{"paper_id":"18f86f3f-3417-41b3-9062-acc94b7a4180","body_text":"Risk Assessment and the ODARA: Police Officer Perspectives and Experiences | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Risk Assessment and the ODARA: Police Officer Perspectives and Experiences Amy Lynn MacQuarrie, Mary Ann Campbell, Jodie Sullivan, Denika Widmer This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6932083/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA) is an actuarial risk assessment tool that is effective at predicting risk of recidivism by offenders in intimate partner violence cases (IPV) and has been formally adopted as a risk assessment tool by police in New Brunswick. Training and implementation of the tool across Canada is mixed, however, and previous studies have shown that officers express varying opinions as to the usefulness of the tool. Previous studies relied on archival data to assess officer use of the ODARA. The present study used qualitative semi-structured interviews with N = 35 officers from three municipal police organizations within New Brunswick, Canada. Five overall themes were developed using interpretative phenomenological analysis. Officers overall expressed positive (e.g., informs decision making, has legal impacts) and negative (e.g., not helpful for decision making, not sure why ODARA is being used) views toward the ODARA regarding its usefulness, impact on decision-making, as well as value or lack of value for the Crown or judges. Recommendations for improvement, insights on when officers use the ODARA and why, and views on training were also explored. Results highlight the need for intimate partner violence training and policy changes within police organizations to address police barriers to using risk assessment tools on scene, as well as concerns about the usefulness of such tools. ODARA risk assessment police intimate partner violence qualitative Figures Figure 1 Introduction Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) refers to harm, or threats of harm, that are inflicted by current or former partners or spouses and can include physical, emotional, sexual, and other forms of violence or abuse (Heyman et al., 2015 ; Women and Gender Equality Canada [WAGE], 2022). According to police reported data in Canada, rates of IPV among women were 3.5 times higher than men in 2019, and self reported data indicated that women were more likely to experience various forms of abuse, severe forms of IPV, and fear of their partner which can be an indicator of IPV (WAGE, 2022). Women are more likely to report IPV crimes to police and are at a higher risk of intimate partner homicide than men, with women aged 25 to 29 years old having the highest risk (Burczycka & Conroy, 2017 ). Rates of IPV increased during the COVID-19 pandemic from 2019 to 2021, before remaining stable in Canada in 2022 (Statistics Canada, 2023a ). In New Brunswick, Canada, IPV rates per 100,000 population were above the national average from 2014 to 2022 (Statistics Canada, 2023a ). In a 2014 report, police reported IPV in New Brunswick was 328.3 per 100,000 people, above the national average of 301.1 per 100,000 people (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, 2016 ). More recently, the rate of police reported IPV was 497 per 100,000 persons in New Brunswick compared to 345 in Canada (Government of New Brunswick, 2023 ). As police calls for services go, IPV cases are among the most dangerous (Breul & Keith, 2016 ). Factors such as limited resources, staffing issues, lack of information or lack of accurate information, and presence of a violent or armed suspect help explain why IPV calls can be potentially deadly to responding officers (Breul & Keith, 2016 ). Due to the danger posed by IPV, particularly to women, the use of coordinated responses to IPV, which includes collaboration with family or victim services, and the use of risk assessment tools by police officers, has been implemented in New Brunswick and elsewhere in Canada (Department of Justice Canada, 2023b ). Police officers use risk assessment tools to inform their actions when responding to IPV calls. According to Belfrage et al. ( 2012 ) and Storey et al. ( 2013 ), higher scores on The Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) and Brief Spousal Assault Form for the Evaluation of Risk (B-SAFER), respectively, were related to an increase in the number of interventions recommended by police. Risk management or interventions for IPV can include contacting victim supports, installing alarm systems in a home, police contacts, or contacting a prosecutor to name a few examples. When police recommend more interventions in cases that score highly on risk assessment tools, this can lead to a decrease in recidivism and thus reduce the risk for harm to victims by the accused (Storey et al., 2013 ). The shift towards prevention of IPV by police, as well as the identified value of risk assessments in IPV cases (Gill et al., 2016 ), has led to an increase in research on how officers are using the tools. In a survey of attitudes toward risk assessment tools for IPV in New Brunswick, Canada, the majority of police officers indicated that risk assessment tools could be useful, that they would administer the tools, and had previously used a risk assessment tool (Campbell et al., 2018 ). Although most officers (66%) had previously used a risk assessment tool, most of them (57.6%) had not received training on IPV (Campbell et al., 2018 ). Similarly, police officers and other professionals (e.g., child and family services, healthcare workers) have reported that not everyone