Assessing Risk in Abusive Partner Intervention Programs Podcast

Rebecca Thomforde-Hauser: Welcome to this DV RISC Podcast Series on the use of intimate partner violence [IPV] risk assessments and models in different settings. Today’s episode is focused on assessing risk for abusive partner intervention programs. My name is Rebecca Thomforde-Hauser. I’m a Senior Director at the Center for Justice Innovation. I am the host for today’s podcast.

Our guest speakers for today are Brittany Davis, Jesse Hansen, Caroleena Frane, David Adams, and Doug Gaudette.

Brittany Davis is the Associate Director of the Community Accountability and Engagement on the Gender and Family Justice Team at the Center for Justice Innovation. Ms. Davis provides training and technical assistance to communities across this country that seek to enhance the response to gender-based violence, particularly around domestic violence, and abusive partner intervention. She has also worked locally in New York City to develop an abusive partner intervention curriculum for court-mandated individuals and a blueprint for restorative justice approaches to domestic violence.

Jesse Hansen serves as the Program Manager for the Domestic Violence Offender Management Board in the Division of Criminal Justice, Colorado Department of Public Safety. With a background in policy and research, Jesse has worked for the Office of Domestic Violence and Sex Offender Management in different capacities since 2011, related to the development and implementation of standards for the evaluation, assessment, and treatment of offenders. Jesse also serves on the Sex Offender Management Board and the Colorado Domestic Violence Fatality Review Board.

Caroleena Frane is an experienced, licensed addiction counselor, licensed professional counselor. She serves as a Domestic Violence Offender Management Board Implementation Specialist, where she conducts required DVOMB core trainings and training nationally and internationally on the Domestic Violence Risk and Needs Assessment, or the DVRNA, and helps states develop and implement standards for individual evaluation, treatment, and behavioral monitoring of domestic violence offenders.

David Adams is co-founder, as well as Program and Co-Director of Emerge, the first counseling program in the world for men who abuse women. David has led groups for abusers for over 44 years and parenting education groups for 22 years. He is an international expert on abusers and abuser interventions and has conducted trainings of social service and criminal justice professionals in 48 states and 26 nations. Dr. Adams is also the co-chair of the Criminal Justice Committee of the Massachusetts Council on Domestic Violence.

Doug Gaudette is the Founder and Director, now retired, of the Family Safety Project at Holy Family Hospital. In addition to being a state-certified batterer intervention group facilitator, he is a state-approved batterer intervention trainer and supervisor. He has worked in the area of domestic violence for the past 30 years as a group facilitator, trainer, and supervisor and consultant.

Rebecca Thomforde-Hauser: Let’s start off with a broader discussion and a national perspective on IPV risk assessments and abusive partner intervention programs. Brittany, can you talk briefly about the abusive partner intervention project’s guiding principles and how IPV risk assessments are one way to operationalize those principles?

Brittany Davis: Sure. Thanks so much for having me amongst such an amazing group of folks. So, as Rebecca mentioned in the bio, I work at the Center for Justice Innovation, and we are the training and technical assistance provider for the Office on Violence Against Women for Abusive Partner Intervention Programs. The ethos behind our technical assistance work is that we are very values driven. So, when we started this project about six years ago now, we developed a set of guiding principles to guide our work as technical assistance providers, also to really just push the field forward. They’re all available on our national APIP clearing house. But for context, they are that: survivor voices are valued and centered; accountability is personal, communal, and systemic; hope and dignity are restored; culture and community are reflected and valued; interventions and engagement strategies should respond to the needs and strengths of people who cause harm through intimate partner violence; racial justice is centered; and self-reflection is prioritized.

So, for us, all of the guiding principles are interrelated. When I think about risk assessments, I think about them as a way to increase survivor safety, which gets at that first guiding principle. One of the ways that we’ve operationalized that fifth guiding principle, which is to respond to the needs and strengths of people who cause harm, is through incorporating a validated risk assessment into the assessment process for abusive partner intervention programs. We know that people who cause harm may have different motivations for their use of violence, they might have different needs. Some of them may have experienced trauma in their own lives. They have different risk levels, and they have different access to having their basic needs met. Risk assessment tools, when used appropriately, can provide an opportunity to holistically understand the risk level and needs of participants.

And so, with that information, this means that programs can better tailor their programs and their additional resources that they may offer to the participant themselves, instead of using a one-size-fits-all approach. This is going to help programs have a better shot at behavior change if the programs are able to respond to the actual needs of the participant and their learning styles.

We also think, tying back into survivor safety again, having this information can be really helpful to partner with local advocates to ensure that there’s appropriate safety planning that’s happening with survivors.

Rebecca Thomforde-Hauser: Thanks so much, Brittany. From your experience, what kind of common training and technical assistance questions are you getting around APIPs wanting to use or gather information from IPV risk assessments?

Brittany Davis: So, we started to see more and more questions come in through our technical assistance related to using IPV risk assessments in abusive partner intervention programs. It’s an increasing trend in the field that folks are using these types of assessments in abusive partner intervention programs. We know that risk assessments have been used more generally in the criminal legal field for many years, but they’re starting to be implemented in these programs, as well.

