· pdf file2 the crime victims’ institute present a higher risk (sharps, campbell,...

Crime Victims’ Institute • Criminal Justice Center • Sam Houston State University

Assessing the Risk ofIntimate Partner

Violence

Glen KercherAndrea WeissKatrina Rufino

January 2010

…from the Director

Therehasbeenadramatic transformationover thepast20years in the response tointimatepartnerviolence(IPV).Thesechangesareapparentincriminaljusticeprocessing,theavailabilityofsocialandadvocacyservices,theprovisionofemergencymedicalservices,andfrompublicopinion.Agenciesdealingwithvictimsandoffendershaveadoptedanumberofmechanismstoidentifyhighriskcasesinordertorespondappropriatelytosafeguardthevictimandreducethere-occurrenceofviolence.Thishasledtoanincreasingdemandforac-curateriskassessment.ThecentralpurposeofthisreportistoidentifythepredictorsofIPVandtoassesstheaccuracyofdifferentapproachesandmodelsinpredictingriskoffutureharmorlethalitytovictims.Thesefindingshavebroadimplicationsforlawenforcement,victimservices,andprosecutors.

Glen Kercher, DirectorCrime Victims’ Institute

Mission stateMent

ThemissionoftheCrimeVictims’Instituteisto

• conductresearchtoexaminetheimpactofcrimeonvictimsofallagesinordertopromoteabetterunderstandingofvictimization

• improveservicestovictims

• assistvictimsofcrimebygivingthemavoice

• informvictim-relatedpolicymakingatthestateandlocallevels.

Mission stateMent

Table of Contents

AssessingtheRiskofIntimatePartnerViolence.......................................................................1

DomesticViolenceinTexas.......................................................................................................6

RiskAssessmentTools...............................................................................................................3

PredictiveAccuracyforIPVRecidivism...................................................................................5

Follow-upwithIPVVictimswhoScreeninasHighRiskforFutureViolence........................6

LethalityAssessmentPracticesinTexas....................................................................................8

AssistingIntimatePartnerViolenceVictims.............................................................................9

Conclusion...............................................................................................................................10

References................................................................................................................................12

AppendixA..............................................................................................................................14

Table & Figure

Table1.PredictorModel...........................................................................................................5

Figure1.OrderofAssessments.............................................................................................11

Assessing the Risk of Intimate Partner Violence

CrimeVictims’Institute1GlenKercherAndreaWeissKatrinaRufino

Oneineveryfourwomenwillexperienceintimatepartnerviolence(IPV)inherlifetime(Tjaden&Thoennes,2000),andfemaleswhoare20-24yearsofageareatthegreatestriskforsuchviolence.In2005,389,100womenand78,180menwerevictimizedbyanintimatepartner.Thesecrimesaccountedfor9%ofallviolentcrime(Catalano,2006).Researchhasshown that as the frequency of violence increases, so does the risk to the victimof beingmurderedormurderingherpartner(Block,2003).

AssessingtheriskoffutureviolenceinIPVcasesisimportant,asunderscoredbythealltoofrequentmediaaccountsofindividualsmurderedbytheircurrentorpreviouspartners.Thiskindofassessmentisalsoanimportantbridgetoimprovedresponsestothesevictimsonthepartofthecriminaljusticesystem,socialandadvocacyservices,andhealthcare.Withtheaddedfocusbylawenforcement,prosecutors,thecourts,andtheexpansionofhotlineservices,emergency shelters, andadvocacycenters, a sortof triageprocedurehas increasinglybeenintroducedtocoordinateresponsestovictimsofintimatepartnerviolence.Theseimprovementshavebeencoupledwithan increaseddemandforservices,perhaps inpartbecausecitizenshavebecomemoreawareofthehelpavailabletothem.Agenciesworkingwithvictimsandoffendershaveadoptedanumberofmechanismstoidentifyhigh-riskcasesinordertodirectresourcestothosemostinneedofassistance.

Many victims of intimate partner violence may not fully appreciate the likelihoodof recurringabuse,with the result that toomanyvictimsare severely injuredormurdered.Women are killed by husbands, lovers, ex-husbands, or ex-loversmore often than by anyothertypeofhomicideoffender(Mercy&Saltzman,1989).ItistheleadingcauseofdeathforAfrican-Americanwomenaged15to45andtheseventhleadingcauseofprematuredeathforU.S.womenoverall(OfficeofJusticePrograms,1998).Intimatepartnerhomicidesmakeup40to50%ofallmurdersofwomenintheUnitedStates(Campbell,1992).Significantly,manyjurisdictions have no perpetrator categories for ex-boyfriend or ex-girlfriend, even thoughthesecasesaccountforasmuchas11percentofintimatepartnerhomicidesofwomenandtwotothreepercentofintimatepartnerhomicidescommittedbywomen.In70to80percentofintimatepartnerhomicides,nomatterwhichpartnerwaskilled,themanphysicallyabusedthewomanbeforethemurder(Pataki,1997).Thus,oneoftheprimarywaystodecreaseintimatepartnerhomicideistoidentifyandintervenepromptlywithabusedwomenatrisk.

Campbell,etal.(2003)foundthatwomenwhowerethreatenedorassaultedwithagunorotherweaponwere20timesmorelikelythanotherwomentobemurdered.Womenwhosepartnersthreatenedthemwithmurderwere15timesmorelikelythanotherwomentobekilled.Whenagunwasinthehouse,anabusedwomanwassixtimesmorelikelythanotherabusedwomentobekilled.Althoughdrugabuseorseriousalcoholabuseisrelatedtoanincreasedrisktoawoman’ssafety,threatstokill,extremejealousy,attemptstochoke,andforcedsex

1. The Crime Victims’ Institute (CVI) is funded by the Texas Legislature and charged withexaminingissuesrelatingtovictimsofcrime.CVIisaresearchinstituteandrecommendspoliciesand/orchangestoexistingpoliciesthatassistthecriminaljusticesysteminreducingvictimizationofTexasresidents.

The Crime Victims’ Institute2

presentahigherrisk(Sharps,Campbell,Campbell,Gary,&Webster,2001).Anypastattempttostrangleorchokeawomanisariskfactorforsevereorfatalviolence.Otherriskfactorsincludewhenacoupleseparates,jealousy/possessivenessonthepartoftheabuser,andthreatstokillthevictim(Websdale,2000).