in their workplace receives formal training, and that a variety of tools may be used (Jaffe & Campbell, 2021 ), which can further complicate risk assessment practices. The Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA) was originally implemented in Ottawa, Ontario in 2004 as a risk assessment tool to identify men accused of IPV who posed a high risk to a female partner (Solicitor General, 2004). The ODARA was designed to be used by police officers responding to IPV calls involving a physical assault or credible threats of death in heterosexual couples. The instrument consists of 13-items based on empirical risk factors for IPV (e.g., prior domestic assault, presence of children, threats to kill or harm) that are dichotomously scored based on the presence of those risk factors as identified by police officers. Scores range from 0 to 13, with higher scores indicating an increased risk of recidivism, and thus, an increase in the threat the accused poses to the victim of IPV (Hilton et al., 2004 ; Radatz & Hilton, 2019 ). Several provinces in Canada, including New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Saskatchewan have since adopted the ODARA as a formal risk assessment tool (Department of Justice, 2023a). The ODARA is classified as an actuarial risk assessment tool wherein risk factors are identified in empirical research and then translated into a measure that can be scored. Compared to other structured clinical judgement or unstructured clinical decision-making approaches to risk assessment, actuarial tools can be used by individuals who do not have formal clinical training or skills, such as police officers (Braaf & Sneddon, 2007). In general, actuarial risk assessment tools including the B-SAFER and the ODARA perform better at distinguishing between lower and higher risk IPV cases compared to structured clinical decision making or judgement tools (van der Put et al., 2019 ). Even when scored by students, ODARA scores were more accurate in predicting future recidivism compared to clinical judgments made by forensic psychiatrists in Switzerland (Seewald et al., 2017 ). Other commonly used risk assessment tools employed by officers responding to IPV calls, such as the SARA and The Danger Assessment (DA), were not developed using actuarial methods, contain some items that are less predictive of IPV, and were not designed to be used by front-line officers (Hilton et al., 2004 ). In a review of the risk assessment tools used by jurisdictions across Canada, the ODARA was the most commonly used tool (Bourgon et al., 2018 ). The ODARA has strong predictive validity for future IPV in studies comparing IPV tools, often outperforming the SARA and the DA in risk prediction (Guo & Harstall, 2008 ; Henning et al., 2021 ; Messing & Thaller, 2012 ; Svalin & Levander, 2020 ). Additionally, in a survey of police officers from across Canada (Saxton et al., 2020 ), the majority indicated that they engaged in risk assessment for IPV (52.7%), risk management (52.7%), and used the ODARA as a structured risk assessment tool (63.2%). However, based on the findings of Saxton et al.’s ( 2020 ) survey, a significant portion of these officers are not engaging in IPV risk assessment practices. The value in using the ODARA is that its score allows police officers and other criminal justice decision-makers, such as Crown attorneys or judges, to effectively discriminate between higher or lower risk IPV cases, which can inform future decision-making in the case (Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Service, 2009 ). Prior research has demonstrated that the ODARA can distinguish between cases where there was a future physical assault or nonphysical abuse (Moser, 2012 ; Schafers et al., 2021 ), with scores of 7–13 highlighting the most severe risk (Lauria et al., 2017 ). The ODARA is also effective at predicting future intimate partner homicide and can promote violence prevention (Eke et al., 2011 ). Although the ODARA is a widely used risk assessment instrument, studies have shown that its use can vary by police organization. Also, there are a multitude of factors, including visible injuries to the victim, that can impact whether the ODARA is used (Ballucci et al., 2020 ). Use of the ODARA is important to consider, as its use is associated with whether officers make an arrest and whether charges are recommended against the accused (Ballucci et al., 2020 ; Jung & Himmen, 2022 ). Police response to IPV calls, however, remains the same in New Brunswick regardless of whether the case poses lower or higher risk (Moser, 2012 ). Formal training on a risk assessment measure has been shown to increase accuracy of ratings. When comparing ODARA scoring between officers who received only the ODARA scoring sheet versus those who received the instruction booklet that provides scoring rules and context for ODARA administration, those who received the booklet were more accurate than untrained users. Similarly, accuracy of ODARA scoring among professionals has been shown to improve with access to the ODARA booklet and a training session (Hilton et al., 2007a ). Both in-person and electronic training are equally effective for ensuring ODARA scoring accuracy (Hilton & Ham, 2015 ). Although officers may vary in the nature of their IPV risk assessment training, it is evident based on qualitative responses provided by officers that the use of risk assessment tools helps inform police action (Ballucci et al., 2017 ). Risk assessment tools also provide officers with risk factors they should be aware of, assist in decision-making, and make officers aware of