Risk assessment and risk management by police

(1) Stark, E. (2012), ‘The dangerousness of danger assessment’, Domestic Violence Report, Vol. 17, No 5, pp. 65-69.

(2) Beijing Platform for Action (2013), Agreed conclusions on the elimination and prevention of all forms of violence against women and girls (E/2013/27-E/CN.6/2013/11), United Nations, New York, para. 34 (available at http://www.un.org/CSW57_Agreed_Conclusions_(CSW_report_excerpt).pdf).

(3) Council of Europe (CoE) (2011), Explanatory report to the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, CoE, Paris (available at https://rm.coe.int/16800d383a).

(4) European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) (2014), Effective gender equality training: analysing the preconditions and success factors, EIGE, Vilnius (available at https://eige.europa.eu/rdc/eige-publications/effective-gender-equality-t...).

(5) European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE), Glossary & Thesaurus, ‘intersectionality’ (available at https://eige.europa.eu/thesaurus/terms/1263).

(6) European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) (2017), Glossary of definitions of rape, femicide and intimate partner violence, EIGE, Vilnius (available at https://eige.europa.eu/rdc/eige-publications/glossary-definitions-rape-f...).

(7) European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) (2017), Glossary of definitions of rape, femicide and intimate partner violence, EIGE, Vilnius (available at https://eige.europa.eu/rdc/eige-publications/glossary-definitions-rape-f...).

(8) Council of Europe (CoE) (2017), Emergency barring orders in situations of domestic violence: Article 52 of the Istanbul Convention, CoE, Paris (available at https://rm.coe.int/convention-istanbul-article-52/168073e0e7).

(9) Geraghty, K. A. and Woodhams, J. (2015), ‘The predictive validity of risk assessment tools for female offenders: a systematic review’, Aggression and Violent Behavior, Vol. 21, pp. 25-38 (available at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178915000038).

(10) The Free Dictionary by Farlex, ‘probation’ (available at https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/probation).

(11) Council of Europe (CoE) (2011), Explanatory report to the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, CoE, Istanbul (available at https://rm.coe.int/16800d383a).

(12) European e-Justice Portal, ‘Protection orders issued in one EU country can continue to be enforced in another’ (available at https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_mutual_recognition_of_protection_mea...).

(13) Council of Europe (CoE) (2011), Convention on Preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, CoE, Paris (available at https://rm.coe.int/168046031c).

(14) European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) (2017), Glossary of definitions of rape, femicide and intimate partner violence, EIGE, Vilnius (available at https://eige.europa.eu/rdc/eige-publications/glossary-definitions-rape-f...).

(15) Oxford Dictionary, Lexico, ‘reassault’ (available at https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reassault).

(16) Oxford Dictionary, Lexico, ‘recidivism’ (available at https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/recidivism).

(17) United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) (2015), ‘Glossary’, Multi-sectoral response to GBV: an effective and coordinated way to protect and empower GBV victims/survivors, UNFPA Regional Office for Eastern Europe and Central Asia, Istanbul (available at http://femroadmap.eu/MSR_Generic_model_eng.pdf).

(18) Council of Europe (CoE) (2006), Recommendation Rec(2006)8 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on assistance to crime victims, COE, Paris, https://rm.coe.int/16805afa5c.

(19) Oxford Dictionary, Lexico, ‘risk’ (available at https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/risk).

(20) Council of Europe (CoE) (2011), Convention on Preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, CoE, Paris, Art. 51 (available at https://rm.coe.int/168046031c).

(21) Council of Europe (CoE) (2016), Improving the effectiveness of law-enforcement and justice officers in combating violence against women and domestic violence: training of trainers manual, CoE, Paris (available at https://rm.coe.int/16807016f3).

(22) Robinson, A. L., Myhill, A., Wire, J., Roberts, J. and Tilley, N. (2016), Risk-led policing of domestic abuse and the DASH risk model, What Works Centre for Crime Reduction, College of Policing, Cardiff University, and Department of Security and Crime Science, University College London, Cardiff and London (available at http://www.college.police.uk/News/College-news/Documents/Risk-led_polici...).

(23) College of Policing, Authorised Professional Practice (APP), ‘Major investigation and public protection: victim safety and support’ (available at https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/major-investigation-and-pu...).

(24) Council of Europe (CoE) (2006), Recommendation Rec(2006)8 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on assistance to crime victims, COE, Paris, (available at https://rm.coe.int/16805afa5c).