One of the questions is, what tools can we use in abusive partner interventions to assess for risk? And that’s why it’s so wonderful that we partner with and have the DV RISC project, we can really collaborate on those sites and show them the great resources there are.

Risk assessments can measure various different things. They could be measuring lethality, they could be measuring recidivism, they can be measuring both. And some of the tools have been designed to be used by specific profession types. So, you have risk assessments maybe for law enforcement, risk assessments for advocates, risk assessments that probation officers might be using. It’s really important for our providers to understand what are the actual tools that might be helpful for them to use. And we’re going to hear a little bit later from the great folks from Colorado and Massachusetts about two of the tools that can be used in the abusive partner intervention context.

Rebecca Thomforde-Hauser: So, can you talk to me a little bit about how APIPs are wanting to use IPV risk assessments?

Brittany Davis: So, we typically see IPV risk assessments used as part of a comprehensive assessment process during intake with these programs.

Sometimes, we’re seeing the programs conducting the risk assessment themselves. Sometimes court staff conduct those assessments and give that information to the abusive partner intervention programs. Sometimes probation has that information, because they’re already conducting risk assessments and sharing that with abusive partner intervention programs.

So, a validated tool might be used in conjunction with other types of assessments, so a traditional biopsychosocial assessment. This could be the adverse childhood experiences scale or the adverse childhood experiences expanded scale, which also looks at community adversities. In New York City, we also have folks who are assessing for HOPE [scale] and a variety of other mental health assessments. So, as part of that comprehensive assessment package is where we’re really seeing it.

And then, once risk is determined, we’ve seen programs handle that in a variety of different ways. So, in New York City, participants are separated into groups by their risk level due to research suggesting that folks with similar risk should be grouped together, so that folks with higher risk are not negatively influencing folks with lower risk.

Rebecca Thomforde-Hauser: Thank you so much. What kind of trends or innovations are you seeing in the field of APIPs regarding risk assessment?

Brittany Davis: I think, in some ways, starting to incorporate the formal risk assessments into abusive partner intervention programs feels like the trend, because more and more programs are starting to do that.

Another thing is, we’re working with a community in Ohio to incorporate a risk assessment into the civil legal context. They’re developing a parenting after violence curriculum associated with their domestic relations court dealing with divorce proceedings. I haven’t really seen a lot of tools used in that particular context, so we’re really excited to see what happens with that.

As I mentioned at the beginning, our TA is really values-based, and we work with sites to develop their own set of values. We think it’s important for sites to be communicating with each other and developing their own values to guide their work a little bit more locally; how to incorporate risk assessments within the broader context of community values. So, for us, under our guiding principles, that really means, how do we use this risk information in a holistic fashion that’s not done in a punitive way, that’s not causing any more harm itself? So, this could look like providing robust case management and wraparound support for people who cause harm to really be addressing some of those other factors that may be co-occurring.

So, we know that some common factors are unemployment and substance use. So, in New York City, they offer treatment readiness programming and employment readiness programming, as well, to really try to be addressing those unique needs of individuals. So, just really trying to see it as, how can we support people in their accountability process with this additional information?

Rebecca Thomforde-Hauser: So, I’m curious to know from your perspective on the national level, what are some other important considerations for APIPs that are interested in utilizing risk information in their programming?

Brittany Davis: I mentioned this before, thinking of risk as something that’s dynamic, so not something that should just be addressed once and then you’re done. It’s a continual process. So, I think, nationally, whenever we’re having conversations with programs about risk, we’re also talking about training. So, the Programs need to be familiar with lethality and recidivism risk factors and to be able to respond to any shifts that come up with the participants, offer additional resources related to those needs, and, of course, to be able to be always working in conjunction with local advocates to make sure that we’re thinking about keeping survivors safe.

Another thing is that choosing the right tool for your community should be done in community. Not just picking from a list, but really being intentional about thinking about what tool might work for your community. Some of the tools require collateral information from system and community players. So, having those conversations, being thoughtful and bringing them in early so that you’re all on the same page as it relates to using that tool.

And then, finally, one of our guiding principles is that racial justice is an important consideration when talking about risk assessments and any programmatic element when it comes to making shifts to your programming. In the field, there’s a lot of discussion about risk assessments and how they could potentially either reproduce or exacerbate racial, ethnic, and class disparities in the criminal legal system, so really thinking intentionally about that when you’re thinking about incorporating a risk assessment in your community. So, making sure those tools are validated and normed in your community, using that risk information with other sources of information, including survivor insight, wherever that’s possible, and really thinking about the decision points that will be impacted by the risk assessment tool.

Bringing multidisciplinary groups of people together to address and discuss those equity concerns locally can be something that’s really important. We also recommend consistent local monitoring to make sure that you all understand the impact of using risk assessments in an ongoing fashion is having on the community.