whether a particular IPV call is higher risk based on prior history (Ballucci et al., 2017 ). Although some officers have reported positive views toward risk assessment tools (e.g., Campbell et al., 2018 ), others feel that it takes away police officers’ agency and disregards or diminishes their knowledge and experience (Ballucci et al., 2017 ). Officers may draw on their past experience and knowledge based on their exposure to prior cases (Kebebell, 2021), which can then influence perceptions of risk in biased ways that are contrary to risk measured via structured risk appraisal processes. Given that higher scores on risk assessment tools predict IPV, the use of such tools can lead to proactive versus reactive police responses, as higher scores on risk assessment tools are associated with future IPV (Canales et al., 2013 ). In a survey of officer understandings of IPV in New Brunswick, Canada, the majority (58.6%) of officers defined IPV in terms of the presence of violence, and only 39.1% included other factors (e.g., power-dynamics or manipulation by the aggressor) in their definition of IPV Gill et al., 2021). Thus, Gill and colleagues (2021) noted that risk assessment tools such as the ODARA are an important tool for police to ensure accurate assessment of risk, particularly when physical forms of violence may not be apparent via visible injuries or damaged property. Risk assessment tools can be beneficial for providing officers with guidance on factors to investigate, as well as ensuring consistency in the risk appraisal process across IPV perpetrators (Kebbell, 2019 ). Most studies examining the use of the ODARA have relied on archival data to examine its predictive validity (e.g., Hilton et al., 2004 ; Moser, 2012 ; Radatz & Hilton, 2019 ; Ulmer, 2015 ). Studies examining the use of the ODARA by police officers have also relied on pre-existing files (e.g., Ballucci et al., 2020 ; Jung & Himmen, 2022 ). Few studies (e.g., Ballucci et al., 2017 ) have used qualitative approaches to gain insight into officer experiences using risk assessment tools and how it influences their decision-making process, including when using the ODARA. Given the diverse opinions officers have expressed toward the structured IPV risk assessment (Ballucci et al., 2017 ), as well the ODARA’s popularity as a risk assessment tool in Canada in police contexts (Saxton et al., 2020 ), the current study aimed to address this gap in the literature. The present study sought to understand the experiences of New Brunswick police officers using the ODARA in terms of their understanding of using the ODARA and its function, training on IPV and the tool, and recommendations for improvements in the tool to enhance their use of it. Method In the present study, qualitative, interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) was used to understand the unique experiences of officers who use the ODARA, their decision-making processes when deciding whether or not to score the ODARA, and recommendations for improvement to the ODARA and process around its use. Participants Chiefs of police from three municipal police forces within New Brunswick were asked to partner on the study via an email outlining the study, research questions, and aims of the research. After agreement from the chiefs of police, two interviewers arranged dates at all three sites to conduct in-person interviews with guidance from senior officers on duty. Supervisors informed officers on shift that interviewers were available should they wish to participate. Interviewers were assigned a private room or space at each site to ensure participant confidentiality and officers were informed that transcripts would be anonymized and that their participation would not impact their employment. A minimum of N = 30 participants was sought (i.e., ten from each site). Interviewer dates were scheduled accordingly to ensure access to multiple officer shifts. A total of 35 New Brunswick police officer participants were recruited to participate in semi-structured interviews using a sample of general duty front-line patrol officers who had experience using the ODARA. There were n = 14 participants from organization A, n = 10 from organization B, and n = 11 from organization C. Officers were recruited from a blend of urban, suburban, and rural patrol areas in three small to midsized organizations within New Brunswick. Police agencies were composed of approximately 40 to 150 officers depending on the organization. Participants had a mean age of 37.46 years ( SD = 8.95), with ages ranging from 23 to 51 years of age. Most officers identified as men ( n = 25, 71.43%). Most officers were at the constable rank ( n = 22, 62.87%), followed by sergeant ( n = 7, 20.00%), corporal ( n = 3, 8.57%), and other (e.g., senior constable, detective constable, etc.; n = 3, 8.57%). Officers had been employed as a police officer for an average of 12.28 years ( SD = 8.05) and had been employed at their current organization for an average of 10.43 years ( SD = 8.39). Some officers ( n = 11) had previously used other risk assessment tools such as the B-SAFER ( n = 3, 8.57%), DA ( n = 3, 8.57%) and other risk assessments or IPV forms ( n = 9, 25.71%). Materials A semi-structured interview guide was developed to explore police officer experiences and views toward the ODARA (see Appendix A). The guide was composed of the following: 1. demographic questions (i.e., age, gender identification, rank, length of employment as a police officer, length of time worked with current organization, and average IPV calls responded to each month); 2. overall thoughts