The Development of the Brief Spousal Assault Form for the Evaluation of Risk (B-SAFER): A Tool for Criminal Justice Professionals

Appendix B (continued)

6. Other Serious Criminality

Rationale

An offender with a history of violence is at increased risk for intimate partner violence, even if the past violence was not directed at his intimate partner. Both clinicians and researchers have noted that "generally violent men" (those who are violent both in and out of home) often engage in more frequent and severe intimate partner violence than do other wife assaulters (Cadsky & Crawford, 1988; Fagan, Stewart, & Hanson, 1983; Gondolf, 1988; Hilton, Harris, & Rice, 2001; Saunders, 1992; Sonkin, 1987; Stuart & Campbell, 1989; Tweed & Dutton, 1998). Past non-familial violence has also been cited as a risk factor for spousal violence recidivism and life-threatening violence (Campbell et al., 2003; Gondolf & White, 2001; Hanson & Wallace-Capretta, 2000; Jones & Gondolf, 2001). In addition, offenders whose violence is directed solely at family members tend to engage in repetitive violence (Dutton, 1995; Dutton & Hart, 1992).

Research also demonstrates that a history of general (nonviolent) criminality is a risk factor for violence among criminal offenders and forensic patients (Hare, 1991; Harris et al., 1993; Monahan, 1981; Monahan et al., 2001; Quinsey, Harris, Rice & Cormier, 1998). Nonviolent criminality has also been implicated in the risk for spousal violence (Dutton & Kropp, 2000; Gondolf & White, 2001; Hanson & Wallace-Capretta, 2000).

Other criminality is likely a risk marker for intimate partner violence to the extent that it reflects attitudes condoning violence or antisocial behaviour (see Huss & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2000). It is probably associated with the likelihood, severity and frequency of future violence.

Coding

Y
The individual has engaged in other serious criminality.
P
Possible or partial evidence that the individual has engaged in other serious criminality, or the individual has engaged in less serious criminality.
N
The individual has not engaged in other serious criminality.

Notes

"Other criminality" means criminal conduct as an adult or minor that constitutes a violation of criminal or quasi-criminal law, including all violent offenses, property offences, public disorder, alcohol/drug offenses, and violations of conditional release (e.g. restraining orders, parole, probation, bail, etc.) that were unrelated to spousal assault.

"Violence" refers to violence directed at biological and legal family members (not including intimate partners), acquaintances, and strangers. Violence may include actual or attempted physical violence or sexual assaults, including use of weapons. "Serious" means the criminal conduct was persistent, frequent, or diverse. Such conduct often results (or could have resulted) in charge or arrest.

This factor includes criminality in the community and institutions (e.g., prison, hospital).

7. Relationship Problems

Rationale

Many clinicians have observed that risk of violence appears to be highest for spousal assaulters when relationship problems are evident. For example, when: (a) the man is living with his partner, but she wants to end the relationship, (b) the man is separated from his partner, but he wants to renew the relationship, (c) there has been a sudden and/or recent separation (Campbell et al., 2001; Dutton & Kropp, 2000; Kennedy & Dutton, 1989; Kyriacou, et al., 1999; McNeil, 1987; Riggs et al., 2000). Murder of a female partner is also most likely to occur in the context of marital separation or divorce (Campbell et al., 2001; Daly & Wilson, 1998; Wilson & Daly, 1993).

Many couples seeking marital therapy report relationship aggression (Riggs et al., 2000; Vivian & Malone, 1997). Indeed, probably most relationship violence occurs in the context of an argument or conflict (Cascardi & Vivian, 1995; Stamp & Samburin, 1995). Schumacher et al. (2001) reviewed six empirical studies that found statistically significant relationships between spousal violence and marital discord. It is likely that stress associated with finances, child rearing, and power dynamics is often channeled in the form of violence. Relationship problems may be linked with intimate partner violence through a common association with personality disorder. Alternately, men with patriarchal attitudes (e.g., male proprietariness) may be more likely to resort to violence in the context of a woman's attempts to end the relationship.