Rebecca Thomforde-Hauser: Thank you so much for bringing that national perspective. So, let’s shift our discussion to the practical examples of abusive partner intervention programs using IPV risk assessments. I’d love to hear from you about the origin story of why and how you developed an IPV risk assessment in your jurisdiction. Jesse or Caroleena, do you want to start us off and talk about the DVRNA?

Jesse Hansen: Sure, Rebecca. So, I’m happy to talk a little bit more about the origin story or the development of our risk assessment instrument in Colorado referred to as the Domestic Violence Risk and Needs Assessment, also known as the DVRNA.

Around 2007 to 2009, Colorado and our standards across the state had been in inception, and a lot of the work around developing our standards had led to us looking at recidivism data. And, ultimately, we weren’t happy with what we were seeing, because we were utilizing a time-driven 36-week model. While it had some really great and unique features, we were seeing that the one-size-fits-all approach was problematic for a number of our clients.

At that time, when we were doing focus groups with providers, clients would come into our group, pay their dime, do their time, and just kind of keep a hot seat. And, so, it was at that point in time that the board that governs a lot of the standards in the state began looking at, well, what other ways are there in terms of individualizing this treatment?

They ended up looking at a lot of research, a lot of different risk assessment instruments. The DVRNA pulled together a lot of different options, and the idea was to align our risk assessment instrument to follow the principles of risk-need-responsivity. And these are principles that were founded in general criminogenic research by Andrews and Bonta, but essentially, they thought at the time that this might actually work with domestic violence offenders. So, they piloted it and, for the last 14 years, we’ve been running with this.

The interesting thing is that, during that time, Caroleena was actually practicing and was part of that shift. And, so, I’ll pass it over to Caroleena so she can share a little bit about what her view from the ground was during that time.

Caroleena Frane: Thank you, Jesse. So, I had been practicing in the field, treating clients that needed domestic violence offender treatment and evaluating them. I remember, distinctly, because as treatment providers, we were all in a bit of a panic because we were making a major switch. And, as we received training from the board, I was very excited and my colleagues were very excited, because we realized we were going to be able to treat clients for not just their abusive behaviors, but everything else that contributed and impacted their lives in different ways.

When we approached this new way of evaluation and treatment with our clients, I thought we were going to get a lot of resistance. And some clients were resistant, but the majority were really excited that the length of treatment for them was going to be based on how hard they decided to work on the issues that were identified in the evaluation and throughout treatment. And, so, it gave them a different kind of control, a really pro-social control or really positive thing that they could control in their lives. And if they decided to become invested and really do the work, then they were going to get out of treatment and, hopefully, they weren’t going to come back with a new charge and continue abusive behaviors within their relationships. So, from both of those perspectives, I think that was exciting.

The last perspective that I think is really important to mention is that of the victims, and the advocates. It was a big shift for us to work with advocates in the way that we do now, and it was also very exciting for victims to hear that they could have a voice in the offender’s treatment and that they could be notified of progress, they could be more involved. And educating victims on truly the severity of risk and lethality.

Jesse Hansen: So, the Domestic Violence Risk and Needs Assessment is a tool that differentiates a client to one of three different levels. It is an empirically validated risk assessment instrument composed of 14 risk domains and 47 sub-items. And each range within those tools gives the individual an assigned classification level that corresponds with their relative risk for reoffending in the future. It’s administered and scored by an approved provider who’s gone through training to understand and how to score that tool. And, essentially, what that treatment level corresponds to is how long and what frequency they’re going to be attending treatment. In Colorado, we use the term “treatment,” because we have that statute. Other organizations around the United States might refer to it as APIP or BIP programming, but it’s effectively the same thing.

Rebecca Thomforde-Hauser: Thanks so much. David or Doug, do you want to talk to us a little bit about the history and the origin story of the tool that was developed in Massachusetts?

Doug Gaudette: It was well over 10 years ago; we realized that intimate partner abuse education programs in Massachusetts were not routinely doing risk assessments. And the problem with that is that our standards for practice, put forth by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, required that all certified programs do risk assessments.

So, David and I got together and decided that we would begin to develop a risk assessment tool. So, we developed the Batterer Intervention Risk Assessment and Management tool, or the BIRAM. Initially, it was called the BIRA, Batterer Intervention Risk Assessment. We realized that we needed to come up with tools, to not only identify risk, but also to manage the risk. That’s how we added the “M” and came up with BIRAM. A big part of the BIRAM is the strategies to manage that risk.

Now, the standards require that all certified programs use the BIRAM, unless they apply for and are granted permission to use another approved risk assessment tool by the Department of Public Health.

David Adams: I’ll add to that. We were very appreciative of our co-developers of the BIRAM, who are Vera Moradian and Bob Hayner at the Department of Public Health. And I think Massachusetts is unique in that we have the Department of Public Health as our oversight agency, because I think Public Health really has a broader perspective and an inherent appreciation of people’s behavior.