on the ODARA; 3. details regarding ODARA training such as when it was received, what the training contained, and whether the officers’ perceived the training as helpful or not helpful: 4. overall use of the ODARA and its impact on decision-making (e.g., “What influences your decision to score the ODARA or not”), when the ODARA is completed (i.e., “On average, how long after you respond to an IPV call do you complete the ODARA?”): 5. how closely officers follow scoring criteria for the ODARA and overall perceptions of the scoring process; and 6. the value of the ODARA for the Crown attorneys or judges. Probing questions were asked as deemed necessary by interviewers to obtain clarification or allow officers to expand on answers. Additionally, interviewers included summaries at the end of each interview to ensure officer views were accurately understood and represented. Procedure The study received ethical approval from the institution’s research ethics board at the author’s university. The interview guide was developed by the first and second authors, the latter being an expert in IPV risk assessment and the use of the ODARA by police as well as police psychology more generally. Upon indicating their interest in participating, officers were given an informed consent form which required their signature before continuing. Interviews were audio recorded with participant consent. In cases where participants did not consent to audio recording ( n = 5) interviewers wrote down participant responses as accurately as possible. Interviews were conducted at each of the three police sites by one of two interviewers. Each interview took place during officer shifts and was conducted in a private location. No information was provided back to supervisors, managers, or other persons about whether an individual consented or not to participate upon voluntarily agreeing to meet with the interviewers. No incentives were provided for participation. Emails from the researchers were sent out to all employees by the organization’s administration to let them know about the study in advance. Recorded interviews were transcribed and all identifiable information was redacted before analyses Data Analysis Plan Braun and Clarke’s (2019) guidance on interpretative phenomenological analysis was used as it focuses on subjectivity and the complexity of the human experience. As the current study aimed to understand police experiences, interpretative phenomenological analysis is particularly useful as this qualitative approach acknowledges the lived experiences of each participant (Braun & Clarke, 2013). Initial themes were developed by the lead author and a research assistant who each randomly selected five interviews and developed themes based on relevant quotes and patterns identified in participant responses. Themes were developed based on guidance provided by Braun and Clarke (2013) on thematic and interpretative phenomenological analysis. The initial themes developed by both researchers were compared and differences were resolved by discussion. Further narrowing of themes and codes, or sub-themes and patterns that fit under an overall theme, was completed by the lead researcher after manually coding all interviews using thematic analysis and identifying relevant quotes. To ensure accuracy of themes and codes, themes and codes were reviewed with a senior police officer within a patrol setting who had not participated in the study, to gain further insight into results and make final adjustments to data presentation. De-identified quotes are used to exemplify themes as relevant. Positionality Statement The lead researcher in the present study, who assumes primary responsibility for data analyses and theme generation, has previously had positive and limited, interactions with police. She identifies as a white cis-gender woman who is enrolled in graduate school. Additionally, she does not have any personal experience with IPV. Her understanding of IPV and police views and experiences using the ODARA is interpreted with an academic lens and attempts have been made to be aware of, and reduce, biases where possible. Results were presented to an officer who is experienced using the ODARA for quality assurance. This aided the researcher in ensuring themes accurately represented officer views. Obtaining feedback from an individual with experience using the ODARA was also helpful in organizing themes and sub-themes in a meaningful way. Results & Discussion In general, officer views toward the ODARA broadly fell under “positive” and “negative” themes. These elements were contextualized across overall themes which encompassed parameters that affect an officer’s decision to use the tool, views toward the ODARA, recommendations for improvement, and finally, overall views and experiences with training on the tool. A visual representation of themes and sub-themes is shown in Fig. 1 . Parameters for Decision to Use the ODARA Officers were asked to comment on the policy guiding the use of the ODARA at their organization, as well as factors that influenced their decision to use the tool. Officers emphasized that the ODARA is mandatory in cases involving IPV, and that there are a wide range of factors that may influence how the tool is used, and whether or not officers choose to score it. Policy is it’s Mandatory, Sort of Officers indicated that the ODARA was mandatory at their organization in cases of IPV, and that there were checks and balances in place to ensure that files contained the ODARA when necessary, “And so there's really 4 checkpoints that they would have to pass through and