemea-surestobeundertakentopreventnewactsofviolenceagainstthewomanfromoccurring.

Itisimportanttohighlightthatriskassessmentisnotastaticprocess.Thelevelofriskmaychangeandfluctuateintimeduetothecircumstancesoftheoffender(andalsothevictim).Therefore,itisadvisedthatassessmentsberepeatedatleasteverythreemonths.Inaddition,theassessmentsmustbereviewedintheeventofchangesofthecriticalcircumstancescapableofgeneratingnewconflictsoraresurgenceoftheviolence,forexample,ifthereisanincreaseinthelikelihoodofencountersandrenewedcontactbetweentheoffenderandthevictim.

72


Amultitudeofvariedmotivesandreasonsunderpintheuseofviolenceriskassessmentanditinvolvesagreatdealofpractitioners.Inabriefoverview,wecangraspthebasisoftheaforementionedstatement.

Riskassessmentmaybeconductedforreasonsrelatedtothevictim,theirsafetyandwell-being.Itisusedtoformulateaplanwhichconsidersacertainlevelofprotectionaccordingtotherisktowhichthevictimisexposedandwhichislimitedintime,sincetheriskisachangingphenomenonthatvariesovertime.

Inthissense,asecondreasonmaybetheplanningofprotectionmeasures.Thethirdreasonisrelatedtotheconsiderationoftheriskspresentedandhowtheycanbeeradicated/reducedaswellasoneofthemostim-portantreasons,raisingtheawarenessofthewomanbywayof“herownperception”oftherisksheisexposedtoandamoreobjectiveandexpertassessment,tostrikeanessentialcompromisebetweenthevictimandthepractitionerontheappropriatestepstotaketoprotectthevictim.

Withregardtotheoffender,riskassessmenthasotheruses(whichareonlymentionedhere):adjustmentofcontrolmeasures,assessmentoftheefficacyoftreatmentandtheidentificationofriskfactorssusceptibletochangeandintervention.

Finally,intheprofessionaldomain,thereasonsforemployingriskassessmentareveryimportant:firstly,itim-pliesanincreaseinthepredictivepowerthatpractitionersalreadypossessonaccountoftheirexperienceandtraining,helpindecision-makingwhichisalwayswelcomeduetotheresponsibilityandcomplexityofthistypeofdecisionand,inouropinion,oneofthemostvaluablereasons:subsequenttransparencyofthereasonsbe-hindthedecisionsmade.

RiskassessmentwhichfollowsaguideorguidealwaysallowawrittenrecordoftheworkdonetobeproducedinordertoanticipatewhatmighthappentotheIPVvictim.Thismotivationisofparamountimportancebecauseitguaranteesahistoricrecordoftheaspectsassessedtomaketheprognosis.Inthisregard,riskassessmentwithguidesandformallydesignedguidesishugelybeneficialtoclinicalassessments,whichareoftennotdoneexplicitly,butasanintuitiveorimplicitresultofotherinterventionprocesseswiththevictimoroffender.

7Conclusions and recommendations for use

73


To assess the risk of violence,several recommendations should be borne in mind:

1. Identify which form of violence we wish to prevent and anticipate.Specifying which threat the woman faces is fundamental for deciding on the intervention strategy.Obviously,attemptingtoassesstheriskofmurderisnotthesameasassessingtheriskofstalkingorpsychologicalviolence.Thereasonbehindthisobservationisnotonlytheseverityoftheconsequencesbuttheprevalenceandlikelihoodofeachofthem.Murderisimpossibletopredictduetoitsverylowprobability(3x1.000.000)andassessingtheriskofmurderisalsoverydifficultforthesamereason;howeverwehaveappropriatetechniquesforthistasksuchastheDangerAssessmentToolbyJ.K.Cam-pbell(Campbelletal.,2009;Campbell,1995),anactuarialguidespecifictothistask.