AccordingtoBlock(2003),inmanyhomicidesofwomen,thevictimhadexperiencedviolence at the hands of her partner during the past year. Three particular aspects of pastviolencearethehighestriskfactorsforfutureviolence:

1. Typeofviolence-willfulintimidation,assault,battery,sexualassault;2. Numberofdayssincethelastincident;and

3. Frequency,orincreasingfrequency,ofviolence.

JacquelynCampbell(1995)foundthat:

• Only4%ofdomesticviolencemurdervictimsnationwidehadeveravailedthemselvesofdomesticviolenceprogramservices;

• In50%ofdomesticviolence-relatedhomicides,officershadpreviouslyrespondedtoacallonthescene;and

• There-assaultofdomesticviolencevictimsconsideredtobeinhighdangerwasreducedby60%iftheywentintoashelter.

Domestic Violence in Texas

Oneofthemajorconcernsaboutlethalityindomesticviolencecasesisthatviolenceandentrapmentofvictimsoftenintensifiesovertime(Websdale,2000).In2006,theDepartmentofPublicSafetyandtheTexasCouncilonFamilyViolencereported:

• 186,868domestic/familyviolenceincidents

• 120womenwerekilledbytheirintimatepartner

• 12,356adultsreceivedemergencyshelterfromtheirabusiverelationships

• 16,968childrenreceivedemergencyshelter2

ThereiswidespreadconsensusthatmoreneedstobedonetoaddressdomesticviolencecasesthroughoutthenationandTexasinparticular.Whilethebestandmostdesiredmethodistopreventdomesticviolence,thenextmostdesirableoptionistoencouragevictimstoreportincidentsandavailthemselvesofresourcestoassistthem.

There are a number of findings that encourage continuedwork in these cases.TheBureauofJusticeStatisticsreportedthat51.2%ofthecaseswerereportedtothepolicefrom1994-1995andfrom2004-2005,reportingtopoliceincreasedto62.1%fornon-fatalintimatepartner victimizationof female victims.On the other hand, reasons for not reportingwerefemalevictims’fearedreprisal(12%)andthebeliefthatthepolicewouldnotdoanythingfor

2 Information provided by theTexasDepartment of Public Safety and theTexasCouncil onFamilyViolence(TCFV).ContinuedTCFVresearchintowomenkilledbyex-boyfriends(anumbernottrackedbytheTexasDepartmentofPublicSafety)provides,fortheveryfirsttime,anewlevelofaccuracyinaccountingforthetollofdomesticviolenceinTexas.

Risk Assessment in Intimate Partner Violence Cases 3

them(8%).Basedonthesestatistics,improvementisessentialwhenconsideringtheroleoffirstrespondersinaddressingtheneedsofthoseinvolvedindomesticviolencecases.

Risk Assessment Tools

Riskassessmentinstrumentsareusedtomeasurethecessation,recidivism,orescalationofIPV.ThekindsofriskassessmentproceduresusedincasesofIPVincludevictimratings,intimatepartnerassaultriskscales,andriskscalesdesignedforgeneralorviolentrecidivism.Intimatepartnerassaultinstrumentsrangefromvictimratingsofperceivedthreat,tostructuredprofessionaljudgment,andactuarialscales.

Measures that require structured professional judgment are especially common intheriskassessmentliterature,withthemostfrequentlyusedmeasurebeingthePsychopathyChecklist-Revised(PCL-R;Hare,2003;seeArcher,Buffington-Vollum,Stredny,&Handel,2006; Lally, 2003; Tolman & Mullendore, 2003). To score these instruments, raters useinformationfromclientfiles,structuredorsemi-structuredinterviews,orothersourcestorateorcategorizetheclientonaseriesofitems.

Actuarialinstrumentsarebasedonstatisticalequations,algorithmsandactuarialtables,whichasageneralrulehavebeenfoundtobemoreaccuratethaneithervictimassessmentsorprofessionaljudgment(Grove,&Meehl,1996).

Thefollowinginstrumentsrepresentthekindsofapproachesmostoftencitedintheliteratureforpredictingthelikelihoodofrepeatviolenceamongintimates.

Danger Assessment (DA).Thisinterviewscheduleistheoldestofthespousalassaultriskscales(Campbell,2005)andisscoreddichotomously(atriskornotatrisk).Itrepresentsa structured professional judgment interview of a victim, typically conducted by a victimadvocateoremergencyroompersonnel.Itconsistsofareviewofthepastyearwithacalendartodocumenttheseverityandfrequencyofbattering.Inaddition,thereare20yes/noquestionscovering the offender’s domestic and non-domestic violence history, access to weapons,substance abuse, jealousy, sexual assault, threats, and the victim’s fear for her safety.Thisinstrumentwasoriginallydesignedtopredictlethality,notassaultrecidivism.However,ithasbeenfoundtohaveutilityinpredictingIPVrecidivismaswell(Heckert&Gondolf,2004).

WhentheDAinstrumentwasappliedtoanationaldataset,itwasreportedthat87%ofthosekilledbyabusersand92%ofthoseseverelyinjuredbytheirabuserswouldhavescreenedinatahighdangerlevel(MNDAV,1(1),2006).Thisinstrumentcanalsobeutilizedinothersensitive anddangerous situations (e.g. during the timean interimor temporaryprotectiveorderisbeingissued;MNADV,1(2),2006).

Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA). ThisinstrumentwasdevelopedbyKropp,Hart,Webster,&Eaves,(1999)asastructuredprofessionaljudgmentinterviewforpredictingIPV.Itiscomprisedof20itemsgatheredfromempiricalandclinicalliterature.Allitemsarescoredcontinuously(0,1,2)andtalliedforatotalscore.Althoughnotoriginallydevelopedasascale,professional judgmentisoftensupersededbyusingthetotalscoreasabasisfordeterminingrisk.Themanualrecommendscompletingthisscaleafterinterviewingboththeaccusedperpetratorandvictim.Theitemscovercriminalhistory,psychologicalfunctioning,andcurrentsocialadjustment.Accesstocorrectionalandclinicalrecordsisneededtocompletetheassessment.TheSARAcoversbothdynamicandstaticriskfactors.Itslimitationsarethat


itrequiresextensivetraining,andsomeitemsarenotassociatedwithrecidivism.KroppandHart(2000)foundhighpredictiveaccuracyfor theSARAwhenitwascodedfromfilesbyresearchers.AccuracydeclinedwhenthecodingwasconductedbypoliceofficersinSweden.

Domestic Violence Screening Instrument (DVSI)(Williams&Houghton,2004).Thetwelveitemsmakingupthisinstrumentareprimarilyrelatedtotheoffender’scriminalhistory,employment,andtreatmentparticipation.Itisdesignedtoassesstheriskofre-assault.Itisoftencompletedbyapersonaffiliatedwiththeprobationdepartmentandisusedtodeterminethelevelofsupervisiontheoffenderrequires.

Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA)(Hilton,Harris,Rice,Lange,Cormier,&Lines,2004).Thisisa13-itemactuarialscalethatiseasilyratedbypoliceofficersorotherswithaccesstocriminaljusticerecords.Completingthisscaledoesnotrequirevictimparticipation. Unlikemanyof theotherscales inwhich itemsarebasedon theoryorpriorresearch, this instrumentwas developed empirically using demonstrated relations betweenpredictorsandrecidivismandcombiningtheinformationinawaythatstatisticallyestimatesthelikelihoodofrecidivism.Someoftheitemsarespecifictopartnerrelationships(priorIPVconfinementofthevictimwhenshewaspregnant,victim’schildrenfrompriorrelationships,victim’sconcernaboutfutureassaults),andseveralitemsarecommontotheliteratureonriskofantisocialbehavioringeneral(priorcorrectionalsentence,failureonconditionalrelease,substance abuse, threats of violence). It can be completed by clinicians, law enforcementofficers,courtworkers,andotherpractitioners.

Psychopathy Checklist – Revised (PCL-R)(Hare,2003).ThePCL-Risa20-itemstructured professional judgment instrument designed to measure psychopathy in clinical,research,andforensicsettings.Althoughnotdesignedasariskmeasureperse,itisoneofthemostcommonlyusedmeasuresinriskassessment(Archeretal.,2006;Lally,2003;Tolman&Mullendore,2003).InthePCL-R’sstandardadministrationformat,theraterusesasemi-structured interview, records, andother collateral information to obtain asmuch insight aspossibleintothepersonalityoftheinterviewee.Thisinformationisthenusedtoassignascore(0,1,or2)foreachitem.ThePCL-Rcanalsobescoredwithouttheinterview,basedonafilereviewonly(Hare,2003).UseofthePCL-Rrequiresextensivetrainingofmentalhealthprofessionals.

TheitemsofthePCL-Rloadontotwomainfactors:(1)selfish,callous,andremorselessuseofothersand(2)chronicallyunstable,antisocial,andsociallydeviant.Additionalitemsthatdonotdirectlyloadoneitherfactorincludepromiscuoussexualbehaviorandmanyshort-termmaritalrelationships(Hare,2003).

Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG)(Quinsey,2006,Harris,Rice,&Quinsey,1993,Harris,Rice,&Camilleri,2004).Thisactuarial scalewasdeveloped topredictmaleviolentrecidivismamongbothforensicandnon-forensicpsychiatricoffendersandhasshownconsiderablepredictiveability(Harrisetal.,2004).


Domestic Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (DVRAG)(Hilton,Harris,Rice,Houghton,&Eke, 2008). This is a 14-itemactuarial scale comprisedof the originalODARA items.Theitemsarescoredcategoricallyandtotaledasacontinuousvariable. Itemswerescoreddichotomouslyintheoriginalversion.TheresultingscoreiscombinedwiththePCL-Rscore.Accesstocriminalhistoryisrequired,andtheassessmentneedstobeconductedbyahighlytrainedprofessional.

Predictive Accuracy for IPV Recidivism

Theactuarialapproachtoriskassessmentisincreasinglyacceptedasthemostaccuratemeansofpredictingviolentrecidivism.Forthepredictionofgeneralviolence,actuarialscaleshavebeenfoundtobemoreaccuratethanunstructuredopinionsaboutrisk.ManyoftheriskfactorsforIPVaresimilartothoseforgeneralcriminalrecidivism(e.g.,unemploymentandsubstanceabuse)(Hilton&Harris,2005).

Inriskprediction,afourquadrantmodelisusedtoassesseffectiveness(Table1).Thegoalistomaximizethepredictionofthosewhoareatriskandsubsequentlyexperienceviolence(truepositives)andthosewhoappeartobeat lowriskandsubsequentlydonotexperienceviolence(truenegatives).Attemptingtopredictrelativelylowfrequencyeventsisdifficult.Everyinstrumenthaserrorrates;thatis,sometimesapersonisconsideredtobeatriskwhoisnotsubsequentlyvictimized(falsepositives),andsometimesapersonisconsiderednottobeatriskbutissubsequentlyvictimized(falsenegatives).Furtherresearchandvalidationstudiesareneededtodeterminewhichinstrumentisthemostpowerfulinpredictingfutureviolence.

Predicted Occurred

True False

Positive(ViolencePredicted)

TruePositive(ViolenceOccurred)

FalsePositive(ViolencedidnotOccur)

Negative(ViolencedidnotOccur)

TrueNegative(ViolencedidnotOccur)

FalseNegative(ViolenceOccurred)

Roehl,O’Sullivan,Webster,andCampbell (2005)evaluatedseveral riskassessmentinstrumentsbasedonstructuredprofessionaljudgmentsinanattempttovalidatetheirutilityinintimateviolencecases.TheinstrumentstestedincludedtheDA,DVSI,andvictimperceptionofrisk.

Batteredwomen(n=1307)wererecruitedfromfivedifferentsettings.Two-thirdsofthe initial interviewswereconducted inperson; theotherswereconductedover thephone.Participantswererandomlyadministeredoneofthetworiskassessmentmethods.Follow-upphoneinterviewswereconductedsixtotwelvemonthslaterwith60%oftheoriginalsample.Victims’scoreson theassessment instrumentswerecorrelatedwithvictimreportsofabuseandoffenderarrests.TheDAwasmorehighlycorrelatedwithvictimreportsandperpetratorarrests, thusattestingtoitsutilityinassessingrisk.Nevertheless, thecorrelationswerelow(Roehletal.,2005).

Table 1. Predictor Model


Hanson,Helmus,andBourgon(2007)conductedameta-analysisof18studieswhichresultedintherankorderingofthepredictiveaccuracy(frommosttoleastaccurate)offourassessmentinstruments:ODARA,SARA,DA,andvictimassessment. However,theeffectsizeswerenotstatisticallydifferentacrossassessmentprocedures.Bethatasitmay,instrumentsliketheODARA,SARA,andDAarebetterthanchanceatpredictingsubsequentviolence.Noonemethodhasbeenfoundtobesuperiortotheothers(Hansonetal.,2007).