So, we decided that we needed to have a series of focus groups. We had separate focus groups with probation, prosecutors, victim advocates, we had focus groups with judges. And with all of those groups, we asked them, ‘What do you know about the risk assessment that programs do?’ And they all said, ‘We don’t know anything.’ Their impression was that it was rather random, and that it seemed to vary a great deal, not just from program to program, but from group leader to group leader in terms of how they flagged risk. The second question is, ‘Did you trust when we reported concerns or red flags about a particular person’s risk?’ and they said ‘No, because we don’t know what it’s based on.’

And we also met with the 24 or so existing intimate partner abuse education programs in Massachusetts to get their input. And, particularly, when we were looking at risk management strategies, we picked everybody’s brains about, ‘What do you currently do when you have concerns about risk?’ So, that’s why the management aspect of the BIRAM is very important and helps us to really, kind of, integrate it into our overall treatment protocol.

Doug Gaudette: In Massachusetts, the Department of Public Health is that agency that certifies and monitors programs, and that’s statutory. That’s a law in Massachusetts. So, it gives credibility to those that aren’t really sure about what it is we do. There is a booklet for guidelines as to how to run groups, and those have been amended a number of times, just as the BIRAM has been amended a number of times, so as to keep up with, either changes that we’re perceiving, or new cases that are coming our way.

David Adams: To sort of say a little bit about the BIRAM, the tool itself is 43 questions and it’s designed to be re-administered three times throughout the program. I think that this fits what Brittany said, which is, risk assessments shouldn’t be a one and done kind of thing. I think the first administration we get a baseline. But then we really get to find out whether our programs are working.

One of the questions on the BIRAM, for instance, ‘Is he continuing to blame his partner?’ I think that is really a great index of the effectiveness of our programs, because most of our clients became less dangerous over time and were making use of our programs. And part of the messaging they’re getting from our program is that you’re 100 percent responsible for your abusive behavior. So, that was very reassuring for us to see that.

But then, there’s this subgroup of people that continue to blame their partners, and research has found that that is one of the leading risk factors for recidivism. And you can’t necessarily tell up-front either.

So, I think that’s why it’s important, because it’s not predictable, who is going to be dangerous and who is not going to be dangerous, and whether the level of danger increases, decreases, or remains the same.

Rebecca Thomforde-Hauser: Great. Thanks so much. You each talked about this a little bit, but I’d love to hear more specifically, how it’s actually being used to either inform programming or supervision. Would you be able to dive a little bit deeper into that?

David Adams: The first BIRAM is done at intake by an intake worker. But then, the second and third ones, which are done between weeks 5 and 10, and then the third one is between weeks 20 and 25, is done by the group leaders. And quite often, it’s done in supervision sessions. It enables these great conversations, because our answers to the questions are really based on our observations of the client, in terms of what they’re reporting from week to week and our observations of their demeanor. Do they seem to be getting more and more angry? Do they seem to be getting more and more obsessive about their partner? Do they, on the other hand, seem to be more and more accepting of their partner and less into monitoring and surveilling them and so forth? And so, that’s all based on our observations of them over time, and it really does change over time. That’s why this is so essential for this to be a continuous process.

Doug Gaudette: The other thing I would add to that is that, in addition to getting information from the group member at intake, we also get collateral information. Typically, when a referral is made to us, say from the court, we would get a copy of the police report, the probation contract, a copy of the group member’s criminal offender record, restraining order applications. So, we get lots of information that we can use to fill out the part of the BIRAM that requests that information. The BIRAM is really in two sections, information we get from the participant and information we get from collaterals. So, that’s very valuable information. It tells us who we have to communicate with, and this is really a two-way street.

The BIRAM is not a static document. It is a dynamic document that needs to be shared with referral sources, which, for us, is primarily the courts, as well as social service departments. We also need to share BIRAM results with the partner.

One of the things that the BIRAM has, in addition to the tool itself and the strategies, [is] a checklist of what it is we need to do. And on that checklist will be notify the partner, notify the probation officer, the Department of Social Service, the Department of Children and Families. And so, there’s a guideline that we can follow that gives us direction as to what we need to do and a checklist as to whether or not we’ve done it, when we did it, and to whom we communicated that information.

Rebecca Thomforde-Hauser: That’s helpful. I’m hearing an important theme around collaboration and partnerships for all of this. So, I’m curious, Jesse or Caroleena, do you want to talk a little bit about how the DVRNA is used in Colorado? Anything else that you want to talk about specifically?

Caroleena Frane: Sure. I’ll just continue the theme of collaboration, because the DVRNA has to be scored with collateral reports. That is a mandatory document.

So, our treatment providers have a list of required collateral information and required assessments that they need to conduct as part of an evaluation. So, they do a comprehensive evaluation and after they collect all of the information, they do a biopsychosocial. They look at relationship dynamics, not just of the indexed offense, but any prior romantic relationships, what those domestic violence dynamics have been like throughout that person’s life and even within their families, looking at those criminogenic needs.

