Risk assessment and case management by the multi-agency Integrated Safety Response for family violence in Aotearoa New Zealand

Apriel D. Jolliffe Simpson¹, Chaitanya Joshi¹, Devon L. L. Polaschek¹

¹Te Puna Haumaru – New Zealand Institute for Security and Crime Science

Abstract
Integrated Safety Response (ISR) triage teams routinely conduct risk assessments for Family Violence (FV) cases, and during these assessments they record factors to support the risk category they allocate (low, medium, or high). These factors are purportedly selected because they are risk factors that can be used to predict FV-related outcomes, but we found most were not associated with recurrence of FV (Jolliffe Simpson et al., manuscript under review). And, in addition to risk assessments’ primary purpose of estimating risk, the assessments are an opportunity for practitioners to identify information that helps them deliver services in an accessible and engaging way (Bonta & Andrews, 2016). Therefore, despite being identified during risk assessments, the factors ISR triage teams record may add value by informing case management in addition to (or rather than) contributing to the assessments’ ability to predict recurrence. This presentation will outline the findings from a study where we used latent class analysis of the ISR triage teams’ recorded factors to generate meaningful sub-groups of cases with implications for their treatment and management. The results highlight barriers to responsivity among FV cases managed by the ISR, and have implications for how principles from Bonta and Andrews’ (2016) Risk Needs Responsivity model can extend to FV case management.

References
Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2016). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (6th ed.). Routledge.
Jolliffe Simpson, A. D., Joshi, C. & Polaschek, D. L. L. (Manuscript under review). Unpacking multi-agency structured professional judgement risk assessment for family violence.