Interpreting ODARA Risk Scores

Interpreting ODARA Risk Scores
Score
Percent
Recidivism
Percent in
this range
Percent
scoring
lower
Percent
scoring
higher
0 5 11 0 89
1 10 16 11 73
2 20 21 27 52
3 27 19 48 33
4 41 13 67 20
5-6 59 13 80 7
7-13 70 7 93 0

Using ODARA
POLICE
‣ Inform decisions on attendance at Family Violence
occurrence
‣ Police bail – nature and type of conditions
‣ Support opposition to bail applications
‣ Relevant supporting information for all offender
management decisions
‣ Inform victim crisis referral, Emergency transportation
‣ Crown brief
‣ Inform tactical decisions around prioritizing offenders
/ victims for intervention and preventative activities

Using ODARA – Courts/Probation
Bail
‣ Higher scoring offenders represent more substantial risk
‣ Custody, Bail conditions
‣ Victim services liaison
Sentencing
‣ Incarceration, Duration
‣ Probation conditions
Probation and Parole
‣ Higher risk offenders: more supervision
‣ Conditions of release
‣ Supervision frequency, Intensity
‣ Referral to treatment programs

Uses of ODARA
Identification of potential risk to Victim
(and children in relationship)
‣ Assists in explaining to victims, and their understanding
of, potential risk
‣ Improve victim engagement with service providers
‣ Enable appropriate safety planning commensurate to
identified risk for victim
‣ Information to victims on uses of ODARA by the Criminal
Justice System
Offender Treatment Decisions
‣ Resource allocation
‣ Attrition
‣ Victim contact
A common metric for all sectors working together to
prevent intimate partner violence

Certification and Registration
‣ ODARA is an internationally validated risk
assessment tool, it will be tested and validated in NZ
by NZ Police
‣ To maintain integrity and predictive validity of
ODARA scores, NZ Police must comply with
training, certification and registration requirements.
‣ Frontline staff will collect ODARA information –
scores will be validated by specialists who are
trained users.
‣ All training of users will be provided by the FV Unit
and delivered by a registered ODARA trainer
‣ All staff who successfully complete the ODARA user
training will be certified and internationally
registered.

Collection of Risk Information
(IPV - ODARA not applicable)
Once ODARA was chosen we needed to look specifically at
how to manage risk to occurrences where ODARA did not
apply…
To score the ODARA, (the index assault) must be met.
Definition - index assault:
• the most recent incident known to police in which
violence occurred between intimate partners …
• ‘Violence’ = physical and /or sexual assault and/ or a
credible threat of harm or death with a weapon in hand,
in the presence of the victim
‣ Risk information was required for IPV attendances where
ODARA does not apply (the orange wedge)

Collection of Risk Information
(IPV - ODARA not applicable)
‣ Confident that ODARA will help prioritize cases and
assess risk where physical violence or imminent threat
of it applies
‣ Actuarial tools not generally developed to assess risk
at the ‘lower level’, usually designed to predict an
event
‣ But still need to collect risk information about non
ODARA IPV cases to help inform decision making
(Victim safety and offender management)
‣ IPV non ODARA cases are approximately 56% of
attendances
‣ Used research and prior recent work by Ontario
Provincial Police to develop NZ Police’s own
structured professional judgment tool – a list of
variables known to predict risk of harm in IPV cases =
Intimate Partner Vulnerability Factors

Collection of Risk Information
(IPV - ODARA not applicable)
‣ Acute and dynamic factors a primary focus to ensure
lower level attendance by Police is not something
more serious.
‣ This information also forms part of the history where
there are both ODARA and Non ODARA attendances
by Police
‣ As with the Child Risk Factors, items are not scored
(not a validated tool) but are listed as present, not
present or unknown.
‣ The number of factors and combination of factors are
both important. It is the professional judgment and
experience of FV specialists in interpreting the
information that is important
‣ Commentary and summary on front page FV reports.

