The ‘officer effect’ in risk assessment for domestic abuse: Findings from a mixed methods study in England and Wales

Research on risk assessment for domestic abuse has focused primarily on the predictive validity of specific tools; less attention has been paid to implementation of risk tools by practitioners. This paper presents findings from a mixed methods study in England and Wales. Multi-level modelling reveals an ‘officer effect’ whereby victims’ responses to the Domestic Abuse, Stalking and Harassment and Honour-Based Violence (DASH) risk assessment are influenced by the specific officer that completes the assessment. Specifically, this officer effect is strongest in relation to questions intended to capture elements of controlling and coercive behaviour, and least apparent in relation to identifying physical injuries. We further present findings from field observations and interviews with first response officers that corroborate and help explain the officer effect. We discuss implications for the design of primary risk assessments, victim safeguarding, and the use of police data for predictive modelling.

[1]  A. Myhill,et al.  ‘A genuine one usually sticks out a mile’: policing coercive control in England and Wales , 2022, Policing and Society.

[2]  Sandra Walklate,et al.  Gender, risk assessment and coercive control: Contradictions in terms? , 2021, The British Journal of Criminology.

[3]  A. Myhill,et al.  Policing a new domestic abuse crime: effects of force-wide training on arrests for coercive control , 2020, Policing and Society.

[4]  Tom Kirchmaier,et al.  Comparing Conventional and Machine-Learning Approaches to Risk Assessment in Domestic Abuse Cases , 2020, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies.

[5]  Jamie Grace,et al.  ‘No black and white answer about how far we can go’: police decision making under the domestic violence disclosure scheme , 2020, Policing and Society.

[6]  Gabriele B. Durrant,et al.  The Interviewer Contribution to Variability in Response Times in Face-to-Face Interview Surveys , 2020, Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology.

[7]  Jane Monckton Smith Intimate Partner Femicide: Using Foucauldian Analysis to Track an Eight Stage Progression to Homicide , 2020, Violence against women.

[8]  R. Wortley,et al.  Intimate Femicide: The Role of Coercive Control , 2019 .

[9]  A. Myhill,et al.  Practitioner (mis)understandings of coercive control in England and Wales , 2018 .

[10]  Sadie E. Larsen,et al.  Coercive control in intimate partner violence , 2017 .

[11]  J. Messing,et al.  The Lethality Screen , 2017, Journal of interpersonal violence.

[12]  A. Myhill,et al.  The “Golden Thread”: Coercive Control and Risk Assessment for Domestic Violence , 2019, Journal of interpersonal violence.

[13]  A. Myhill,et al.  Police use of discretion in response to domestic violence , 2016 .

[14]  R. Dobash,et al.  When Men Murder Women , 2015 .

[15]  G. Mythen Understanding the Risk Society , 2014 .

[16]  Qi Chen The Impact of Ignoring a Level of Nesting Structure in Multilevel Mixture Model , 2012 .

[17]  G. Mythen,et al.  Beyond risk theory: Experiential knowledge and ‘knowing otherwise’ , 2011 .

[18]  M. Rowe,et al.  Running the risk: police officer discretion and family violence in New Zealand , 2011 .

[19]  James M. LeBreton,et al.  Answers to 20 Questions About Interrater Reliability and Interrater Agreement , 2008 .

[20]  A. Robinson Reducing Repeat Victimization Among High-Risk Victims of Domestic Violence , 2006, Violence against women.

[21]  Catherine A. Cormier,et al.  A brief actuarial assessment for the prediction of wife assault recidivism: the Ontario domestic assault risk assessment. , 2004, Psychological assessment.

[22]  R. Ericson,et al.  Policing the Risk Society , 1997 .

[23]  R. Emerson,et al.  Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes , 1995 .

[24]  Jean M. Converse,et al.  THE EFFECTS OF BLACK AND WHITE INTERVIEWERS ON BLACK RESPONSES IN 1968 , 1971 .