Hiltonetal.(2008)examinedwhetherthepredictionofIPVrecidivismanditsseveritycould be improved by addingmore detailed clinical information to theODARA,DA, andDVSI. The results from these evaluationswere combinedwith those of in-depth forensicassessmentsknowntopredictviolenceingeneral(PCL-RandVRAG).Thelawenforcementrecords of a sample of men who had engaged in IPV and who had detailed correctionalcasefiles(e.g.,presentenceinvestigation)wereevaluated.Allassessmentinstrumentswereconsidered as potential additions to theODARA in optimizing accuracy. Each assessmentwassignificantlyandpositivelycorrelatedtotheODARAwhenrecidivismwastreatedasadichotomousvariable.Whenrecidivismwascodedasacontinuousvariable,(i.e.,numberofrecidivisticincidents)onlythePCL-RsignificantlyimprovedthepredictiveaccuracyoftheODARA(Hiltonetal.,2008).

This finding led to the development of the DVRAG, which includes the originalODARAitems(butscoredcontinuously)combinedwiththePCL-R.Evaluationoftheresultingactuarialscaledeterminedthat theVRAGperformedbetter thantheODARAandtheotherformalassessments.IthasbeensuggestedthatapoliceofficercouldscoretheODARAintimeforabaildecision,andaclinicianorprobationofficercouldsubsequentlyscoretheDVRAGtoprovideamorein-depthassessmenttoaidsentencing,supervision,andtreatmentdecisions.

TheimprovedaccuracyofpredictionsforIPVisconsistentwithpreviousresearchontheVRAGandPCL-R.BothoftheseinstrumentshavebeenfoundtooutperformtheSARAinpredictingIPV(Grann&Wedin,2002).ThismaymeanthatattitudesandactionsspecifictodomesticrelationshipsplayaminorroleinIPVincidentswhencomparedtoenduringanti-sociality.

Follow-up with IPV Victims who Screen in as High Risk for Future Violence

Campbell(2001)helpedformamultidisciplinarylethalityassessmentcommittee,theMarylandNetworkAgainstDomesticViolence(MNADV),thatconsistedoflawenforcementofficers, domestic violence advocates, and other researchers. Her previously developeddangerousnessassessmentinstrumentwasadaptedandmodifiedforusebylawenforcementtoassesstheriskofhomicideforintimatepartnerviolencevictims.Thebasisfortheassessmentincludestwomainsetsofquestions.Ifthevictimresponds“yes”tothefirstsetofquestions(threatenedwith aweapon, threats to kill the children, fear of being killed), it triggers anautomaticprotocol referral by thefirst responder to ahotline. If answers to thefirst set ofquestionsarenegative,butthereareasignificantnumberofpositiveanswersinthesecondsetofquestions,(hasaweapon,choking,jealousy,employmentstatus,etc.),aprotocolreferralisalsotriggered.Whencertainlethalityriskfactorsareevident,theofficercontactsadomesticviolencehotline.Hotlineworkersreceivespecificdomesticviolencetrainingforcriticalcallsthatprepare themtobesupportiveofvictimneeds.Thepurposeofencouragingvictims tospeaktoahotlineworkeristofacilitateadiscussionaboutthefullrangeofservicesavailableandforatailoredinterventiontooccur(Campbell,2001).Thedomesticviolencecallcenters


are responsible for thebulkof theplanning, and theofficers’ role is toprovide immediateassistanceasneeded.Bringingthevictims’fearsintotheopenandallowingthetimeandplaceforavictim todiscuss the issueswitha trainedprofessional is important inpreventing theviolencefromreoccurring.Thescreeningtoolisvaluabletobothvictimsandlawenforcementofficers,yetstillallowsforofficerdiscretionandexperiencetoplayaroleinassessingrisk.

Conductinga lethalityscreenandcontactingahotline ispotentiallymorebeneficialthanthemorecommonpracticeofhandingthevictimacardorpamphletthatlistsdomesticviolencecommunityresources,phonenumbers,andaddresses.Thephonecalltothehotlineshouldbebriefandtakenomorethantenminutes,whichshouldencouragetheofficertoinvestinthisprogram.Thepresenceofanofficercanbeinfluentialandmaypersuadethevictimtocontactvictimservicesorahotline.

MarylandhasachievedconsiderablesuccessusingtheLethalityAssessment(LA)inthefield.Duringthefirstthirtymonthsoftheprogram,54%ofallvictimscontactedbylawenforcementofficershavespoken toahotlineworker,and27%of thatnumberhasavailedthemselvesofservices (MNADV2(2),2007/2008).Marylandalsohas impressivestatisticswhenconsideringthenumberofagenciesandprogramscommittedtoandparticipatinginthisprogram.Asof2008,84%(93of111)oflawenforcementagencieshaveimplementedtheprogram;95%(19of20)ofdomesticviolenceprogramsand100%(24of24)ofcountiesareparticipating.BecauseofthesuccessofthisprograminMaryland,itisbeingimplementedinotherpartsofthecountry.

ProtocolforMaryland’slethalityassessmentprogramistofollow-upwithvictimswhoscreenedinas“highdanger”adayortwolater.Thisfollow-upiseitherbyaphonecalltoalandlineorahomevisitbybothalawenforcementofficerandavictimadvocate. Thesevisitsareunannouncedandoccureveniftheperpetratorishome.AccordingtodatafromtheMarylandprogram, these follow-upvisitshavedoubled thepercentageofvictimswhousevictimservices(from28%to56%).

However,Dugan,Nagin, andRosenfeld (2004) raised concerns about the potentialadverseimpactofvictiminterventionprograms.Thereissomeevidencethatthehighestriskofretaliationbytheperpetratoroccursbetweenthetimethevictimparticipatesininterventionservicesandtriestoleavetherelationship(Bernard&Bernard,1983;Campbell,1992).Otherresearchsuggeststhatinstateswheretherearesufficientsupportsavailabletovictimstoreducevictimandoffendercontact,thehomicideriskislowered(Dugan,Nagin,&Rosenfeld,2004).Consequently,whileacceptinganofferofhelp fromavictimservicesagencymayplaceavictimatagreaterriskofretaliationbyaperpetrator,participatinginvictimservicesmayalsomakealternativelivingarrangementsavailabletothevictim.That,inturn,mayreducetheriskofreprisalbyanoffender.

Privacyconcernsareattheforefrontofdomesticviolencediscussions(OfficeofCrimeVictims,2002).ConfidentialityrequirementsforpersonsreceivingserviceswereclarifiedwiththepassageoftheViolenceAgainstWomenandDepartmentofJusticeReauthorizationAct(VAWA)of2005. Identifyingclient-leveldata cannotbe sharedwith anypersonor entityoutsidethelocaldomesticviolenceserviceproviderorprogram.Informationcanbesharedatavictim’srequest,subjecttoawritten,time-limitedrelease(AppendixA3).Thetimelimitforthereleaseshouldbelimitedtoafewhourstoafewdaysasappropriate.Ifareleaseisneeded

3 ©2008NNEDVSafetyNetProjectandJulieField


foralongerperiodoftime,thevictimcansignanewrelease.Thespecificserviceproviderorindividualwithwhomthevictimwantsinformationtobesharedshouldbespecified.

