Domestic Violence Offender Assessment Review

This report provides a brief overview of the instruments and methods used by practitioners who assess and/or treat domestic violence offenders. It should be noted that there is no one instrument or method that will absolutely predict the risk of danger present with a domestic violence offender. Neither clinical nor actuarial measurement methods will absolutely predict recidivism. No legal system, victim(s), nor treatment provider should depend on any one assessment method to make a decision about in-the-moment risk of danger. Domestic violence offender assessment can "serve as a basis for release planning, treatment placement, and safety assessment for the victim" (Dutton & Kropp, p. 179). Domestic violence offender assessments "are not efficient lethality screens [but] they are powerful dangerousness indicators." (Websdale, p. 5).

Only three centralized domestic violence assessment centers have been identified in the United States. Assessment methods of these centers are herein reviewed. Also reviewed are assessment methods of select batterer intervention programs (BIP) in Memphis and peer cities, and a sampling of commercially available assessment instruments.

Assessment method of the Memphis Domestic Violence Assessment Center (DVAC)
The Memphis DVAC uses a comprehensive assessment approach that includes a clinical interview, offender questionnaires (pencil and paper), affidavit information, court-provided information on the offender’s history of criminal violence, and victim-provided information where available. DVAC’s clinical interview and questionnaires include pertinent information about the offender’s history of violent behaviors, history of experience of abuse, mental health history, substance use assessment, and current risk of danger. DVAC’s assessment methods were developed by Kris Henning, Ph.D. Dr. Henning identified key components for use in the assessment through review of the literature, as well as review of published instruments such as the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA), the Danger Assessment Scale (DA), the Conflicts and Tactics Scale (CTS), the Inventory of Beliefs about Wife Beating (IBWB), and the Abusive Behavior Inventory (ABI). DVAC also uses two published (commercially available) assessments, one for substance use screening and one for parenting skills. Over time, Dr. Henning has refined DVAC’s assessment tools by using DVAC’s data to identify items with significant correlation – honing in on the items that are statistically significant in predictive value. The DVAC assessment provides a narrative report and an actuarial ranking. DVAC gives both a brief synopsis of the offender’s treatment needs and also provides a ranking of the offender’s risk of recidivism This risk ranking compares the individual offender to all other offenders assessed at DVAC to predict one individual’s risk of danger as compared to all other offenders assessed at that agency.

Assessment method of the Sussex County and Essex County, New Jersey, DVACs
Sussex and Essex County, New Jersey, have centralized DVACs similar to Memphis’s DVAC. Both Sussex and Essex County use self-developed assessment approaches. Their assessments include a clinical interview, offender questionnaires (pencil and paper), affidavit information, court-provided information on the offender’s history of criminal violence, and victim-provided information where available. Sussex County initially used the Domestic Violence Inventory (DVI), a published instrument, but ceased use of the tool because it is heavily based in offender self-report. Sussex County found that offender self-report was not consistent with collateral data (criminal history reports, victim reports, etc.). Sussex and Essex County DVAC’s measurements include key components identified through review of the literature, as well as review of published instruments such as the SARA, the DA, the CTS, the IBWB, and the ABI. Sussex and Essex County DVACs also use published alcohol and drug assessments. Neither DVAC has analyzed their data to identify if their assessment results are statistically significant in predictive value. Both DVACs provide narrative reports to the court; they also provide a risk-ranking for the offender – the risk-ranking is based in additive scores of the assessment rather than peer-group comparisons.

Memphis Alcohol and Drug Council (MADC), Memphis, TN
MADC is a certified BIP in Tennessee. MADC accepts the Memphis DVAC assessment and uses this information in tandem with MADC’s own assessment. MADC’s assessment includes a clinical interview and a questionnaire that incorporates items from measures such as the IBWB and DA. MADC does assess for alcohol and drug use by use of instruments such as the Michigan Alcohol Screening Test (MAST) and the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI). MADC reports that upwards of 90% of offenders they assess have alcohol and drug-related problems. MADC has not analyzed their data to identify if their assessment results are statistically significant in predictive value. MADC’s assessment is not shared with the court; it is for treatment planning only.