2. Identify the lethality of the threat.Theprobabilityofthreatsbecomingarealitymustbeconsidered;itissomewhatsimilartothreatsofsuicide,notallofthemarerealandplausible,butthedegreeoflikelihoodmustbedecidedupon.Deaththreatsmadebyanoffenderthatisdetainedandcannotaccessthevictimhaveadifferentvaluetowhentheoffenderisabouttobereleasedorchargedincourtproceedings.

3. Recognise the victim to whom the threat is addressed and other potential victims.Generallyspeaking,inIPV,thecurrentorformerpartneristhepossiblevictim,butsometimesthechil-drenorparentsandnewpartnerofthevictimarealsothetargetoftheoffender’sviolentconduct.Itisespeciallyimportanttobeawareofwhomaybeadirectorindirecttargetoftheviolenceinthisdomain.

4. Assess the possibility of the threat being imminent.This ishighlyrelevantas itdeterminestheprecedenceandurgencygiventotheassessmentandtheintervention.Underthesecircumstances,itisessentialtowarnthevictimandmobilisetheresourcesavailabletopreventtheactionthatweconsiderimmediate.

5. Thismaybethelaststepaccordingtotheserviceandthepractitionerconductingtheriskassessment,butitwouldinvolvedirectinterventionincontrollingtheoffenderthroughtheavailableresources(incapacita-tion,arrest,etc.).

74


Isitpossibletopredictandthereforepreventintimatepartnerviolence?Letusconsiderthattheanswer,inglo-balterms,isyes.However,specificepisodesoffutureviolentconductaredifficulttopredictwiththeprecisiondesirable.Thistaskisespeciallycomplicatedwhenindividualsdonotpresentpersonaltraitsthathaveconnota-tionsofpropensitytowardsviolenceorahistoryofviolence.Nevertheless,itiseasiertoanticipatefuturevio-lencewhenitconcernspotentiallyviolentpeople,whohaveaprevioushistoryofrepetitiveviolentconduct,orapersonalitythatshowspropensitytoviolentconductor,ifapplicable,thatsufferadisordercloselyassociatedwithviolentconduct.

Inconclusion,wecouldsaythatwewillneverbeabletoknowifapersonwillcommitagivenviolentactinthefuture,actssuchasviolentassaultsagainstpartnerscannotbeanticipated.However,thelikelihoodofthemoc-curringcanbe,andthisistheobjectivesoughtbyriskassessmenttechniques:togaugetheprobabilityofviolentconductarisinginagivencontext(especially)ifitisserious.

Wecannotguessthefuture,wecanonlyassessthelikelihoodofviolenceemergingoncertainoccasions(afterafewmonths,days,etc.)andunderspecificconditions(inafamily,schoolenvironment,etc.).Therefore,thepredictionofviolencebecomesanestimationoftherelativeriskofviolentconductbyapersonoccurringinagivenenvironmentandforarelativelyexacttimeperiod.

TheRVD-BCNGuideiseffectiveinassessingtheriskoffutureviolence,butitisnotatoolforpredictingfutureviolentconduct;adistinctionmustbemadebetweenthesecategoriessinceweshallalwaysworkwithriskes-timationssufficientlyinordertoarbitratesecuritymeasuresandriskmanagementstrategiesthatallowtheriskofviolencetobeeradicatedinareasonableandpracticalmanner.

75


In summary, in addition tomakingbetterpredictions, theadvantagesofusing theRVD-BCNareas follows:

1. Making appropriate decisions.

Thismeansthatguideshelpimprovetheconsistencyofdecisions,increasetheaccuracyandestablishanormforindividualisedinterventions,sinceriskassessmentimpliesameticulousprocessofanalysisofthestrengthsandweaknessesofthesubjectandtheirclinicalstate.Theyhelpsteertheinterventionofprofessionalsinpredictiontasksanddonotleavetheriskassessmentprocessuptotheirfreejudge-ment,sincethismethodhasproventobeunreliableandofquestionablevalidity.

