THE ADVOCACY FUND WWW.ADVOCACY-FUND.ORG
3 Ferguson Place Abingdon, Oxfordshire UK OX14 3YF
Paul Randle-Jolliffe Esq Chairman
[email protected] Tel: +44 (0) 207 193 9991
DUAL DA/DV RISK ASSESSMENTS and the PUBLIC SAFETY POLICY IMPERATIVE The Advocacy Fund (AF) conducted national Domestic Abuse/Domestic Violence (DA/DV) research in the UK. [see:https://www.academia.edu/5346143/Dual_Risk_Assessment_in_Domestic_Viole nce_Can_Save_Lives ] The research was based upon public FOIs with all UK police forces after establishing that there was a pattern of significant risk assessment (RA) gaps in the County of the Isle of Wight where victims of significant DA/DV (at risk of murder and other) were being treated as perpetrators and this gap acted to enable and support perpetrators to continue to abuse including by the use of proxy abuse by DA/DV agencies, police and courts. There we four cases involving long term child contact issues. Prior to the research, the founder of AF worked with policy holders of the Isle of Wight Country Council and Hampshire & Isle of Wight Police to develop a dual risk or retrospective RA model which found two at risk of murder victims within the existing pool of alleged perpetrators within the 1st two weeks of the new Dual RA policy. AF national research showed that there were such RA gaps in ALL other UK police forces and wider investigations internationally that showed that despite significant research on the prevalence of common couple DA/DV and DA/DV by female perpetrators on male victims there was an RA gap on an international basis putting both male and some female victims at risk due to whoever is first through the reporting door and lack of a Dual RA programme in all western countries. This gap clearly hampered the identification of abusers and in fact would likely miss a significant number of victims where DA/DV Agencies and Public Authorities were open to abuse by perpetrators to the detriment of some real victims including over prolonged periods. The Dual RA gap enabled some perpetrators, male and female to induce DA/DV by proxy by DA/DV Agencies and Public Authorities levelling abuse upon abuse! AF’s retrospective RA’s have shown IRO 70% of such abuse by proxy includes false arrests/incarceration and/or removal from home and prejudicial impact on court proceedings. One case involved 15 arrests in one year without charges. In all the following abuse dynamics Dual RAs & Retrospective RAs have been found to be of significant use, many with what AF calls the “Emperors New DA/DV Cloths Effect” on DA/DV authorities and a swift reversal of how they now act in false positive cases.
In DV/DA Risk Assessments there are a number of scenario dynamics that need to be considered as possible, listed as follows i.e. who is the victim and who is the perpetrator, a single RA report alone cannot evaluate these.
Male Perp Female Perp LBGT Perp Both Perps (common couple i.e. equal) Both perps but one is reactive victim Perp makes victim look like perp Perp inciting another to go for victim by false reporting (this can also include other family and officials like the police DV agency, courts) i.e. abuse by proxy.
The Isle of Wight Dual RA model is now considered the most effective RA model with many others in the process of establishing a Gender Free Dual RA Policy and AF is working with and advising “Gender Free DV” (a UK National Charity) using AF’s adjusted Gender Inclusive AFRIT Dual RA model to fill the RA gaps in the UK. AF is also asked ad hoc by experienced advocates in the UK and abroad, to conduct AF’s retrospective RA’s on both male and female alleged perpetrators and missed alleged victims. Significantly, out of the last dozen of these in the UK, only one has been found to be common couple violence (CC) dynamic and all the rest were victims being treated as perpetrators but were missed victims, the majority being male, with only two females, (one females was involved in state child social care cases and since AF has identified that missed female victims tend to fall into this area on a significant basis). Two of the males were or had been prosecuted as violent offenders and each Dual RA report (including the CC one where the male was a reactive victim ay higher risk) then changed the responses of the agencies involved. In one case a male victim had been subject to multiple penetrative knife attacks and yet he was treated as a lower level perpetrator and denied access to children as he was considered the risk, single RAs can produce staggeringly stupid results. It is AF view as the leading agent of Dual RA’s, that Gendered and Single RA policies put many adults and children at significant risk of long term harm and are prejudicial to public safety policy. Given that the financial cost of Dual & Retrospective RA’s are low, and injustice high in terms of agencies and authorities getting it wrong (by supporting only a non Dual RA policy) as DA/DV is so devastating, it should be a matter of high priority public policy that all public bodies; Family/DV/other Courts, Police, Local & State Authorities as well as DV/DA agencies and advocates implement Dual RA’s as standard and where appropriate retrospective RAs, with services provided to those that need it. In particular where matters come to court, courts are best placed to ensure Dual RA’s are de rigor to ensure the high principles of equality of justice under the law. In particular AF has noted that in all its retrospective RA’s there have been children involved and that without Dual RAs, “the best interests of children” principal may be breached by a Dual RA gap and that this could be placing children at direct risk of significant harm or at least long term emotional abuse and that authorities and agencies should consider the wider potential of Dual RAs in both Adult and Child Public Safety Policy as a standard practice.