Once all of that is gathered through the collateral information and that evaluation with the client, then the DVRNA is scored. There’s 14 risk domains and eight of them are dynamic. So, we have a nice blend of those static risk factors that are often pretty indicative of lethality and high-risk behaviors. The dynamic risk factors give the DVRNA the opportunity to assess the client at what treatment intensity they need at that initial evaluation. So, they can be lower, moderate, or higher risk. And so, depending on which level they are, they end up getting scheduled for one session a week, sometimes they can have two sessions a week.

Then, we have treatment plan review intervals done every two to three months. Most of our clients do a minimum of three, because clients have to be able to demonstrate required competencies, any of those individualized dynamic risk factors that they qualify for, any of the criminogenic needs that are identified. Any other significant treatment target that’s identified in the evaluation becomes part of that treatment plan that they need to be able to demonstrate that they have a hold on, and that they’ve mitigated enough of the risk to be able to successfully be done with treatment.

So, we use the DVRNA in those treatment plan review periods to look at, where are those dynamic risk factors? Are they increasing, are they decreasing? Do we need to increase the level of treatment if the client is struggling more, or new risk factors are showing up? Or are they doing a good job in treatment, staying sober, not getting new offenses, owning their abusive behaviors, understanding their patterns of control and how they’ve been coercively controlling? And then, we’re decreasing those.

And, so, sometimes a high-risk client can move into that moderate risk category and their treatment intensity can be decreased. So, we’re really looking at each client, individually. It’s a lot of work, but the RNR research really shows that, if we do this right, then we’re giving the client that best opportunity to succeed long term.

The last thing that I’ll mention is that we have a multidisciplinary treatment team. That multidisciplinary treatment team is, at minimum, the treatment provider, the supervising officer, and the treatment victim advocate [TVA]. And all three of those people provide consensus and agreement on those initial treatment levels and if we increase or decrease treatment. And, they also all need to be in agreement when we think that the client is ready to discharge. That is done so that we can have that victim safety lens present at all times and so that the supervising officer, or caseworker, can have that perspective. And then that treatment provider is really looking at the clinical aspects. That team is really important, one that helps the DVRNA also be a strong tool.

Jesse Hansen: If I could add to that, Caroleena, and you kind of alluded to that when we were talking about the multidisciplinary treatment team. It fundamentally comes down to risk communication. And when we’re talking about case management, we have different actors involved. And there may be certain belief systems about what coercive control looks like. And in certain jurisdictions, there are some aspects of abuse that are not even criminal.

And so, when we go out and train, we emphasize the point that the crime of conviction is usually not indicative of someone’s risk. Oftentimes when someone is going through the legal system, they may take a lesser plea, they may not be able to have all those charges pressed. And, so, the goal of going through that evaluation is to rely on the risk assessment instrument to inform your treatment process, not to just score a risk assessment instrument, but to actually use that to inform what you’re doing.

The system has been notorious for just kind of scoring a risk assessment instrument and then not doing anything with it. It’s really important to come back and check to see, (1), is your information still accurate or has that risk profile adjusted, and then, (2), what can you do as a team to case manage?

The biggest thing is just seeing clients stay in treatment or in the intervention service, because what we see a lot, is that clients typically drop out of treatment fairly early. And if there’s ways to incentivize, increase their amenability and motivation to engage in the process, partly through identifying a risk assessment, you can really do a lot of benefit. So, the goal has to be to prioritize and give someone the best shot at getting those services.

Rebecca Thomforde-Hauser: You’ve all talked about the role of a victim advocate in this process, and I’m curious about whether a survivor’s information directly informs the risk assessments. Is someone reaching out directly to them? Is that part of the collateral information? If so, I’m curious, too, about how confidentiality and safety is included in those discussions around how the information might be used.

David Adams: We don’t get information from the survivor in completing the BIRAM because we don’t want to put survivors in that position of going on record. However, our programs in Massachusetts have very robust outreach to partners. And so, we basically query survivors about the risk, and the abusive behavior they’re experiencing. That helps us to individualize the treatment, and we think of ourselves as being accountable to survivors.

Doug Gaudette: If I could just add to that. Again, in Massachusetts, partner contacts are mandated. However, the method in which they’re done is not. And, so, it’s up to the program to determine what’s the best way for them to do it. So, some programs form an alliance with victim service agencies, and the victim service agency does the partner contact. Other programs, such as ours, and EMERGE, as well, do their own programming. And we use people within our program who are well skilled in the area of working with victims to do that work.

However it’s done, it’s critical that the information obtained from the partner be absolutely confidential, but still shared with group leaders in a way that will help them to not only help the victim, but also to get a better sense as to the level of risk of the man in the program.

So, although, we certainly would not do an interview with the victim and put any of that information on the BIRAM, we certainly know what that information is. So, that can be shared with group leaders to allow them the best possible way in which to keep victims safe.

The key in all of this is communication. Programs that link up with victim service agencies need to have in place very clear protocols for exchanging information.

Rebecca Thomforde-Hauser: That’s great, thank you. Caroleena or Jesse, do you want to talk about contact with survivors? And I know you have the special treatment victim advocate position, which is, I think, unique to Colorado, as well.