Thismeansthatanon-profitadvocacyprogramthatreceivesVAWAorVOCAfundscannot share informationwith lawenforcementofficerswithoutavictim’swrittenconsent.Whenitisdeterminedthatavictimisathighriskforsubsequentviolence,theofficeragainshouldobtainatleastverbalassentfromthevictimtocontactahotline.Incommunitieswithmulti-agencytaskforces,advocatesmaynotsharepersonallyidentifiablevictiminformationtomembersofthegroup.Lawenforcementofficersmaynotfacesuchrequirements.

Non-profit advocacy programs are subject to the requirements of full disclosure inresponsetosubpoenaanddiscoveryincriminalcases(Tex.Govt.CodeAnn§420.075,2007).

Lethality Assessment Practices in Texas

Peaceofficers indomesticviolencecases are charged to “advise anypossible adultvictimofallreasonablemeanstopreventfurtherfamilyviolence,”includinggivingwrittennoticeofavictim’s legal rightsandremediesandofavailablesheltersorothercommunityservicesforvictims(Tex.CodeCrim.Proc.Ann.art5.04,2009).Duringacademytraining,cadetsreceiveonlyaminimalamountoftrainingonthedynamicsofintimatepartnerviolenceandhowtorespondinthosecases.Consequently,officersareexpectedtoassessthecontinuingdangertoavictimbasedlargelyontheirexperienceandintuition.Theresultisthatevenwithinadepartmentintimatepartnerviolencecasesmaybebothassessedandhandleddifferently.Inanefforttobringmoreuniformitytothisprocess,afewdepartmentshaveeitherdevelopedorborrowedcheckliststoguidetheofficer’sdecisions.Fewoftheseinstruments,however,havebeendemonstratedtopredicttheriskoffutureviolence.SomedepartmentsareusingelementsofCampbell’s instrument,butnotall follow thecriteria setup forassessing risk.Somehavequestionedwhetheruseof thedangerousnessassessmentexposes theofficer toincreasedliabilityrisk,butthathasnotbeentheexperienceinMaryland.

Availability of Intimate Partner Violence Resources in Texas. Websdale (1998)reportedthatwhileruralareasarelesslikelytoexperienceviolentcrimesincomparisontourbanareas,womeninruralareasarejustaslikelyaswomeninurbanareasandsuburbancountiestoreportintimatepartnerviolencevictimization.Ruralareasareoftensubjecttopoverty,lackofpublictransportationsystems,shortagesofhealthcareproviders,under-insuranceorlackofhealthinsurance,anddecreasedaccesstomanyresourcesthatmakeitmoredifficultforruralvictimsofviolencetoescapeabusiverelationships(Johnson,2000).

NationalRuralHealthAssociation(NRHA),andsubsequentlystateassociationssuchastheTexasRuralHealthAssociation(TRHA),arethrivingprogramsthatarefocusedonruralhealthconcerns,poolingresources,andprovidinglow-costorfreeeducationandtraininginremoteareas.Manyoftheseprogramsarebeginningtointegratedomesticviolenceaspectsintotheirpoliciesandpractices.AlsoimportantareFaith-Basedcoalitionsthatareastapleinruralcommunities.TheOfficeofViolenceagainstWomenhasplayedaroleintheincreasedfundingofruralresources.In2008,RuralProgramgrantsfunded59projects,totalingmorethan$23million.Programsandfunding,alongwithcommunitybasedinterventionandprevention,makestheoutlookoftacklingruralconcernspromisingforthefuture.


AccordingtoareportbytheTexasCouncilonFamilyViolence(TCFV),thereareonlysixcountiesinTexaswithnoreportedfamilyviolenceservicesandanadditional12countiesthathavesome typeof familyviolenceservice,but theseservicesdonotmeetaminimumthresholdofcoreemergencyservices(TCFV,2007).Despitetheincreaseinruralfocus,therearestillhurdles thatwillneed tobeaddressed in theseareas.WomensLaw.orgprovidesanexcellentoutlineofsafetytipsforruralvictimstohelpthemplayanactiveroleinpreventingandavoidingfuturedomesticviolence.

Therearesometechnologicallybasedadvancesinthefieldofvictimservices,suchasdistancecounseling.ReadyMindsDistanceCounseling(RMDC,2004)isagrowingprogramthatprovidestheoptionsoftelecounselingphonecalls,secureemail,chat,videoconferencing,orothercomputerizedsoftwareprograms;however,optionsofthistypearenotaccessibleorappropriateforallvictimsofabuse.Unfortunately,successfulstrategiesforimprovedcaretoruralareasarelargelyabsentfromtheliterature,thusillustratingtheimportanceofincreasedfocusonthislimitationofreachingallvictimsofabuse(Johnson,2000).

Assisting Intimate Partner Violence Victims

Thecustomaryroleofthepoliceofficerisevolving.Traditionally,theroleofthefirstresponderinvolvedrestoringorderandreducingthelikelihoodthatfurtherviolencewilloccur.Victimassistanceoftenconsistsofprovidingthevictimwithalistoflocalresourcesthatcanlendassistance.Increasingly,however,officersarebeingaskedtoperformamorethoroughassessmentofthedangervictimsmaybefacing.Thereisconcernthatexpandinganofficer’srolewill requiremore time and, as a result, increase departmental response times to othercalls. Therefore,askinganofficer toassessdangerousnessneeds tobecarefullystructuredandtargetedtogatherneededinformationinaslittletimeaspossible.Usingvalidatedriskassessmentinstrumentsmaybehelpfulinthisregard.Whentheriskratingishigh,theofficercallsavictimassistancehotlineandencouragesthevictimtotalktothehotlineoperator.Thisapproach isdesigned tohelp thevictimunderstand theriskshemaybefacinganddirectlyconnecthertoresources.Thisprocedurenotonlyencouragesavictimtoseekoutsidehelp,buthasthepotentialforhelpingdistrictattorneyspresschargesagainsttheperpetratorandassistthevictiminobtainingaprotectiveorder.

Both first responders and victim services personnel should ideally agree to use thesameassessmentinstrument.Trainingisrequiredforbothgroupsinordertoimplementsuchaprogrameffectively. Eachcommunityshoulddevelopprotocols forhandling thesecasesthat reflectavailableresources. Issuessuchas insuring theavailabilityofahotlineworkerwhenanofficercallsandtheavailabilityofroomsattheshelterneedtobeaddressed.Somesheltersreserveabedforvictimswhocalltheirhotlineandneedemergencyassistance.Ifalocalshelterisfull,cooperativeagreementsneedtobeinplacetohelpavictimgettoanearbyfacility.