2. Increase the rigour and transparency of decisions.Theassessmentprocedureforcesinformationsources,whichgeneratethedatathatformpartofeachofthejudgementsontheitemsintheguides,tobecompared.Inthismanner,users’rightsareprotectedwhenreviewingwhatresearchandprofessionalpracticehasshowntoberelevanttotheprognosis.Theguidecontributestoenhancingtheconsistencyofdecisionssincecompareddatacollectionsystemsaretakenintoaccountwhichcontainrelevantandsignificantdataonthebiographicalhistoryofthepersonassessed,thevariablesoftheirclinicalconditionandsituation(risk/protectionfactors)anduponwhichaprognosisoffutureconductmustbemade.

3. Safety management. Violenceriskassessmentthatfollowstheseproceduresgeneratesmanyideasaroundhowtoprotectvictims,sincetheyhaveatimeperspectiverelativetotheriskofviolencethatallowsauthoritiesandthepeopleinvolved(offendersandvictims)toadoptprecisemeasuresforactionrelatedtotheforeseenrisks.Inthisregard,naturalandsocialriskmanagementexperiencescanaffordusmanystrategiesforactionapplicabletothesafetyofvictims.

76


GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE RVD USER

1

Obtaininformationontheguide’sfactorsthroughavailableorpotentialsources.Thoughthevictimisusuallythemainandmostcommonproviderofinformation,itmustbeborneinmindthatinformationfromthepoliceandotherservicesthathavedealtwiththewoman’scaseunderassessment,includingsolicitors,clinicalstaff,familymembers,witnesses,etc.,isvalid.

2

Considerthatthebasisforriskassessmentistheinformationthatallowsustodecidewhethertheriskfactorispresentorabsent.Itishighlydesirabletohaveinformationthatisasaccurateaspossible.Thisinformationmayberequiredforsubsequentverification,forwhichitisre-commendedthatwrittenrecordsbeproducedandtheinformationusedtomakedecisionsbearchived.Thisinformationmayalsoproveusefulforanalysingthequalityoftheassessment.

3

Donotobtaininformationontheriskfactors(andothersecurityissues)insituationsinwhichthevictimhasnoguaranteesof talkingwithoutbeingafraid (presenceof thepartner, inapublicplace,etc.).Concernsforhersafetyintheinterviewsituationorcontactwithwomen’sservicesmayaffectthequalityandcredibilityoftheinformationgivenbythevictim.

4

Itmustbeborneinmindthattheguide’slistofriskfactorsinnot“uniqueandexclusive”.Itisalistreferringtotheriskfactorsthatare“morefrequentincasesofsevereintimatepartnerviolence”andwhichhavebeen included intheguidetoassessthematalltimesand inallcases.Thesearethefactorsthatmustalwaysbeevaluated,butthelistcanbeextendedbyvirtueofeachindividualcase,anditisthepractitionerthatmustincludethesefactorsinthefinalcaseassessment.

5

Itshouldbenotedthatthevictimmayhavetofaceverycomplicatedorevendangeroussitua-tionsasaresultoftheappraisals,andmustbecapableofmanagingthesenewthreatsposedbytheassessments.

6

Itmustbe remembered that the risk is a “transient” and “variable” condition (sometimeschangescanbeveryfastandsudden).Generally,thisimpliesthedaysandweekssubsequenttotheformalcomplaint,intervention,etc.,hencetheimportanceofensuringtheintervention(theveryactofassessingtherisk)doesnotheightentheriskofassaultagainstthewoman.

77


Amor,P.J.;Echeburúa,E.;Corral,P.;Zubizarreta,I;Sarasúa,B.(2002)Repercusionespsicopatológicasdelaviolenciadomésticaenlamujerenfuncióndelascircunstanciasdelmaltrato.International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology,2,227-246

Andrés-Pueyo,A.;López,S.;Alvarez,E.(2008)ValoracióndelriesgodeviolenciacontralaparejapormediodelaSARA.Papeles del Psicólogo,29(1):107-122

Andrés-Pueyo,A.(2009)Violènciacontralapareja:definición,prevalenciayfactoresderiesgo.Valencia,CentroReinaSofía