Risk Information for Non ODARA IPV
Intimate Partner Vulnerability Factors
‣ Recent change in relationship status
‣ Offender wanting to renew the relationship
‣ Officer identifies / partner discloses psychological violence
‣ Chronic violence in the relationship
‣ Violence - increasing severity/frequency
‣ Victim believes offender could kill or injure her
‣ Offender has strangled the victim
‣ Offender has threatened/attempted suicide
‣ Offender has threatened to kill the victim or others
‣ Offender has a history of violence against others
‣ Offender has stalked the victim
‣ Offender has exhibited sexual jealousy
‣ Offender is recently unemployed / under financial pressure
‣ Offender has history of drug / alcohol use
‣ Offender has diagnosed mental illness
‣ Offender has diagnosed personality disorder

Risk Management – Collection of
Risk Information - Children
Once collection of risk information for IPV response
(ODARA and IPVF) was determined we needed to look
specifically at how to manage remaining risk
‣ 30% not IPV; (The ‘blue wedge’ – ODARA / IPVF not
relevant)
- 20% child related FV
- 10% ‘Other’ FV – No RA tool applicable
Addressing Risk to Children
‣ It was important to consider how Police could specifically
address risks to children when attending FV incidents.
‣ Work was commissioned to look at whether there was
identifiable and recognized risks to children living in families
engaged in FV.

Risk Management:
Collection of Risk Information – CHILDREN
‣ As part of the review Police specifically considered how
we could address risks to children when attending FV
incidents.
‣ Previous response was to apply the assessed
relationship risk to inform decisions about the child/ren.
‣ Research confirmed - high inter-relationship between IPV
and the incidence of child abuse and neglect = 70%
correlation.
‣ Automatic screening in some countries (e.g. UK).
‣ Concern with a very high percentage of child FV deaths in
immediate and wider family context in New Zealand (child
deaths are approximately 33% of all FV deaths in NZ).

Risk Management:
Collection of Risk Information – CHILDREN
‣ The Child Risk Factor Form (CRF) was developed by using
clearly identified risk factors derived from research
‣ These factors are clearly distinct from those related to IPV
(relationship risk)
‣ The CRF went through a consultation process with key partner
agencies including CYF. Critical factors have been identified to
guide referral to CYFs and the usefulness of the information is
being evaluated
‣ Balance was required to ensure CRF would not overburden
staff or be outside ‘Police role’
‣ CRF is not a risk assessment tool, but a list of variables to
inform professional judgment in making decisions
‣ The CRF is also relevant to Vulnerable children work being led
by MSD.

Child Risk Factors
‣ In the new FV response model, CRF’s will be
completed for all children involved in Family Violence
occurrences attended by NZP
‣ Only one CRF is completed for all children present that
are 16 years of age or younger
‣ The CRF records the presence or not of known risk
factors grouped into categories – aggressor, family and
child specific
‣ Police will collect this information and share it with
partner agencies
‣ We are not usurping the role of CYF to determine and
be responsible for identifying and managing at risk
children, but we will be able to assist by providing better
quality information

‣ CHILD
• Child unborn
Child Risk Factors
• Child/ren under 5 years of age
• Child/ren with physical and / or intellectual disability
• Previous or current evidence of child abuse / neglect
• Necessaries not appropriately provided for (lack of
bedding, nappies, food, heating etc)
‣ AGGRESSOR / PROTECTIVE PARENT
• History of alcohol and / or drug use
• Diagnosed mental illness
• Criminal history in the last 5 years
• Evidence of stalking in the relationship (agg)
• Extremely controlling behaviour in the relationship (agg)

Child Risk Factors (cont)
‣ FAMILY
• Police history of family violence
• Current Protection order / Family Court Order or
PSO
• Recent stressors (grief, unemployment…)
• Non-biological parents
• Mother under 25 years of age
• Recent change in relationship status
• Physical and or sexual assault of parent /
caregiver at current occurrence

How is the Model Working?
‣ Situational Response Model has been in place
since 1 July 2012
‣ Some difficulty in extracting data early on
‣ Reporting now indicates good national
consistency
‣ Picture different from the Canadian experience
‣ Independent analysis and evaluation of quality
/ accuracy of data to standard required to
enable data to be introduced to criminal justice
sector

How is the Model Working?
National Data Overview 1.7.12– 30.9.12
(Provisional data only)
• 55.3% (11 264) of occurrences were intimate
partner violence (IPV)
• 44.7% (9100) of occurrences were intrafamily
violence (IFV)
• children were present at 59.4% of
occurrences
• ODARA was applied in 15.7% of occurrences
• Intra-family violence (IFV) Index offences
(ODARA equivalent) were 12% of all
occurrences