Theshiftfromlocalhotlinestotheavailabilityofanationalhotlinehasadvancedtheabilityofhotlinestohaveaccesstoinformationaboutamultitudeofresourcesacrosscountyandstatelines.Hotlineshavingaccesstoallavailableresources,ratherthanjustlocalresources,allowthehotlineworkerstomoreeffectivelyandefficientlyprepareasafetyplan.Thescopeofanationalhotlinehasagreaterabilitytoconnectruralvictimswiththehelptheyneed.


Whenanofficerinitiatesacalltoahotline,itmaybeappropriatetousethevictim’slandline telephone. Useofavictim’scellphone is ill-advised,becausecallsmadeon thatphonemaybetraceablebytheperpetrator.Manydepartmentswillnotencouragesuchphonecalls from theofficer’spersonal cell phone. Therefore, itmaybenecessary to equip eachofficerwitha911cellphone.Moneytopurchasephonesmaybedonatedbybusinessesorpurchasedthroughgrantprograms.

Anotherinnovationistoprovidevictimswitha911cellphone.The911CellPhoneBankwascreatedtoprovideanongoingandreadilyavailablesourceof911cellphonestomeetunexpectedandurgentneedsofparticipating lawenforcementandaffiliatedvictimserviceagencies.The911CellPhoneBankProgramisanationwidenon-profitorganizationthathelpsbringthevictimanecessaryresourcetocallforhelporassistance.Lawenforcementofficerscanalsousethosephonestocontactahotlineonbehalfofavictimwhileatthescene.

ThereareotherservicesinTexasthatcanaidinpost-interventionsafetysuchastheAddressConfidentialityProgram (ACP) for victimsof domesticviolence (administeredbytheOfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral)andrecentTexasLegislationthatrequiresGPSuseasaconditionofprobationforconvicteddomesticviolenceoffenders(Hernandez,2009).InJune,TexaspassedHouseBill1506-Mary’sLaw(2009)-andjoined17otherstatesthatareutilizingGPSdevicestomonitordomesticviolenceoffenders.ThebillestablishedstatutoryprovisionsallowingjudgestoorderGPSmonitoringfordomesticviolenceoffendersreleasedonbondoratanytimeanemergencyprotectionorderisissued.ThisprovisionissimilartowhatisbeingusedinTexastomonitorsexuallyviolentpredators.TheGPSdevicesalertlocalauthorities,usuallythroughaweb-basedmonitoringprogram,whenoffendershaveenteredareasofradiirestrictions.Theyalsoalertthepotentialvictim(s)thattheabuserisapproachinginordertoallowthevictimtimetoseekprotection.Thecostforthissystemissometimespassedontotheoffender. Estimatesofthecosttotheoffenderarebetweenfourand12dollarsperday(Hernandez,2009).Thedecisionaboutwhomonitorsthesystemisusuallylefttothelocaljurisdiction.Insomeruralareasvictimsareprovidedwithapagerthatalertsthemwhenanoffenderbreachesthedesignatedzones.

Whilethisapproachtousingtechnologytoaidthevictimispromising,certaincostsandimplementationoutlinesarestillinprogress,and,evenuponsuccessfulimplementation,technologyalonewillnotreplacetheneedforeducationandresearchintheareaofdomesticviolence.

Conclusion

ResearchhasshownthatitispossibletopredictIPVre-assaultatabetterthanchancelevel(Campbell,1995;Hilton&Harris,2005;Hiltonetal.,2004;Hiltonetal.,2008;Roehletal.,2005;Williams&Houghton,2004).Althoughvictimself-appraisalcanbeuseful,otherinstrumentshavebeenshowntobemoreaccurate.

It is interestingtonote that thestrongestpredictorsofIPVrecidivismarestrikinglysimilar to thepredictorsofviolent recidivism ingeneral: youngerpersons, unemployment,priorcriminalhistory,andindicesofantisociallifestyle,substanceabuse,mentalhealthissues,and therapydropout (Hilton&Harris,2005).Consequently, incorporatingassessments thatpredictviolentre-offendingintoassessmentsofIPVhaveshownsomeutility.TheDVRAG


isanexampleofthis.ItsignificantlyimprovespredictiveaccuracybycombiningtheODARAwiththePCL-R.ThelimitationtousingtheDVRAGisthat,eventhoughpoliceofficerscanconduct theODARA, completing the PCL-R portion of the assessment requires extensivetrainingofamentalhealthevaluator.

Overall, predictive accuracy increases with actuarial assessments, as opposed tostructured professional interviews (e.g., SARA, DA). Preliminary research has suggestedthe followingorder of assessments (Figure1) from themost accurate to the least accurate(Henning,K.,2009).

Beforeadecisionismadeaboutwhichassessmentmethodtouse,evaluatorsneedtounderstandthepurposeoftheassessment. Aretheprimaryconcernsthevictim’sneedsforprotectionandassistanceor the likelihood that theoffenderwill re-offend?Addressing theformerconcernrequiresamoreimmediateassessment,whereasthelattermaybemorerelatedtosettingbail,presentenceinvestigations,sentencing,andmonitoring(forwhichtheDVRAGmaybemostappropriate).

Assessingavictim’sneedforprotectionandassistanceis,basedoncurrentknowledge,bestaddressedbyusingeithertheODARAorDA.Bothoftheseinstrumentscanbecompletedbyfirstrespondersandarerelativelysimpletoemploy.TheODARAisanactuarialinstrument,which holds promise for greater accuracy, especially if the items are scored continuously(Hiltonetal.,2008).However,currentdata,whichsupportatrendtowarditssuperiority,aremixed.OneadvantageoftheODARAisthatvictiminterviewsarenotrequiredifcriminaldata isavailable. TheODARAwasdeveloped inCanadaandhasbeenadopted in severalprovinces aswell asMaine. TheLAwas launched inMaryland and has been adopted inseveralothermetropolitanareasacrossthecountry.Knowingtheriskposedbyoffenderswithacertainactuarialscorecanaffecttheapportioningofresourcestotreatperpetratorsincustodyandsupervisethoseonprobation.

TheSARArequiresextensivetrainingforevaluators.Itmaybemostaccurateifboththevictimandperpetratorareinterviewed.Itsaccuracywhenusedbyfirstrespondersisopentoquestion(Kropp&Hart,2000).