Relationship problems may also be linked to intimate partner violence in a causal manner. Offenders with relationship problems may suffer from increased levels of distress, which may then increase the likelihood that they will resort to violence to resolve conflicts. In this way, relationship problems may be associated with both increased likelihood and frequency of future intimate partner violence. Recent relationship problems may also be associated with the imminence of intimate partner violence.

Coding

Y
The individual has serious problems with intimate relationships.
P
Possible or partial evidence that the individual has serious problems with intimate relationships.
N
The individual does not have serious problems with intimate relationships.

Notes

"Serious problems" include multiple separations or serious conflicts (including repeated infidelity and intimate partner violence). Code regardless of whether conflict resulted in index offence.

The focus should be on intimate relationships in the community, not relationships that are established and maintained only during institutionalization. A lack of intimate relationships should also be considered a serious problem even if the individual appears not to have had an opportunity to establish them due to chronic or long-term institutionalization.

8. Employment and/or Financial Problems

Rationale

Employment problems are associated with risk for criminality and general violence (Andrews & Bonta, 1996, 2003). For instance, a sudden, recent change in employment status (e.g., being laid off or fired) is associated with increased risk of violence (McNeil, 1993). Low income, unstable employment, and financial stresses are also one of the most commonly cited risk factors for spousal assault (Carlson et al., 1999; Dutton & Kropp, 2000; Hanson & Wallace-Capretta, 2000; Hotaling & Sugarman, 1986; Kyriacou, et al., 1999; Riggs et al., 2000; Schumacher et al., 2000; Sherman et al., 1992; Stuart & Campbell, 1989). Unemployment has also been cited as a risk factor for life-threatening and lethal spousal violence (Campbell et al., 2003).

Like relationship problems, employment problems may be a risk marker that predicts intimate partner violence because it is associated with personality disorder. Alternatively, employment problems may be linked to intimate partner violence in a causal manner by increasing general psychological distress, which in turn may lead men to displace work-related frustration and anger onto their families (Saunders, 1993). Thus, a history of employment problems may be associated with increased likelihood and frequency of future intimate partner violence, and recent problems with the imminence of intimate partner violence.

Coding

Y
The individual has serious problems with employment and/or finances.
P
Possible or partial evidence that the individual has serious problems with employment and/or finances.
N
The individual has no serious problems with employment and/or finances.

Notes

"Employment" means legal employment (including self-employment). Formal job-related education and training, including post-secondary education, may be considered part of an individual's employment history.

"Serious problems" include long periods of unemployment, frequent job changes, failure to seek or maintain gainful employment, poor work performance (e.g., high rates of tardiness or absenteeism), and financial difficulties.

The focus should be on employment in the community. A lack of employment is relevant even if the individual appears not to have had an opportunity to establish it due to chronic or long-term institutionalization. Also, employment that is established and maintained only during institutionalization may be of little relevance.

9. Substance Abuse

Rationale

Offenders with a history of family violence (including spousal assault) are more likely than those with no such history to abuse substances (Dutton and Hart, 1992; Gondolf & White, 2001; Riggs et al., 2000; Schumacher et al., 2000; Tolman & Bennett, 1990), and the co-morbidity of substance abuse and spousal violence is commonly reported (Dutton & Kropp, 2000; Kessler et al., 2001).

Recent substance use is associated with risk for violent recidivism among spousal assaulters and is considered one of the most critical dynamic or time-varying risk factors (Gondolf, 2001; Hanson & Wallace-Capretta, 2000; Jones & Gondolf, 2001; Saunders, 1992; Stuart & Campbell, 1989). Finally, substance misuse may also contribute to assaults resulting in serious injury or death (Campbell et al., 2001; Farr, 2002; Kyriacou et al., 1999).

The nature of the association between substance use and intimate partner violence is not clear. Substance use may simply be a risk marker, indirectly signaling the presence of personality disorder or other psychosocial maladjustment. Substance use may also set the stage for spousal assault by increasing conflict in the marital relationship. For instance, Saunders (1993) suggested that chronic substance use may induce family arguments about excessive drinking.