Caroleena Frane: So, we also, as both David and Doug have mentioned, understand the importance of keeping that victim information confidential. The DVRNA does allow for victim information to be used if it’s already in public records. Police reports, victim impact statements are public record. Even though they’re public record, when we train our treatment providers, we explain to them that they can utilize those pieces of information to score the tool. However, we train them to use that information to then carefully develop their evaluation questions to get the information from the offender instead of documenting that it came from the victim, or that it came from a law enforcement officer.

So, for example, if it’s a strangulation case and the victim reports on the police report, he had his hands around my neck, but then the officer follows up with a statement that says there were red marks on the neck consistent with strangulation, then that’s what we are going to have our providers use and put down quotes from law enforcement or, again, learn how to dig that information out from the client during their evaluation so that we don’t put that victim information on their reports. Because, in Colorado, an evaluation report is part of a medical record, which means that the DV client can request it, and it has to be given to them. And we don’t ever want to put a document in their hands that’s going to increase the risk for retaliation.

So, we train about that very carefully. We have system advocates, we have community advocates, and our TVAs. They all work together, but they all have their own separate confidentiality or privilege. We’ve gotten pretty creative at how they can help each other from the victim perspective, while still maintaining those confidentiality and privilege boundaries that they all need to.

The last thing I’ll share is that the victim, in a case where a client is in treatment, can sign a release of information with the treatment victim advocate if they do want their voice to be heard. They don’t have to do that, but, if they do, then that treatment victim advocate can bring that information to the multidisciplinary treatment team.

If they don’t have that release, that TVA can still share information that’s really important. They might share things like, can you please talk about sexual abuse as a form of power and control? And, so, they do it in a way where they’re addressing it in treatment with every single client, while still being very careful.

Jesse Hansen: I would just add that, we’ve been doing a lot of victim-centered work and we come across some of these conversations in very well-intentioned spaces. There’s an interest to want to validate and bring that voice forward in terms of what the survivor experienced. As important as that is, we don’t want to retraumatize the victim just by way of reporting to make sure that we are not retraumatizing them in going through this process.

While it seems counterintuitive that you would put some of these safeguards in place, there can and will be consequences if that information is misused. You really have to think through, how and in what ways are you using that information, and is there any way that could hurt the victim in a way that wasn’t intended?

Rebecca Thomforde-Hauser: So, I’m curious, is there anything else you’d want to talk about in terms of how important it is to be using a tool in a trauma-informed way that’s really meeting the holistic needs of the person causing harm, but also meeting the needs of the survivor?

David Adams: I think one thing that comes to mind is that, it really has to be a choice for the survivor. So, when we do the initial outreach to the partners, [we] tell them that you are under no obligation to participate in your partner’s or ex-partner’s treatment.

So, we are transparent. Our philosophy is that the abuser is 100 percent responsible for abusive behavior, and I think that, that, by itself, I think is a huge validation for so many victims. That’s why it is important that we have experienced victim advocates that do that outreach.

What we often see is that many of them do decide, at some point, that they do want to be a part of the process, because I think that reassuring who is responsible tends to increase trust.

Rebecca Thomforde-Hauser: Jesse or Caroleena?

Jesse Hansen: I think assessments are really just a tool, and so it’s really important for the administrator of that tool to ensure that is being done in a trauma-informed way. And, so, you really need to understand what co-occurring issues might be going on and figuring out the best pathway forward to address that person and their needs.

Caroleena Frane: Yeah. I was just going to say that we need to be trauma-informed doing this work, both, having the lens of the victim and the offender.  I think it’s really easy for folks to put the offender into a category. But they are people that have struggled, as well. There is no trauma and there is no experience that excuses being abusive to someone else. But we do need to be sensitive to that and we do need to be very careful when asking questions and evaluating people and treating people, that we understand that, every person has had a different walk in life. And every DV client I have ever had has been hurt in different ways, from childhood to adolescence to adulthood, and in ways that we stereotypically think that men can’t be hurt.

We need to build that trust from the first moment we talk to these clients. We need them to trust us, that we really want what’s best for them, and this isn’t just a job for us. This is something that we really have a lot of motivation to helping them.

Rebecca Thomforde-Hauser: So, I’m curious about the DVRNA and the BIRAM and what populations these tools have been validated on. Are there certain folks who it might not be appropriate to use DVRNA or the BIRAM with? And so, Jesse or Caroleena, do you want to start us off with the DVRNA?

Jesse Hansen: Sure. I recently mentioned in one of the previous questions that we just went through a validation study on the DVRNA and that was with 787 clients who had been charged and convicted of a domestic violence offense. And we had an average follow-up period of two years. We found that the DVRNA had good predictability for individuals who are male over the age of 18.

Within that sample, about 25 percent were female. The instrument showed better predictability for females, especially on a few domains. But that being said, we didn’t have large enough of a sample size for females.

And so, much like the development of other tools, it is somewhat slow going in terms of gathering all of that information and collecting data in a way that we can make sure that this instrument is being utilized in a way and normed on those populations.