AsimportantasriskassessmentisinprotectingIPVvictimsfromfurtherviolence,anequallyimportantprocedureistoattempttogetthevictimtoacceptanofferofassistancefromanIPVprogram(MNDV,2007/2008).TheprotocolinstitutedinMarylandhasshownpromiseinfacilitatingvictimutilizationofavailableservices.

Whicheverassessmenttoolisimplemented,itshouldbeshortandeasytounderstand.Thisincreasesthelikelihoodthatitwillbeutilized.Finally,usingariskassessment,asopposedtopersonaljudgment,enablestheofficertofeelmoresecureinthedecisionmakingprocess.

Figure 1. Order of Assessments


References

Archer,R.P.,Buffington-Vollum,J.K.,Stredny,R.V.,&Handel,R.W.(2006).Asurveyofpsychologicaltestusepatternsamongforensicpsychologists. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87,84–94.

Block,C.R.(2003).Howcanpractitionershelpanabusedwomanlowerherriskofdeath?NIJ Journal, 250.Bernard,M. L.,&Bernard, J. L. (1983).Violent intimacy:The family as amodel for love relationships.Family

Relations, 32,283–286Campbell, J.C. (1992). “If I can’t have you, no one can”: Power and control in homicide of female partners. In:

Femicide:Thepoliticsofwomankilling,editedbyJ.RadfordandD.E.H.Russell,NewYork:Twayne,p.99-113.Radford,J.&Russell,D.E.(1992).NewYork:TwaynePublishers,99–113

Campbell,J.C.(1995).Predictionofhomicideofandbybatteredwomen.InJ.C.Campbell(Ed.),Assessingtheriskofdangerousness:Potentialforfurtherviolenceofsexualoffenders,batterers,andchildabusers(pp.96–113).NewburyPark,CA:Sage.

Campbell,J.C.(2001).Safetyplanningbasedonlethalityassessmentforpartnersofbatterersininterventionprograms.Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 5(2),129–143.

Campbell,J.C.,Webster,D.,Koziol-McLain,J.,Block,C.R.,Campbell,D.,Curry,M.,Gary,F.,Glass,N.,McFarlane,J.,Sachs,Cl,Charps,P.W.,Ulrich,Y.,&Wilt,S.(2003).Assessingriskfactorsforintimatepartnerhomicide.National Institute of Justice Journal, 250,14-19.

Campbell,J.C.(2005).Assessingdangerousnessindomesticviolencecases:History,challenges,andopportunities.Criminology and Public Policy, 4,653–672.

Catalano,S.M.(2006).Criminalvictimization,2005.U.S.DepartmentofJustice,BureauofJusticeStatistics,June2005.

Catalano,S.M.(2006).IntimatepartnerviolenceintheU.S.1993-2004.U.S.DepartmentofJustice,BureauofJusticeStatistics.

Dugan,L.,Nagin,D.S.,&Rosenfeld,R.(2004).Theeffectsofstateandlocaldomesticviolencepolicyonintimatepartnerhomicide.RetrievedJuly23,2009,fromhttp://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=199711.

Grann,M.,&Wedin, I. (2002).Riskfactors for recidivismamongspousalassaultandspousalhomicideoffenders.Psychology, Crime, and Law, 8,5–23.

Grove,W.M.&Meehl,P.E. (1996). Comparativeefficiencyof informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal(mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: the clinical-statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 2,293-323.

Hanson,R.K.,Helmus,L.,&Morton-Bourgon,K.(2007).Theaccuracyofrecidivismriskassessmentsforsexualoffenders:Ameta-analysis(UserReport2007-01).Ottawa,ON:PublicSafetyandEmergencyPreparednessCanada.

Hare,R.D.(2003).Harepsychopathychecklist-revised(2nded.).Toronto,ON:Multi-HealthSystems,Inc.Harris,G.T.,Rice,M.E.,&Camilleri, J.A. (2004).Applying a forensic actuarial assessment (The violence risk

appraisalguide)tononforensicpatients.Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19,1063–1075.Harris,G.T.,Rice,M.E.,&Quinsey,V.L.(1993).Violentrecidivismofmentallydisorderedoffenders:Thedevelopment

ofastatisticalpredictioninstrument.Criminal Justice and Behavior, 20,315–335.Heckert,D.A.,&Gondolf,E.W.(2004).Batteredwomen’sperceptionsofriskversusriskfactorsandinstrumentsin

predictingrepeatre-assault.Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19,778-800.Henning,K.(2009,September). Risk Assessment for IPV: Benefits of, Available Measures for, and Approached to

Implementation at a Community Level. PaperpresentedattheInternationalConferenceonViolence,AbuseandTrauma,SanDiego,CA.

Hernandez,A.(2009,July17).MorestatesapprovingGPSindomesticabusecases[electronicversion].NewJerseylocalnews,AssociatedPress.RetrievedJuly23,2009,fromhttp://www.nj.com.

Hilton,N.Z.,&Harris,G.T.(2005).Predictingwifeassault:Acriticalreviewandimplicationsforpolicyandpractice.Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 6,3–23.

Hilton,N.Z.,Harris,G.T.,Rice,M.E.,Lange,C.,Cormier,C.A.,&Lines,K.J.(2004).Abriefactuarialassessmentforthepredictionofwifeassaultrecidivism:TheOntarioDomesticAssaultRiskAssessment.Psychological Assessment, 16,267–275.

Hilton,N.Z.,Harris,G.T.Rice,M.E.,Houghton,R.E.,&Eke,A.W.(2008).Anindepthactuarialassessmentforwifeassaultrecidivism:Thedomesticviolenceriskappraisalguide.Law and Human Behavior, 32(2),150–163.

Johnson,R.M.(2000).Ruralhealthresponsetodomesticviolence:Policyandpracticeissues.FederalOfficeofRuralHealthPolicy.RetrievedJuly23,2009,fromhttp://ruralhealth.hrsa.gov/pub/domviol.htm.

Kropp,P.R.,Hart,S.D.,Webster,C.D.,&Eaves,D.(1999).Spousal assault risk assessment guide.NewYork:Multi-HeathSystems,Inc.

Kropp,P.R.,&Hart,S.D.(2000).Thespousalassaultriskassessment(SARA)guide:Reliabilityandvalidityinadultmaleoffenders.Law and Human Behavior, 24,101–118.

Lally, S. J. (2003).What tests are acceptable for use in forensic evaluations?A survey of experts. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34,491–498.

Mary’sLaw,HB1506,111thCong.,1stSess.(2009).Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence. (2006, Winter). Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence

Newsletter, 1(1).Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence. (2006, Summer). Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence

Newsletter,1(2).


