Kirk R. Williams, Ph.D. Professor of Sociology and Co-Director

1. Findings from a Dual Generic and Specific Risk Assessment Process for Domestic Violence Perpetrators in Connecticut Kirk R. Williams, Ph.D. Professor of Sociology and Co-Director Presley Center for Crime and Justice Studies University of California, Riverside Riverside, CA 92521 (951) 827-4604 Kirk.Williams@UCR.EDU

2. A Brief History of the CT Domestic Violence Risk Assessment Project

3. Intake interviews and risk assessments are conducted by family relations counselors with all domestic violence perpetrators after arrest • Results are used used to make two recommendations at arraignment, held approximately 24 hours after arrest

4. Placement • Referral to family services for pre-trial supervision • Referral to State’s Attorney for prosecution, nolle (no prosecution but case stays open for 13 months. If violations occur, the case can be reopened, with prosecution of old and new offenses), continued monitoring to ensure compliance with court orders, or dismissal

5. Protective Orders: • No protective order • Partial or limited protective order • Residential stay away protective order • Full no contact protective order

6. Family Services wanted an instrument to assess the risk of repeat offending that could be administered quickly, given the short time constraints and conditions under which assessments are done

7. The original Domestic Violence Screening Instrument (DVSI) met their criteria • It was developed and validated in Colorado (Law and Society Review, 2004, Vol. 28: 437-455)

8. It was adopted in May, 2002 as the risk assessment instrument to be used in CT

9. After analyzing repeated pilot samples and incorporating input from Family Relations Counselors (FRCs) during 2003, the instrument was revised (now the DVSI-R) and implemented statewide in 2004

10. The DVSI-R includes 11 items, seven of which address the behavioral history of offenders, and the other four items pertaining to substance abuse, objects used as weapons, or children present during prior or current violent incidents, and employment status

11. It also includes summary ratings (low, medium, high) of imminent risk of future violence to the victim or some other person known to the victim

12. Scoring categories range from zero (no evidence) to two or three depending on the item Assessors score each item after reviewing the available sources (police report, defendant interview, registry, record checks, victim input if available)

13. Items are automatically (computerized system) summed to derive total risk scores, ranging from zero to 28.

14. Determining the Predictive Validity of the DVSI-R • An initial study was done with 14,970 assessments between September 1, 2004 and May 2, 2005 • The results showed that higher scores on the DVSI-R were significantly related with a greater likelihood of recidivism during this eight month period (see Public Health Reports, 2006, Vol. 121: 400-408.)

15. Conducted two 18-Month Recidivism Studies Sample 1 included assessments during October-November, 2005 (N = 3,796) Sample 2 included assessments during February-March, 2007 (N = 3,569)

16. DVSI-R Total Risk Scores Were Associated With (AUC in parentheses): • New family violence offenses (Sample 1 .680; sample 2 .690) • Violations of restraining and protective orders (Sample 1 = .733; sample 2 = .751) • Multiple arrests during the follow-up period (Sample 1 = .738; sample 2 = .738) • Multiple victims and victimizations (Sample 1 = .746; sample 2 = .738)

17. In short, the higher the DVSI-R risk score, the greater the probability of family violence recidivism, the potential seriousness of the offending, and non-compliance with court orders

18. Finding the Limitation of Generic Risk Assessment for Domestic Violence Offenders Both samples included sub-sets of cases that had previously been on probation and assessed with a generic risk assessment instrument: The Level of Service Inventory Revised (LSI-R)

19. The LSI-R is a 54 item risk-needs assessment instrument administered to all convicted offenders placed on probation in Connecticut for any criminal offense • The 54 items are distributed across ten domains

20. Criminal history (10 items) • Education/Employment (10 items) • Financial problems (2 items) • Family/Marital (4 items) • Accommodation - living arrangements (3 items) • Leisure/Recreation (2 items) • Nature of companions (5 items) • Substance abuse problems (9 items) • Emotional problems (5 items) • Attitude/Orientation (4 items)

21. Items are scored, and scores are automatically (computerized system) summed for each domain for a “needs” sub-score and across domains for a total “risk” score • Total risk score is used to determine the level of supervision, and domain sub-scores are used to link needs to services for case management

22. The empirical relation between between the LSI-R and the DVSI-R These two sets of total risk scores are not highly correlated • Sample 1 r = .172 (N = 920) • Sample 2 r = .150 (N = 808)

23. 920 of the 3,796 cases in the 2005 statewide DVSI-R validation study (sample 1) had previously received the LSI-R 56.7% (N = 152) of those scoring in the lowest quartile of the LSI-R (N = 268) scored in the top half of the DVSI-R distribution

24. 808 of the 3,569 cases in the 2007 statewide DVSI-R validation study (sample 2) had previously received the LSI-R 70.6% (N = 149) of those scoring in the lowest quartile of the LSI-R (N = 211) scored in the top half of the DVSI-R distribution

25. The cases scoring low on the LSI-R but high on the DVSI-R “fall through the cracks” in terms of calculated levels of supervision (administrative monitoring or low) They are “false negatives” in the assessment of risk when the LSI-R is use alone, posing public safety (in the home) and criminal justice liability problems

26. Connecticut initiated a pilot study to determine if including the DVSI-R in the post-conviction risk and needs assessment process would identify high risk DV cases and elevate them to a higher level of supervision

27. Collected data for a “test” sample of 220 cases between August 20, 2007 and February 20, 2008 in two pilot sites

28. Collected a comparison sample of 260 cases six-months prior to the “test” period

29. Key Findings

32. Conclusions Including the DVSI-R in the risk assessment process was associated with significant upgrading from calculated to assigned levels levels of supervision

33. Overriding DV cases from lower to higher levels of supervision was associated with a lower likelihood of domestic violence recidivism six months after assessment

34. Connecticut launched a statewide dual assessment process last summer for all convicted domestic violence offenders placed on probation

35. Preliminary evidence from 1,267 recent cases in 2009 suggest upgrading levels of supervision is occurring: • 46.9% of the 207 cases with low calculated levels of supervision were assigned medium levels • 43.5% of those 207 cases were assigned high levels of supervision, and • 46.5% of 340 cases with medium calculated levels of supervision were assigned high levels of supervision

36. The dual assessment process will be followed through next year to determine: • whether this pattern of increasing levels of supervision is continuing, and • whether it is associated with domestic violence recidivism reduction

37. Thank You!

38. Setting Sun Over the Pacific