Andrés-Pueyo,A.;Echeburúa,E.(2010)Valoracióndelriesgodeviolencia:instrumentosdisponibleseindicacionesdeaplicación.Psicothema2010,Vol.22,3,p.403-409

Andrews,D.;Bonta,J.(2006)The psychology of criminal conduct.NewYork:LexisNexis

Belfrage,H.;S.Strand,et al.(2011)AssessmentandManagementofRiskforIntimatePartnerViolencebyPoliceOfficersUsingtheSpousalAssaultRiskAssessmentGuide.Law and Human Behavior,10

Campbell,J.C.(ed.)(1995)Assessing dangerousness. Violence by sexual offenders, batterers, and child abusers.ThousandOaks:SAGEPublications.

Campbell,J.;Webster,D.;Glass,N.(2009)The danger assessment: validation of a lethality risk assessment instrument for intimate partnerfemicide.Journal of Interpersonal Violence,24,p.653-674

8References

78


Dutton,D.G.;Golant,S.K.(1997)El golpeador. Un perfil psicológico.BuenosAires:Paidós

Dutton,D.G.;Kropp,P.R.(2000)Areviewofdomesticviolenceriskinstruments.Trauma Violence & Abuse,1(2):171-181

Echeburúa,E.;Fernández,J. et al.(2009)Predicción del riesgo de homicidio y de violencia grave en la relación de pareja: intrumentos de evalua-ción del riesgo y adopción de medidas de protección.Valencia,CentroReinaSofía

Echeburúa,E.;Amor,P.et al.(2010)Escaladeprediccióndelriesgodeviolenciagravecontralapareja.Psicothema22:1054-1060

Singh,J.;Fazel,S.(2010)Forensicriskassessment.Criminal Justice & Behavior,37:965-988.

Felson,R.et al. (2008)IstheAssociationbetweenAlcoholUseandDelinquencyCausalorSpurious?Criminology,46:301-324

Hart,S.D.;Michie,C.et al.(2007)Precision of actuarial risk assessment instruments: Evaluating the ‘margins of error’ of group v.individualpredictionsofviolence.British Journal of Psychiatry, 190(Supl49):s60-s65

Hilton,Z.;Harris,G.T.(2005)Predictingwifeassault:acriticalreviewandimplicationsforpolicyandpractice.Trauma, Violence & Abuse,6(1):3-23

79


Kropp,R.;Hart,S.;Weabster,C.;Eaves,D.(1995/2005)SARA Manual para la valoración del riesgo de violencia contra la pareja.Barcelona:PublicacionsiEdicionsdelaUniversitatdeBarcelona

Kropp,R.(2008)Intimatepartnerviolenceriskassessmentandmanagement.Violence and Victims,23(2),202-222

OMS(2006)Researching violence against women. A practical guide for researchers and activist.WHOPublication

Redondo,S.;Andrés-Pueyo,A.(2007)Lapsicologiadeladelincuencia.Papeles del Psicólogo,28(3):147-156

Stith,S.M.;Smith,D.B.et al.(2004)Intimatepartnerphysicalabuseperpetrationandvictimizationriskfactors:Ameta-analyticreview.Aggression and Violent Behaviour10:65-98

Tjaden,P.;Thoennes,N.(2000)Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence, Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey,1-57USHealthDepartment,CDC

Walker,L.E.(1999)PsychologyanddomesticviolencearoundtheworldAmerican Psychologist,54,21-29

Webster,C.D.;Douglas,K.S.et al.(1997)HCR-20. Assessing risk for violence. Version 2.Vancouver,Canada:MentalHealth,LawandPolicyInstitute,SimonFraserUniversity

80



CIRCUIT BARCELONACONTRA LA VIOLÈNCIAVERS LES DONES

RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDE FOR VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN PERPETRATED BY THEIR PARTNER

OR FORMER PARTNER

THE RVD-BCN

Barcelona, 15 december 011

Theauthorswillbestatedinanyexploitationoftheworkauthorisedunderthelicense.

circuit barcelona contra la violÈncia vers les dones€¦ · the barcelona network to fight...

Documents