(25) European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) (2012), Review of the implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action in the EU Member States: violence against women — victim support, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg (available at https://eige.europa.eu/rdc/eige-publications/violenceagainst-women-victi...).

(26) Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) (2009), Bringing security home: combating violence against women in the OSCE region — a compilation of good practices, OSCE, Vienna.

(27) Government of Western Australia, Department for Child Protection, Family and Domestic Violence Unit (2011), Common risk assessment and risk management framework, Government of Western Australia, Perth, p. 3.

(28) Art. 2(1)(a), Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, OJ L 315, 14.11.2012, pp. 57-73 (available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1421925131614&uri=CE...).

(29) For the purposes of this guide, victims of intimate partner violence will be considered predominantly women and girls, as it is widely acknowledged that most gender-based violence is inflicted on women and girls by men. See EIGE, ‘What is gender-based violence?’ (available at https://eige.europa.eu/gender-based-violence/what-is-gender-based-violence).

(30) European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE), Glossary & Thesaurus, ‘victimisation’ (available at https://eige.europa.eu/rdc/thesaurus/terms/1425).

(31) Council of Europe (CoE) (2011), Convention on Preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, CoE, Paris, Art. 3 (available at https://rm.coe.int/168046031c).

(32) Ibid.

(33) World Health Organisation (2017), Violence against women (available at https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women).

(34) Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, OJ L 315, 14.11.2012, pp. 57-73 (available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1421925131614&uri=CE...).

(35) European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) (2016), An analysis of the Victims’ Rights Directive from a gender perspective, EIGE, Vilnius (available at https://eige.europa.eu/rdc/eige-publications/analysis-victims-rights-dir...).

(36) European Commission, Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers (2012), ‘DG Justice guidance document related to the transposition and implementation of Victims’ Rights Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA’, European Commission, Brussels.

(37) Directive 2011/99/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the European protection order, OJ L 338, 21.12.2011, pp. 2-18 (available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32011L0099).

(38) Regulation (EU) No 606/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters, OJ L 181, 29.6.2013, pp. 4-12 (available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32013R0606).

(39) Council of Europe (CoE) (2011), Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, CoE, Paris (available at https://rm.coe.int/168046031c).

(40) Further information on the EU and international legislative framework is included in Annex 1.

(41) Campbell, J. C., Webster, D. W. and Glass, N. (2009), ‘The danger assessment: validation of a lethality risk assessment instrument for intimate partner femicide’, in Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 24, No 4, pp. 653-674.

(42) Williams, K. R. and Grant, S. R. (2006), ‘Empirically examining the risk of intimate partner violence: the Revised Domestic Violence Screening Instrument (DVSI-R)’, Public Health Reports, Vol. 121, No 4, pp. 400-408; Williams, K. R. and Houghton, A. B. (2004), ‘Assessing the risk of domestic violence reoffending: a validation study’, Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 28, No 4, pp. 437-455.

(43) Gelles and Straus (1990), cited in Roehl, J., O’Sullivan, C., Webster, D. and Campbell, J. (2005), Intimate partner violence risk assessment validation study, final report, US Department of Justice, Washington DC.

(44) Kropp, P. R. and Hart, S. D. (2000), ‘The spousal assault risk assessment (SARA) guide: reliability and validity in adult male offenders’, Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 24, No 1, pp. 101-118.

(45) Hilton, N. Z., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Lang, C., Cormier, C. A. and Lines, K. J. (2004), ’A brief actuarial assessment for the prediction of wife assault recidivism: the Ontario domestic assault risk assessment ’, Psychological Assessment, Vol. 16, No 3, p. 267.

(46) Au, A., Cheung, G., Kropp, R., Yuk-chung, C., Lam, G. L. and Sung, P. (2008), ‘A preliminary validation of the brief spousal assault form for the evaluation of risk (B-SAFER)’, in Hong Kong Journal of Family Violence, Vol. 23, No 8, p. 727.

(47) For example, the domestic abuse, stalking and harassment and honour-based violence (DASH) questionnaire in the United Kingdom, three different tools in Sweden — SARA: SV6 (short version), SAM: SV (stalking assessment and management, short version) and Patriarch (a checklist for assessing honour-related crime) — and SARA-plus in Italy.

(48) DK, IE, ES, IT, AT, PT, SK.

(49) IT, SE.

(50) DE, SK.

(51) DE, IT, AT, PT.

(52) EE, IE, MT, SK, UK.