Alternatively, substance use may be a casual factor. Substance use may result in an increased likelihood of behavioral disinhibition among individuals with a history of intimate partner violence, or spousal assaulters may deliberately use substances to disinhibit themselves when they are considering intimate partner violence. Regardless, substance use probably is associated with the likelihood and frequency of future intimate partner violence, as well as with its severity and nature (e.g., reactive/ impulsive). Active substance use may be associated with the imminence of future intimate partner violence.

Coding

Y
The individual has serious problems with substance use.
P
Possible or partial evidence that the individual has serious problems with substance use.
N
The individual has no serious problems with substance use.

Notes

"Problems with substance use" include impairments of the individual's psychosocial adjustment (e.g., health, relationships, work, or legal problems) related to the use of illicit drugs, as well as misuse of licit drugs (e.g., alcohol, prescribed medications).

"Serious problems" include substantial impairment of the individual's health or social functioning (e.g., overdose, physical illness, arrest, job loss, or a markedly inordinate amount of time spent obtaining and using substances).

10. Mental Disorder

Rationale

Although mental disorder is not the sole or even primary cause of violence, the risk assessment literature suggests that symptoms of major mental disorder (e.g., psychotic and/or manic symptoms) are associated with violent behaviour in general (Borum, Swartz, & Swanson, 1996; Douglas & Hart, 1996; Monahan et al., 2001) and spousal violence in particular (Gondolf, 1998; Kessler et al., 2001, Magdol et al., 1997; Schumacher et al., 2000). In addition, suicidality is often indicative of a state of "crisis" for the offender, and is generally considered a risk factor for spousal violence, including homicide (Campbell, 1995; Goldsmith, 1990; Saunders, 1992; Stuart & Campbell, 1989). Research suggests there is a link between dangerousness to self and others (Convit, Jaeger, Lin, Meisner, & Volavka, 1988; Menzies, Webster, & Sepejak, 1985), and most homicides that are followed by suicides occur against a female spouse (Campbell et al., 2001).

Personality disorders characterized by anger, impulsivity, and behavioral instability (e.g., antisocial, borderline, narcissistic, or histrionic personality disorder) are also associated with increased risk for spousal violence (Dutton, 1995; Dutton & Kropp, 2000; Gondolf, 1998; Healy et al., 1998; Huss & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2000; Jones & Gondolf, 2001; Kessler et al., 2001; Magdol et al, 1997; Riggs et al., 2000; Schumacher et al., 2000).

Major mental disorder is likely a causal factor that leads to impulsive or irrational decisions to act violently towards an intimate partner. It is probably associated with the likelihood and frequency of future intimate partner violence. In addition, active symptoms of major mental disorder may be associated with the imminence of future intimate partner violence (e.g., Binder & McNiel, 1988; Link & Stueve, 1994). Mental disorder can also have an indirect impact on risk by undermining effective risk management. In other words, symptoms of mental disorder can interfere with an offender's ability or motivation to comply with treatment and supervision (e.g., participate in batterer's intervention program).

Coding

Y
The individual has a mental disorder.
P
Possible or partial evidence that the individual has a mental disorder.
N
The individual does not have a mental disorder.

Notes

"Mental disorder" includes signs of severe mental illness (e.g., delusions, hallucinations, mania, dementia), mental disorder (e.g., extreme depression, anxiety), cognitive or intellectual impairments (e.g., brain damage, mental retardation), suicidal ideation (e.g., thoughts, impulses, fantasies, or attempts), or personality disorder (e.g., chronic anger, impulsivity, or behavioral instability). Major mental disorder should be diagnosed according to standardized criteria (i.e., DSM-IV, ICD-10), but can be coded provisionally if diagnoses are not available.

Other Considerations

Rationale

We have reserved space for rare but important risk factors not included as separate items in the Offender Risk Factors. These might include, but are not limited to, the following:

Coding

Y
Evidence that an important, case-specific risk factor is present.
P
Possible/partial evidence that an important, case-specific risk factor is present.
N
No evidence that an important, case-specific risk factor is present.

Notes

"Important" means that the risk factor is deemed crucial to determinations of the likelihood that the individual will commit another act of spousal violence, or to determinations of the nature, frequency, severity, or imminence of such acts.

"Case-specific" means that the risk factor does not fit within the definition of the other B-SAFER items.