In future years, I would anticipate that we’re going to have some updates to the instrument when we look at how we’re interpreting the tool for female clients, and then, in addition to that, for LGBTQ+ individuals who are engaging in abusive behavior. Our standards in Colorado require that, for folks who work with those populations, they have to have a specific approval due to some of the unique idiosyncrasies. And, with that, I think that’s partly why we really need to understand the strengths and limitations to a tool before you use it.

And, so, you can certainly use it for males in the justice system. The tool really hasn’t been assessed in a civil context, so for domestic relations courts.  Ohio is in the process of highlighting the DVRNA, so hopefully we can learn a little bit more. That’s certainly an area where we’re hoping to learn about how this can inform those populations.

Rebecca Thomforde-Hauser: And you mentioned folks over the age of 18. Is there anything that you found in your validation study about race or ethnic identity?

Jesse Hansen: So, as far as the validation, the study didn’t have good racial data, unfortunately. We do have the means now where we’re collecting information from providers where we’re going to get that data.

Those populations were within our sample and that is certainly an ongoing question that, not only the DV field is trying to reconcile, but also other risk assessment fields in terms of really trying to understand what is equity when we’re talking about risk assessment instruments and how they’re applied?

Some of the more general research shows that there’s pretty good cross-cultural validity when we’re looking at a number of different risks. What I would stress is that, it’s still important to continue using the risk assessment, gathering the data so you can use it ultimately in the future. What we’ve seen is, in some jurisdictions where they’ve completely abandoned risk assessments, that actually can lead to some unintended consequences where you introduce more bias by allowing for individuals who are administering those instruments to use their own clinical judgment.

I don’t think we are where we want to be, but we certainly need to keep moving forward so that we are incorporating an equity lens and making sure that these instruments have robust diversity, which we can say with confidence that these tools are appropriate for the folks that are being administered.

Rebecca Thomforde-Hauser: Thank you. How about you, David, or Doug? Do you want to just talk about any parameters around the use of the BIRAM?

David Adams: Yeah. The short answer is it’s very similar to Colorado. It really was piloted and used for heterosexual men, and that includes men of color. In Massachusetts, about a third of our clients are Latino men and about a third are African American men. We have used the BIRAM with both of those groups and found them to be useful. We have not used it with heterosexual women, and we have not used it with women or men in same-sex relationships, because those groups really have been too small for us to have included them in the protocol.

Rebecca Thomforde-Hauser: Thanks so much. Any advice or thoughts that you have for folks who are interested in implementing the BIRAM or the DVRNA? Any things that you’d want them to be considering in this specific setting of abusive partner intervention programs?

David Adams: What I would say is that, we found, when we are fielding requests for training, is that some programs really don’t have the foundational practices that they need to really be doing a risk assessment. For instance, mechanisms for outreach to partners, supervision, up-front assessment. Quite often, when we’re asked to do a training on the BIRAM, we assess their foundational practices first and recommend a training that’s really not on learning the BIRAM, but a first training that is hopefully improving their foundational practices.

Doug Gaudette: When we first started to create the BIRAM, we met with Ed Gondolf. And when it was finished, we had Ed Gondolf review it. He was very impressed, but then, he added, this is going to require people to know what they’re doing. And I think to help people know what they’re doing, it’s going to require supervision, it’s going to require consultation with other staff. So, this is not something that someone is going to do in five minutes on their own and say, ‘Oh, it’s done, let’s put it in the folder and move on.’ This involves some thought, consultation with your co-leader, it involves consultation with your supervisor in order to do this properly.

Jesse Hansen: In addition to what David and Doug just mentioned, scoring risk assessment, and using it in a way that’s going to inform treatment is not necessarily just something that you can pick up and run with. But there are some simple, easy steps that you can take to think about it.

You may be in a jurisdiction that is exploring some new options. I think the main takeaway is looking at what your jurisdiction allows for. Because Caroleena and I, when we’ve been consulted, we do that initial assessment to see what their statutory framework is, does it allow for a differentiated treatment model? If you don’t have that, we’re happy to have a conversation, because you don’t want to under-treat someone who is high-risk, and over-treat someone that is low risk. You could have some really detrimental effects to somebody by keeping them in the system longer than they need to.

The biggest piece of advice is ask questions and be willing to engage and explore how these tools might benefit, because there’s been a lot of meaningful work around this. The DVRNA is in New Jersey, New York City, Ohio, and there’s a modified version of it in Utah. There is certainly an appetite for trying to figure out, ‘What’s a better and more research-informed pathway for working with clients?’

Caroleena Frane: And I’ll just add, if I was looking into either of these instruments, I would ask questions and talk to the folks that are using them just to get the story of what does it look like? How much time does it take? What are the resources, and what are the results? Having those conversations could be really helpful.

Jesse Hansen: One other quick point, I would be remiss if I didn’t give some acknowledgments. Certainly, Caroleena and I are here, benefitting from some of the work of the pioneers for the DVRNA, Mark Davies, Michelle Davis. This field wouldn’t be where it’s at if there weren’t other pioneers, and I just wanted to express my gratitude for being here on this podcast, joined by David Adams and Doug. It is truly an honor to be here.