(53) Almond, L., McManus, M., Brian, D. and Merrington, D. P. (2017), ’Exploration of the risk factors contained within the UK’s existing domestic abuse risk assessment tool (DASH): do these risk factors have individual predictive validity regarding recidivism?’, in Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, Vol. 9, No 1, pp. 58-68.

(54) BE, CZ, DK, EE, IE, EL, ES, HR, IT, CY, LT, LU, MT, NL, AT, PT, RO, SK, FI, UK.

(55) EL, ES, CY, LU, NL, PT, RO, SK.

(56) BE, DK, EE, IE, HR, IT, MT, FI, SE, UK.

(57) BE, CZ, IE, ES, IT, AT, PT, UK.

(58) BU, DE, FR, GR, LT, HU, PL, SI.

(59) BE, DE, EE, FR, IT, AT.

(60) Ministry of Internal Affairs (MAI) (2018), Ordinul nr. 146/2578/2018 privind modalitatea de gestionare a cazurilor de violență domestică de către polițiști [Order No. 146/2578/2018 regarding the management of domestic violence cases by police] (available at https://lege5.ro/Gratuit/gmytimzvgq3a/ordinul-nr-146-2578-2018-privind-m...). Annex 1 includes the risk assessment form.

(61) BG, EL, MT.

(62) A protection order is a fast legal remedy to protect persons at risk of any form of violence by prohibiting, restraining or prescribing certain behaviour by the perpetrator. Council of Europe (CoE) (2011), Explanatory report to the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, Paris, COM(2011)49-addfinal (available at https://rm.coe.int/16800d383a).

(63) Also known as a domestic violence restraining order, an intervention order, a civil harassment restraining order or an anti-harassment order.

(64) Benitez, C. T., McNiel, D. E. and Binder, R. L. (2010), ‘Do protection orders protect?’, The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Vol. 38, No 3, p. 376.

(65) Jordan, C. E. (2004), ‘Intimate partner violence and the justice system: an examination of the interface’, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 19, pp. 1 412-1 434 (available at https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=ipsv...).

(66) Strand, S. (2012), ‘Using a restraining order as a protective risk management strategy to prevent intimate partner violence’, Police Practice and Research, Vol. 13, No 3, pp. 254-266.

(67) Dowling, C., Morgan, A., Hulme, S., Manning, M. and Wong, G. (2018), ‘Protection orders for domestic violence: a systematic review’, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No 551, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra (available at https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi551).

(68) Vigurs, C., Schucan-Bird, K., Quy, K. and Gough, D. (2016), ‘The impact of domestic violence perpetrator programmes on victim and criminal justice outcomes: a systematic review of reviews of research evidence’, What Works: Crime Reduction Systematic Review, Series No 5 (available at https://whatworks.college.police.uk/Research/Systematic_Review_Series/Do...).

(69) Shelpard, M. F. and Pence, E. L. (eds) (1999), Coordinating community responses to domestic violence, SAGE, London.

(70) European Network for Work with Perpetrators (WWP EN) (2018), Guidelines to develop standards for programmes working with perpetrators of domestic violence (available at https://www.work-with-perpetrators.eu/fileadmin/WWP_Network/redakteure/G...).

(71) Kelly, L. and Westmarland, N. (2015), Domestic violence perpetrator programmes: steps towards change, Project Mirabal final report, London Metropolitan University and Durham University, London and Durham (available at https://www.nr-foundation.org.uk/downloads/Project_Mirabal-Final_report.pdf).

(72) http://driveproject.org.uk/

(73) Crime and Security Research Institute, Cardiff University, ‘New initiatives to tackle domestic violence perpetrators using the Priority Perpetrator Identification Tool (PPIT)’ (available at https://crimeandsecurity.org/feed/2017/6/8/new-initiatives-to-tackle-dom...).

(74) Centre for Research and Education on Violence against Women and Children (2012), Domestic violence risk assessment and management curriculum, Centre for Research and Education on Violence against Women and Children, Ontario (available at http://onlinetraining.learningtoendabuse.ca/sites/default/files/lessons/...).

(75) Davies, J. (2017), Victim-defined safety planning: a summary, Greater Hartford Legal Aid, Hartford, Connecticut (available at https://www.bcsdv.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/02/Victim-Defined-Safety-Pl...).

(76) Government of Western Australia, Department for Child Protection, Family and Domestic Violence Unit (2011), Common risk assessment and risk management framework, Government of Western Australia, Perth.

(77) Juodis, M., Starzomski, A., Porter, S. and Woodworth, M. (2014), ‘What can be done about high-risk perpetrators of domestic violence?’, Journal of Family Violence, Vol. 29, pp. 381-390.