MidSouth Alcohol and Drug Education Center (MADEC), Memphis, TN
MADEC is a certified BIP in Tennessee. MADEC accepts the Memphis DVAC assessment and uses this information in tandem with MADEC’s own assessment. MADEC’s assessment includes a clinical interview and a questionnaire that incorporates items from measures such as the DA. MADEC reports that they find the Memphis DVAC assessment to be more intensive and helpful to batterer treatment because it highlight’s individual problems. MADEC has not analyzed their data to identify if their assessment results are statistically significant in predictive value. MADEC’s assessment is not shared with the court; it is for treatment planning only.

Guinle and Associates (GA), Memphis, TN
GA is a certified BIP in Tennessee. GA accepts the DVAC assessment if the offender seeking treatment has completed a DVAC assessment. If the offender was not assessed at the DVAC, GA will do their own assessment. GA’s assessment includes a clinical interview and the SASSI. GA has not analyzed their data to identify if their assessment results are statistically significant in predictive value. GA’s assessment is not shared with the court; it is for treatment planning only.

Domestic Violence Intervention Center (DVIC), Nashville, TN.
DVIC is a certified BIP in Tennessee. Nashville does not have a centralized DVAC, therefore DVIC conducts their own assessment. DVIC’s assessment includes a clinical interview and use of instruments such as the MAST and "a violence inventory." DVIC has not analyzed their data to identify if their assessment results are statistically significant in predictive value. DVIC’s assessment is not shared with the court; it is for treatment planning only.

Gateway, Birmingham, Alabama.
Gateway is a certified BIP in Alabama. Birmingham does not have a centralized DVAC, therefore Gateway conducts their own assessment. Gateway’s assessment includes a clinical interview, a brief screening for substance abuse and "underlying problems," use of the SASSI, and use of a self-developed questionnaire on attitudes and behaviors related to a history of violent behaviors. Gateway sometimes gets information from the victim. Gateway has not analyzed their data to identify if their assessment results are statistically significant in predictive value. Gateway’s assessment is not shared with the court; it is for treatment planning only.

The Family Place (TFP), Dallas, TX
TFP is a certified BIP in Texas. Dallas does not have a centralized DVAC, therefore TFP conducts their own assessment. TFP’s assessment includes a clinical interview and use of the ABI. TFP has not analyzed their data to identify if their assessment results are statistically significant in predictive value. TFP’s assessment is not shared with the court; it is for treatment planning only.

Men Stopping Violence (MSV), Atlanta, GA.
MSV is a certified BIP in Georgia. Atlanta does not have a centralized DVAC, therefore MSV conducts their own assessment. MSV’s assessment includes a clinical interview and use of a self-developed questionnaire. MSV’s questionnaire includes items from measures used by EMERGE and AMEND, two nationally identified BIPs. MSV has not analyzed their data to identify if their assessment results are statistically significant in predictive value. MSV’s assessment is not shared with the court; it is for treatment planning only.

Commercially Available Instruments

The Domestic Violence Inventory (DVI) is published by Behavior Data Systems, Ltd. The DVI comes in several forms: the standard DVI, a juvenile version of the DVI, and a pre-test/post-test version. The DVI can be administered via computer or pencil-paper. It is available in English and Spanish. It is also available in a "verbalized" format using earphones with the computerized version. The DVI takes about 30 minutes to complete. It has six scales: truthfulness (how honest is the test-taker being), violence (lethality), control (the person’s need to control others), alcohol, drugs, and stress coping abilities. The DVI is scored by a computer program that automatically generates scores and a report. The DVI compares the test-taker’s answers and scores with a database of more than 4500 men and women in order to produce an individual’s "risk ranking." The DVI has been analyzed for validity and reliability. Data analysis yields high, and statistically significant, reliability and correlative value.

The Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) is published by Multi-Health Systems, Inc. The SARA is a "quality control checklist that determines the extent to which a professional has assessed those risk factors deemed to be of crucial predictive importance according to the clinical and empirical literature" (VioEval #587) The SARA is a pencil-paper checklist that can be completed in under 20 minutes. SARA publishers recommend additional assessment to support the SARA, such as a clinical interview, interviewing the victim, alcohol and drug screening, and review of court-provided criminal background information. The SARA provides a way to identify an individual’s risk factors, a way to record "critical items," and a summary of risk ratings. The SARA is hand scored. SARA scores can be compared to a normative group to identify a relative risk ranking. Reliability and validity information on the SARA was not readily available for review. Dutton and Kropp (2000) note that "the SARA is not a test. Its purpose is not to provide absolute or relative measures or risk using cutoff scores or norms but rather to structure and enhance professional judgments about risk" (p. 175).

The Domestic Violence Risk Assessment (DVRA) was developed by, and is distributed by, Dr. Daniel Sonkin. This instrument can be sampled at http://www.daniel-sonkin.com/dvrisk/dvrisk.html. This instrument is orally administered by a clinician. It includes 15 psychosocial factors for consideration in development of a treatment plan for a domestic violence offender. It is not intended for use as a psychometric diagnosis, but rather as an instrument to facilitate identification of treatment needs. Several studies on the DVRA have indicated statistically significant reliability and validity of the instrument, although more research, with larger sample sizes, is needed.

Closing Comments

The Memphis DVAC uses a comprehensive assessment procedure that continues to be analyzed and refined by Dr. Kris Henning. DVAC’s assessment procedure yields a thorough examination of an individual’s mental health history, history of violence, history of exposure to abuse, and current levels of danger and substance use. The procedure also measures an individual’s attitudes toward, and beliefs about, battering. The DVAC assessment report provides valuable information for victims, the legal system, victim service providers, and offender treatment providers.

The Memphis DVAC provides reliable risk assessments of domestic violence offenders. Risk-of –recidivism ranking as determined by a DVAC evaluation is an accurate reflection of an individual’s risk of re-offending as compared to other offenders that have been evaluated at DVAC.

Stakeholders may wish to take assessment of domestic violence offenders to the next level, as was originally suggested in the Crime Commission’s Best Practice #5 regarding the DVAC. It is possible to identify offenders’ initial risk and treatment needs, as well as to measure how much change the offender accomplished through treatment. The Domestic Violence Inventory in

pre-test/post-test format appears to be a cost-effective, time efficient, and nationally standardized means of assessing initial risk as well as post-treatment impact.

Resource List

Dutton, D.G. & Kropp, P. R. (2000). A review of domestic violence risk instruments. Traum, Violence, & Abuse, 1(2), 171-181.

VioEval Record #587 – Spousal Assault Risk Assessment. (2003). Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence.

Websdale, N. (2000). Lethality assessment tools: A critical analysis. Washington, D.C.: National Resource Center on Domestic Violence.

Verbal Interviews with:

Mr. Robert Holford, DVAC program manager at the Exchange Club of Memphis.

Ms. Alisha Lamply, counselor, and Ms. Susan Canon, executive director, of the Domestic Violence Intervention Program in Nashville, TN.

Mr. Wes Goodenough, program manager, Gateway treatment program in Birmingham, AL.

Mr. Stanley Rodriguez, administrative assistant, The Family Place in Dallas, TX.

Mr. Dick Bathrick, program director, Men Stopping Violence in Atlanta, GA.

Ms. Cynthia Glass, executive director, Memphis Alcohol and Drug Council.

Ms. Tameka Daniel, administrative director, MidSouth Alcohol and Drug Education Center, Memphis, TN.

Ms. Mary Hewell, psychological examiner, Guinle & Associates, Memphis, TN.

Dr. Kris Henning, Portland State University, Portland, OR.

Mr. Lenny Morano, program coordinator, Sussex County DVAC, New Jersey.

Ms. Joyce Mowrer, program coordinator, Essex County DVAC, New Jersey.