Systematically identifying and prioritising domestic abuse perpetrators for targeted intervention
| Author | Anna Clancy,Amanda L Robinson |
| DOI | 10.1177/1748895820914380 |
| Published date | 01 November 2021 |
| Date | 01 November 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895820914380
Criminology & Criminal Justice
2021, Vol. 21(5) 687 –704
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1748895820914380
journals.sagepub.com/home/crj
Systematically identifying
and prioritising domestic
abuse perpetrators for
targeted intervention
Amanda L Robinson
Cardiff University, UK
Anna Clancy
University of South Wales, UK
Abstract
International research finds that the majority of harm from crime can be attributed to a
small proportion of perpetrators. Accurately identifying these individuals as priorities for
intervention can lead to significant harm reduction. A new method, the Priority Perpetrator
Identification Tool, was implemented in three police force areas of England and Wales.
Additional investment, restructuring of units and the development of bespoke policies
and protocols were necessary to establish the pilots, which to date have seen the Priority
Perpetrator Identification Tool used in nearly 1500 domestic abuse cases. Mixed-methods
research illustrates how the pilots instigated a systematic approach to identify and prioritise
perpetrators in order to inform decisions about the scope and type of intervention to be
deployed to reduce their offending. The development of these new collaborative arrangements
represents a step change in the way the most harmful domestic abuse perpetrators are
identified and managed within a multi-agency partnership.
Keywords
Domestic abuse, harm reduction, multi-agency, perpetrators, police, re-offending
Corresponding author:
Amanda L Robinson, School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Glamorgan Building, King Edward VII
Avenue, Cardiff CF10 3WT, UK.
Email: robinsona@cardiff.ac.uk
914380CRJ0010.1177/1748895820914380Criminology & Criminal JusticeRobinson and Clancy
research-article2020
Article
688 Criminology & Criminal Justice 21(5)
Introduction
Despite increasing governmental policy focus and the concerted efforts of both statutory
and non-statutory agencies to tackle domestic abuse, it remains a prevalent issue. Each
year in the United Kingdom, police respond to 1 million domestic abuse incidents (Office
for National Statistics (ONS), 2017). This high volume poses a challenge for police forces
despite most domestic abuse remaining ‘hidden’, as four in five victims do not report their
abuse to the police (ONS, 2017). Yet, for those that do, the police response directly influ-
ences the level and type of service provision they receive. For example, since 2009, the
DASH risk assessment tool has informed decisions about how to target resources to those
victims at greatest risk of harm, resulting in nearly 100,000 high-risk victims receiving
specialist advocacy support and multi-agency risk management each year (Howarth and
Robinson, 2016; Medina Ariza et al., 2016). This focus on developing and implementing
effective interventions for victims has dominated the policy and practice agenda for nearly
two decades. In contrast, there has been relatively less success in establishing effective
interventions for perpetrators. A systematic review of European evidence concluded ‘we
do not yet know what works best, for whom, and under what circumstances’ (Akoensi
et al., 2012: 1220). The need to establish more effective responses for dealing with perpe-
trators is heightened within a context of increased demand combined with the limitations
of existing practice identified by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of the Constabulary (HMIC)
(2014), which concluded that many forces across England and Wales were not policing
domestic abuse as effectively as they could, noting in particular deficiencies in the way
forces identify and target serial and repeat abusers.
A small number of areas in the United Kingdom are trialling new initiatives in an
attempt to address these long-standing deficits (Houses of Parliament, 2015). Each aims
to better coordinate police and other agency responses in order to reduce perpetrators’
offending while also providing support for victims. To build upon this limited but prom-
ising evidence base, this article reports on research conducted in three police force areas
in England and Wales, each of which uses a new method to systematically identify the
most harmful perpetrators and then coordinate agency responses to address their
behaviour.
Empirical evidence for systematic identification and
prioritisation
Three separate bodies of academic scholarship demonstrate that the most harmful, pro-
lific domestic abuse offending is not evenly distributed across perpetrators. First, analy-
sis of police data illustrates the ‘power few’ principle: the majority of harm is attributable
to a small minority of perpetrators (Sherman, 2007). For example, analysis of 214,814
domestic abuse cases reported to police in Western Australia found that just 707 perpe-
trators (2%) were responsible for the majority of harm. Shockingly, only 4% of these
individuals were in prison (Sherman et al., 2016). These findings were corroborated by
Bland and Ariel’s (2015) analysis of 36,000 domestic abuse incidents reported to Suffolk
Constabulary, which found that over 80% of harm was concentrated in less than 2% of
the victim-perpetrator dyads. Similarly, Barnham et al. (2017) found that 3% of
To continue reading
Request your trial