(78) Moser, A. E. and Campbell, M. A. (2012), Validation and expansion of the Ontario domestic assault risk assessment (ODARA) instrument: an early warning system, Centre for Criminal Justice Studies and Psychology Department, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton.

(79) Douglas, K. S. and Randall Kropp, P. (2002), ‘A prevention-based paradigm for violence risk assessment: clinical and research applications’, Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 29, No 5, pp. 617-658.

(80) Douglas, K. S. and Randall Kropp, P. (2002), ‘A prevention-based paradigm for violence risk assessment: clinical and research applications’, Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 29, No 5, p. 8.

(81) Wheller, L. and Wire, J. (2014), Domestic abuse risk factors and risk assessment: summary of findings from a rapid evidence assessment, College of Policing, London, p. 5 (available at https://whatworks.college.police.uk/Research/Documents/DA-ROR-Summary-De...).

(82) Council of Europe (CoE) (2011), Explanatory report to the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, CoE, Paris (available at https://rm.coe.int/16800d383a).

(83) Myhill, A. and Hohl, K. (2016), ‘The “golden thread”: coercive control and risk assessment for domestic violence’, Journal of Interpersonal Violence (available at http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/15642/3/JIPV%20as%20accepted.pdf).

(84) The DASH form is the domestic abuse, stalking and harassment and honour-based violence questionnaire, a risk assessment tool used widely in the United Kingdom.

(85) Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of the Constabulary (HMIC) (2014), Everyone’s business: improving the police response to domestic violence, HMIC, London, p. 70, cited in Robinson, A. L., Pinchevsky, G. M. and Guthrie, J. A. (2018), ‘A small constellation: risk factors informing police perceptions of domestic abuse’, Policing and Society, Vol. 28, No 2, pp. 189-204.

(86) Groups’ vulnerabilities reflect discrimination and stigma in their national and community settings rather than intrinsic vulnerability. In fact, women and children from these groups frequently display significant resilience in the face of routine violation of their human rights. It is important not to confuse intersectionality with vulnerability.

(87) Such as the victim’s gender and gender identity or expression, ethnicity, race, religion, sexual orientation and disability, but also residence status, communication difficulties, relationship to or dependence on the perpetrator and previous experience of crime.

(88) Katz, E. (2016), ‘Beyond the physical incident model: how children living with domestic violence are harmed by and resist regimes of coercive control’, Child Abuse Review, Vol. 25, No 1, pp. 46-59; Stark, E. (2009), ‘Rethinking custody evaluation in cases involving domestic violence’, Journal of Child Custody, Vol. 6, No 3, pp. 287-321.

(89) Belfrage, H. and Strand, S. (2012), ‘Assessment and management of risk for intimate partner violence by police officers using the spousal assault risk assessment guide (SARA)’, Law and Human Behaviour, Vol. 36, No 1, pp. 60-67.

(90) European Commission (2010), Feasibility study to assess the possibilities, opportunities and needs to standardise national legislation on violence against women, violence against children and sexual orientation violence, Daphne Project, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg; Hester, M. (2005), ‘Making it through the criminal justice system: attrition and domestic violence’, Social Policy and Society, Vol. 5, No 1, pp. 79-90.

(91) Such as sex, gender, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, state of health, disability, marital status, migrant or refugee status, or other status.

(92) Gender-based approaches recognise the commonalities between all the varied manifestations of gender-based violence: forms of coercion, abuse and assault that are used to control, constrain and limit the lives, status, movement and opportunities of women.

(93) Groups’ vulnerabilities reflect discrimination and stigma in their national and community settings rather than intrinsic vulnerability. In fact, women and children from these groups frequently display significant resilience in the face of routine violation of their human rights. It is important not to confuse intersectionality with vulnerability.

(94) Such as the victim’s gender and gender identity or expression, ethnicity, race, religion, sexual orientation and disability, but also residence status, communication difficulties, relationship to or dependence on the perpetrator and previous experience of crime.

(95) Children and their mothers are at particular risk during separation and divorce, and safety planning is especially important in this context. See United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) (2014), Strengthening health system responses to gender-based violence in eastern Europe and central Asia: a resource package, UNFPA Regional Office for Eastern Europe and Central Asia, Istanbul (available at https://eeca.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/WAVEUNFPA-Report-EN.pdf).

(96) Radford, L., Aitken R., Miller, P., Ellis, J. and Howarth E. L. (2004), Children living with domestic violence: towards a framework of assessment and intervention, Russel House Publishing Ltd, Dorset.