Rebecca Thomforde-Hauser: Thank you. And as we’re wrapping it up, and we talked about this in the beginning, we have guiding principles and values around racial equity. I’m curious what thoughts you have, what kind of things you’re thinking about in terms of where the field should be going around centering racial equity and responding with cultural humility in the context of IPV risk assessments.

David Adams: There is a history of, particularly, men of color being over-represented in terms of, not just prisons, but in going to APIP programs, and being sentenced to APIP programs. And so, I do think that there is something about DV-specific risk assessment, that takes us away from the old generic risk assessment, which is based almost exclusively on criminogenic factors. So, I think that’s part of what resulted in so many men of color being over-sentenced and profiled.

But even with risk assessment, I think that we need to be sensitive to issues like distrust. I think that the criminal justice system, and also the child welfare system, has not been good for them, necessarily. And, so, I think it’s very important for us to be sensitive to that.

And I think that distrust can be taken as hostility, as resistance, and as risk. But our experience is that we really need to provide the time for there to be the establishment of trust.

Caroleena Frane: I would agree with that. I would also add that, adding that cultural humility to the folks that are doing this work is really important and one that we require of our providers and evaluators.

And also remembering that domestic violence is still happening within those populations, as well, and we need to make sure that we never use culture or race as an excuse for abusive behaviors.

Jesse Hansen: If I could just add that, culturally responsive care really requires people to immerse themselves into some spaces that are probably going to be uncomfortable. A[n] AIP provider, sitting with a client, that in and of itself is a power differential. That facilitator has to know what their privilege is, how they present in working with that client. And what we found in Colorado is that you can’t administer treatment or do an intervention and pretend like that’s not happening in the background.

And a lot of our facilitators have done some of this work, and they recognize that, in some ways, they’re reconciling some of those issues that they’ve experienced in the legal system and trying to help sort through some of that trauma as part of the treatment process addressing their abusive behavior. In addition to that, just understanding their impact. They may be the first person that they come to trust in terms of developing that therapeutic rapport.

And, so, collaboration is really important so we’re all checking for biases, because we’re all prone to having it. But, in terms of entering into that space for culturally responsive care, you have to put yourself into those spaces, we have to do the research, and we have to be willing to listen to that research, because it’s accompanied by the stories that we hear.

Brittany Davis: I can jump in here, too. I really want to uplift what Carolina said – that domestic violence is happening in communities of color, and we know that survivors of color experience domestic violence at higher rates, particularly Black survivors, and Indigenous survivors. So, for me, ensuring racial equity and racial justice is doing what we can to make survivors of color safer and knowing about risk level can be a helpful component of that. As a values-based person, as a values-based team, I think we’re always thinking about the why behind policies. Any tool can be used to punish, and it can cause harm, but tools can also be used to look at someone holistically to really try to build trust with participants, as David was talking about, and tailor services to help support people who cause harm through their accountability process.

I think there’s a lot to be done, a lot more to be done in understanding the tools, and that’s why it could be helpful to work with tool authors, to norm the tool to your community, and set up various processes to monitor the impact of using the tool to see if there are racial disparities and outcomes which I mentioned before as well. I think training and self-reflection are important here. It’s another one of our values and really crucial for facilitators and the folks conducting the risk assessments because they might not always be the same person. We did another great podcast with the Domestic Abuse Project in Minnesota. They’re an abusive partner intervention program.

They have a process that all of their staff members, including their facilitators, engage in discussion groups around racial bias and how shows up in their lives and in the work. And that’s done as a basis. And they’re also really looking at various processes and policies that they have in place to see how they can be made more equitable. The same can be done for using risk tools. How can programs and the people in them do their own personal work and also review policies, including the use of risk tools to make sure the implementation is more equitable?

Doug Gaudette: As I’m hearing this, and I agree with everything everyone has said, I remember having conversations with older men in the group who came from an entirely different culture than I did, and we had more in common. So, I think, when we do this, let’s broaden the whole scope of what we mean when we talk about culture. Because I think age is part of the culture, as well.

The older I get, and I sort of look back at what things were like 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago, what was accepted then and what is not accepted now. And I think we have to keep that in mind. In no way excusing that, but at least putting that in a context that helps us challenge them to think differently about that.

I remember when I first was trained by Ellen Pence, and she said your goal is to help men think critically. And if you end the day, men say to you, ‘I used to know how to think about this and now I’m not sure, then you’ve done a good job. I think we need to help men in the programs think critically. And when we look at cultural issues, age is one of those issues.

Rebecca Thomforde-Hauser: Thank you, everyone, for this amazing discussion. Thank you, listeners. And we hope that you can find more information on our InnovatingJustice.org/abusive-partner-resources to find more about our Abusive Partner Intervention and Engagement Project, and DV RISC, which is D-V-R-I-S-C.org, for more information on intimate partner violence risk assessments and the support that we can provide to you.