Breakdown of FV Occurrences - National
Occurrences created 01 July to 30 Sep 2012
Inter-Family - Index
Offence, 2445,
12.0%
(CVF, 1302, 6.4%)
Inter-Family, 6655,
32.7%
(CVF, 3866, 19.0%)
IPVF, 8065, 39.6%
(CVF, 5008, 24.6%)
ODARA, 3199, 15.7%
(CVF, 1908, 9.4%)

Canadian Research Results
% Recidivism
80
60
40
20
50
40
30
20
10
% in ODARA Category
0
0 1 2 3 4 5, 6 7 +
0
NZ Results
% Recidivism
80
60
40
20
50
40
30
20
10
% in ODARA Category
0
0 1 2 3 4 5, 6 7 +
0

National ODARA Validated Scores (Jul-Sep 2012)
80
50
% Recidivism
60
40
20
40
30
20
10
% in ODARA Category
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 +
0

How does the model inform
tactics?
Identify, Plan, Implement, Evaluate (IPIE)
‣ Early intervention versus high risk prioritization
(balance)
‣ Prevention continuum triangle
‣ Tendency of emergency response to focus on crisis /
resolve cycle
‣ Ring fence resource on specified or universal
approaches –
‣ Start by understanding / identifying target
populations…

How does the model inform tactics?
‣ Use the three sectors:
• IPV (ODARA and Non index offence occurrences) –
• Intra- Family Violence (Index and non index offence
occurrences); and
• Vulnerable children
‣ Split resources to high and early intervention initiatives
‣ Area profile, number of targets based on % breakdown
of each group and objectives for each group
‣ Vulnerability factors and opportunities =
• Risk assessment / risk information
• CRF critical factors and other CRF indicators
• Repeats
• Family Violence and Criminal history
• Individual variables: mental health, addiction, gang assn etc

Identify,
Prioritise & Plan /
Implement /
Evaluate
(IPIE)
1.Identify
- Key agency and
internal
partnerships
- Intervention
options (Police /
Collaborative)
- Area Data (IPV,
IFV, Children) %
- Targets
(offenders, victims,
vulnerable
children)
-Target both high
risk and early
intervention
3. Implement
plans
- In order of priority
- with clear
objectives
- report on action
taken
2.Prioritise/
Plan
- Duration of plan
(weekly, monthly)
- Determine
numbers of target
for each focus
group (IPV, IFV,
Children)
- Place targets in
order of priority
- Develop plans in
partnerships with
key agencies and
internal groups as
appropriate.-
4.Evaluate
- Further reports of
FV?
_ Interventions /
completed or in
place
- Feedback from
partner agencies/
internal groups and
victims

FAMILY VIOLENCE SITUATIONAL RESPONSE TACTICAL SUMMARY
(NB model assumes a collaborative approach)
15.7
%
High Risk
Interventions
Early
Intervention
Strategies
39.6
%
Identifying,
Assessing
and managing
child harm
and lethality risk
Intimate
Partner
Violence
Identifying,
assessing and
managing
relationship risk
Identifying,
assessing and
managing inter-family
violence dynamics
Vulnerable
Children
Inter-
Family
Violence
High Risk
Interventions
Early
Intervention
strategies
High Risk
Interventions
Early
Intervention
Strategies
59.5
%
12%
32.7
%

Group Exercise 2
What does ‘a good’ FV response
model look like?
‣ identify what your group thinks are the two
key strengths of the model
‣ identify one area where your group thinks
the model could be improved; and
‣ one possible solution for enhancing the
current model
(15 minutes)

Key Response Lessons
‣ IPV as a distinct group – carve it up
‣ Blanket responses ineffective
‣ Relationship risk versus child harm and
lethality risk
‣ Maintain focus on IFV as well as IPV
‣ Risk information to support risk
assessment tools
‣ Prevention versus crisis response – tactics

QUESTIONS
‣ Questions welcome if we have time left!!
• Building the model
• About the model – or its parts
• Tactics
• Evaluation…etc
‣ Not withstanding I can also be contacted
by email – brigitte.nimmo@police.govt.nz
‣ Thanks for your contributions.