(97) Developed by Barnardo’s Northern Ireland (available at http://www.barnardos.org.uk/pp_no_7_assessing_the_risks_to_children_from...).

(98) https://safeandtogetherinstitute.com

(99) Council of Europe (CoE) (2016), Improving the effectiveness of law-enforcement and justice officers in combating violence against women and domestic violence: training of trainers manual, CoE, Paris (available at https://rm.coe.int/16807016f3).

(100) Jaaber, R. A. and Das Dasgupta, S. (2010), ‘Assessing social risks of battered women’, Praxis International, Vol. 1, p. 5 (available at http://praxisinternational.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/AssessingSocia...).

(101) Wheller, L. and Wire, J. (2014), ‘Domestic abuse risk factors and risk assessment’, Summary of findings from a rapid evidence assessment, College of Policing, London.

(102) The domestic abuse, stalking and harassment and honour-based violence (DASH 2009) risk identification and assessment and management model (available at https://www.dashriskchecklist.co.uk/).

(103) Victim services, social services, child protection, health services, prosecutors, probation offers.

(104) https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection_en

(105) EU Member States have set up national bodies responsible for protecting personal data in accordance with Article 8(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (available at https://edpb.europa.eu/about-edpb/board/members_en).

(106) For specific guidance on data collection, please refer to EIGE’s recommendations to improve administrative data collection on intimate partner violence by the police and justice sectors (available at https://eige.europa.eu/rdc/eige-publications/indicators-intimate-partner...).

(107) Crown Prosecution Service, ‘Controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship: legal guidance, domestic abuse’, (available at https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/controlling-or-coercive-behaviour-...).

(108) McEwan, T. E., Bateson, S. and Strand, S. (2017), ‘Improving police risk assessment and management of family violence through a collaboration between law-enforcement, forensic mental health and academia’, Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice, Vol. 3, No 2, pp. 119-131.

(109) Service-generated risks arise from a lack of information or understanding about the impact of a service’s action. One common example is assuming that separation equals safety. This results in police, social work or other agencies pressuring women to leave an abuser when she may have accurately assessed that separation would be too dangerous.

(110) Institutional sexism refers to gender discrimination reflected in the policies and practices of organisations such as governments, corporations (workplaces), public institutions (schools, healthcare) and financial institutions. These practices derive from systemic sexist beliefs that women are inferior to and therefore less capable than men. Capodilupo, C. M. (2017), ‘Institutional sexism’, The SAGE encyclopedia of psychology and gender, SAGE, London (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483384269.n317).

(111) For example, as noted previously, perpetrators with histories of violent crime and/or mental illness are more likely to breach protection orders, which would need to be considered in a risk management strategy.

(112) Developed by Barnardo’s Northern Ireland (available at http://www.barnardos.org.uk/pp_no_7_assessing_the_risks_to_children_from...).

(113) ‘Safe and Together’ refers to the model’s principle that the best way to assist children who are exposed to the behaviour of a perpetrator is to keep them safe and together with the non-offending parent. It was developed in the United States and has been rolled out elsewhere, including in Australia, New Zealand and Scotland (available at https://safeandtogetherinstitute.com).

(114) Such as age, religion, immigration status, ethnicity and sexual orientation.

(115) European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) (2018), Indicators on intimate partner violence and rape for the police and justice sectors, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg (available at https://eige.europa.eu/publications/indicators-intimate-partner-violence...).

(116) Robinson, A. L., Myhill, A., Wire, J., Roberts, J. and Tilley, N. (2016), Risk-led policing of domestic abuse and the DASH risk model, College of Policing, London (available at https://www.college.police.uk/News/College-news/Documents/Risk-led_polic...).

(117) European Commission (2019), Strengthening victims’ rights: from compensation to reparation — report of the special adviser, J. Milquet, to the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, European Commission, Brussels (available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/law/law_by_topic/document_-st...).

(118) Juodis, M., Starzomski, A., Porter, S. and Woodworth, M. (2014), ‘What can be done about high-risk perpetrators of domestic violence?’, Journal of Family Violence, Vol. 29, pp. 381-390.

(119) Moser, A. E. and Campbell, M. A. (2012), Validation and expansion of the Ontario domestic assault risk assessment (ODARA) instrument: an early warning system, Centre for Criminal Justice Studies and Psychology Department, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton.

(120) A useful toolkit for establishing and monitoring a coordinated community response can be found at the Coordinated Community Response Model website (available at http://www.ccrm.org.uk/).