Exploration of the risk factors contained within the UK’s existing domestic abuse risk assessment tool (DASH): do these risk factors have individual predictive validity regarding recidivism?
Pages | 58-68 |
Published date | 09 January 2017 |
Date | 09 January 2017 |
DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JACPR-01-2016-0211 |
Author | Louise Almond,Michelle McManus,David Brian,Daniel Peter Merrington |
Subject Matter | Health & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology,Aggression, conflict & peace,Sociology,Gender studies,Gender violence,Political sociology, policy & social change,Social conflicts,War/peace |
Exploration of the risk factors contained
within the UK’s existing domestic abuse
risk assessment tool (DASH): do these
risk factors have individual predictive
validity regarding recidivism?
Louise Almond, Michelle McManus, David Brian and Daniel Peter Merrington
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to explore risk factors contained in the existing UK domestic abuse
(DA) risk assessment tool: domestic abuse, stalking and harassment and honour-based violence (DASH) for
individual predictive validity of DA recidivism using data from Devon and Cornwall Constabulary.
Design/methodology/approach –In total, 1,441 DA perpetrators were monitored over a 12-month period,
and 270 (18.7 per cent) went on to commit a further DA offence. The individual risk factors which were
associated and predictive of increased risk of recidivism were identified.
Findings –Only four of the individual risk factors were significantly associated with an increased risk of DA
recidivism: “criminal history”,“problems with alcohol”,“separation”and“frightened”. Therefore, 21 of the risk factor
items analysed could not discriminate between non-recidivist and recidivist perpetrators. Only two risk factors wer e
able to significantly predict the recidivist group when comparedto the non-recidivist group. These were identified
as “criminal history”and “separated”. Of those who did commit a further DA offence in the following
12 months, 133 were violent and 137 were non-violent. The risk factors associated with these types of recidivism
are identified.
Practical implications –The implications for UK police practice and the DASH risk assessment tool are
discussed. By identifying key individual factors that can prioritise those individuals likely to recidivate and the
severity of that recidivism, this could assist police decision making regarding the response and further
prevention of DA incidents. The validation of association between individual factors and DA recidivism should
improve the accuracy of risk levels.
Originality/value –This is the first large-scale validation of the individual risk factors contained within the
UK’s DA risk assessment tool. It should be noted that the validity of the DASH tool itself was not examined
within the current study.
Keywords Recidivism, Risk factors, Domestic violence, Domestic abuse, Empirical validation,
Risk assessment tool
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
1.1 Definition of domestic violence and prevalence
The UK’s Home Office (2015) cross-government definition of domestic violence and abuse is:
any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening behaviour, violence or
abuse between those aged 16 or over who are, or have been, intimate partners or family
members regardless of gender or sexuality. The abuse can encompass, but is not limited to:
psychological, physical, sexual, financial, emotional.
Received 19 January 2016
Revised 19 April 2016
20 April 2016
Accepted 20 April 2016
The authors would like to thank the
following persons for their assistance
with this research: Paul Northcott,
and Carola Saunders.
Louise Almond is a Senior
Lecturer at the School of
Psychology, University of
Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Michelle McManus and David
Brian are Senior Lecturers,
both at the School of Forensic
and Investigative Science,
University of Central
Lancashire, Preston, UK.
Daniel Peter Merrington was a
MSc Investigative and Forensic
Psychology student and is
a Customer Position Analyst
at the School of Psychology,
University of Liverpool,
Liverpool, UK.
PAGE58
j
JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, CONFLICTAND PEACE RESEARCH
j
VOL. 9 NO. 1 2017, pp.58-68, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1759-6599 DOI 10.1108/JACPR-01-2016-0211
To continue reading
Request your trial