Maryland NetworkAgainst Domestic Violence. (2007/2008, Fall).Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence Newsletter,2(2).

Meehl,P.E.(1954).Clinicalversusstatisticalprediction:Atheoreticalanalysisandareviewoftheevidence.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.ReprintedwithnewPreface,1996,byJasonAronson,Northvale,NJ.

Mercy,J.A.,&Saltzman,L.E.(1989).FatalviolenceamongspousesintheUnitedStates,1976–85.,595–599

Office for Victims of Crime. (2002). Privacy of victims’ counseling communications, Legal Series Bulletin 8.Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofJustice(NCJ192264).

OfficeofJusticePrograms.(1998).Violencebyintimates:Analysisofdataoncrimesbycurrentorformerspouses,boyfriends, and girlfriends.Bureau of Justice Statistics Factbook.Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice(NCJ167237).

Pataki,G.(1997).IntimatepartnerhomicidesinNewYorkState.Albany,NY:StateofNewYork.ReadyMinds.(2004).ReadyMinds Distance Counseling Newsletter, 1(3).Roehl, J.,O’Sullivan,C.,Webster,D.,&Campbell, J. (2005). Intimatepartnerviolence riskassessmentvalidation

study:TheRAVEstudy—practitionersummaryandrecommendations:Validationoftoolsforassessingriskfromviolentintimatepartners.NCJ209732.U.S.DepartmentofJustice,NationalInstituteofJustice.

Sharps,P.W.,Campbell,J.C.,Campbell,D.,Gary,F.,&Webster,D.(2001).Theroleofalcoholuseinintimatepartnerfemicide.American Journal of Addictions, 10(2),1–14.

TexasCouncilonFamilyViolence.(2007).Accesstosafety,justice,andopportunity:AblueprintfordomesticviolenceinterventionsinTexas.RetrievedJuly/24/2009,fromhttp://www.tcfv.org/resources/texas-state-plan/

TexasCodeofCriminalProcedureAnnotatedarticle5.04,(2009).TexasGovernmentCodeAnnotated§420.075,(2007).Tjaden, P.,&Thoennes,N. (2000). Full report of the prevalence, incidence and consequences of violence against

women.WashingtonD.C.:U.S.DepartmentofJustice.Tjaden,P.,&Thoennes,N.(2000).Extent,nature,andconsequencesofintimatepartnerviolence.WashingtonD.C.:

U.S.DepartmentofJustice.Tolman,A.O.,&Mullendore,K.B.(2003).Riskevaluationsforthecourts:Isservicequalityafunctionofspecialization?

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34,225–232.Websdale,N. (1998).Rural women battering and the justice system: An ethnography. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage

Publishing.Websdale,N. (2000, February). Lethality assessment tools:A critical analysis.Harrisburg, PA:VAWnet, a project

oftheNationalResourceCenteronDomesticViolence/PennsylvaniaCoalitionAgainstDomesticViolence.RetrievedApril/04/2009,from:http://www.vawnet.org

Williams,K.R.,&Houghton,A.B.(2004).Assessingtheriskofdomesticviolencereoffending:Avalidationstudy.Law and Human Behavior, 28,437–455.


Template: Client Limited Release of Information Form Created for adaptation by Julie Kunce Field, J.D. and NNEDV.

Expiration should meet the needs of the victim,which is typically no more than 15-30 days, but may be shorter or longer.

• [APPROPRIATE AGENCY LETTERHEAD]

I understand that [Program/Agency Name] has an obligation to keep my personal information, identifying information, and my records confidential. I also understand that I can choose to allow [Program/Agency Name] to release some of my personal information to certain individuals or agencies.

I, ___________________________, authorize [Program/Agency Name] to share the following specific information with:name

WWhhoo I want to have my

information:

Name:Specific Office at Agency:Phone Number:

The information may be shared: in person by phone by fax by mail by e-mail I understand that electronic mail (e-mail) is not confidential and can be intercepted and read by other people.

WWhhaatt iinnffoo about me will be shared:

(List as specifically as possible, for example: name, dates of service, any documents).

WWhhyy I want my info shared: (purpose)

(List as specifically as possible, for example: to receive benefits).

Please Note: there is a risk that a limited release of information can potentially open up access by others to all of yourconfidential information held by [Program/Agency Name]. I understand:• That I do not have to sign a release form. I do not have to allow [Program/Agency Name] to share my information.

Signing a release form is completely voluntary. That this release is limited to what I write above. If I would like [Program/Agency Name] to release information about me in the future, I will need to sign another written, time-limited release.

• That releasing information about me could give another agency or person information about my location and would confirm that I have been receiving services from [Program/Agency Name].

• That [Program/Agency Name] and I may not be able to control what happens to my information once it has been released to the above person or agency, and that the agency or person getting my information may be required by law or practice to share it with others.

This release expires on _____________ __________ Date Time

I understand that this release is valid when I sign it and that I may withdraw my consent to this release at any time either orally or in writing. Date:______________Signed:________________________ Time:______________ Witness:______________________

READ FIRST: Before you decide whether or not to let [Program/Agency Name] share some of your confidential information with another agency or person, an advocate at [Program/Agency Name] will discuss with you all alternatives and any potential risks and benefits that could result from sharing your confidential information. If you decide you want [Program/Agency Name] to release some of your confidential information, you can use this form to choose what is shared, how it's shared, with whom, and for how long.

Reaffirmation and Extension (if additional time is necessary to meet the purpose of this release)

I confirm that this release is still valid, and I would like to extend the release until ___________ ___________ New Date New TimeSigned:__________________________ Date:______________ Witness:_________________________

Appendix A

TheCrimeVictims’InstituteSamHoustonStateUniversity

CriminalJusticeCenterHuntsville,Texas77341-2180

phone:(936)294-3100;fax:(936)294-4296email:[email protected]

www.crimevictimsinstitute.org

Texas State University SystemBoard of Regents

RonBlatchleyChairmanBryan/CollegeStation

CharlieAmatoViceChairmanSanAntonio

KevinJ.LillyHouston

RonMitchellHorseshoeBay

DavidMontagneBeaumont

TrishaS.PollardBellaire

MichaelTruncaleBeaumont

GregWilkinsonDallas

DonnaN.WilliamsArlington

WilliamPattersonStudentRegentSanMarcos

CharlesR.MatthewsChancellor,Austin

ToviewallresearchpublicationsrelatingtovictimsofcrimepleasevisittheCrimeVictims’Institutewebsiteat:

www.crimevictimsinstitute.org

· pdf file2 the crime victims’ institute present a higher risk (sharps, campbell,...

Documents