at any stage that the investigating officer hasn't completed one where there ought to be one, it's sent that investigation is sent back for them to complete so we really want to capture that” (ID #11). The ODARA was formally adopted as a risk assessment tool in New Brunswick in 2014 (Department of Justice Canada, 2023b ), and officer responses are consistent with that policy. This understanding also stands in stark contrast to those officers who indicated that there were no checks in balances in place at their organization, or at least that these checks and balances were not actually followed in reality despite their existence in protocol documents. In general, responses indicated that the ODARAs are completed relatively quickly after the index events, with officers answering that it would be completed within the same shift, the same day, or within a few hours of the call to reflect the seriousness of IPV calls, as well as time limits to get the case to court, “Uh, we have 21 days to have a charged file for IPV um before the courts so it's a very short time compared to all the other files that we have to have so. Um, filling out forms is usually done the same shift” (ID #15). However, other officers indicated that ODARAs may not be completed as quickly if there is no arrest, and some had initially not realized how quickly ODARAs must be completed after the call, “No, ODARA, is probably, the probably the second thing I would complete. Especially if there was a criminal charge, I would try to get it done as quickly as I could, but if it's if there's no arrest it might sit, you know, two or three weeks” (ID #15 − 0). Thus, the implication of this mindset or practice is that higher risk IPV situations may get missed when insufficient grounds are met for a charge from the index event. Some studies have found support for ODARA’s predictive ability for IPV recidivism, but lower validity for predicting police charges for IPV recidivism compared to when the tool is used by researchers (Jung & Himmen, 2022 ). This finding may suggest that additional factors, such as when ODARAs are completed and the manner in which they are completed affects scoring. For example, if ODARAs are not filled out on scene or shortly thereafter, it may be that crucial information is missed as the ODARA is which also negatively affects the tools risk assessment. There are a range of factors related to staffing and resources that can affect officers’ ability to accurately appraise risk of the ODARA. Specifically, officers cited factors such as call volume, staffing, the time it takes to complete the ODARA, dealing with other aspects of the case (e.g., arrest, interviewing involved parties), large volumes of competing paperwork, as well as difficulty accessing information necessary to complete the ODARA as factors that may delay ODARA completion, or make it more difficult for officers to gather relevant information and accurately assess risk by completing the tool. Which obviously pushes your, you know, your ability to come back to the office and do your paperwork that pushes, that could be hours, it just depends on the call volume of the day or it depends on how serious in nature the the domestic or IPV file, the case that you're working on, is where you're maybe you're you're having to spend more time at the scene or the residence, whatever the case may be and you don't have access to your computer where you come back and actually get your paperwork and file work already started and done. So really it could be just a matter of anything or maybe it's really drastic and the fact that you have to find housing for the individual uh - who's needing somewhere else to go or maybe you've actually arrested the person and you have to take them to jail. Yeah, there's all kinds of different situations that it could be really. (ID #17 − 0) According to Statistics Canada, the rate of police strength as a human resource, or officers per 100,000 in the population, has been decreasing in recent years (Statistics Canada, 2023b ). In New Brunswick, there was a decrease of 1.8% of officers per 100,000 people in 2023 compared to 2022 (Statistics Canada, 2023b ). Reports have also indicated an increase in the amount of paperwork officers must take part in as part of the judicial process if the case goes to court (Griffiths et al., 2015 ). Additionally, processes may be different across jurisdictions, particularly the use of technology and how communications are made for case information, which may further complicate attempts to obtain necessary materials to score risk tools and appraise risk properly (Griffiths et al., 2015 ). These resource factors appear to contribute to officers’ capacity to complete the ODARA at all, and sometimes in a timely manner when they do complete it regardless of policy. Perceptions of Risk and the Administration of the ODARA There were two overall viewpoints on how officers viewed risk and IPV. Some responded that IPV calls are always high risk regardless of ODARA scores, which is not consistent with risk assessment practices and the ODARA (Hilton et al., 2004 ). Um, but it's not like. If I was, if I were to go to a domestic call, I'm not looking to see what the ODARA was, whether it was high risk or not because I'm going to identify all those things as I go along in the domestic anyways, right. And we would look at every call as high risk when we go into it. (…) Right? So, whether they score two or three, that's not going to be any decision maker for me when I go to a call because I'm looking at it as an individual call. (ID #050 − 2) Approaching all calls as high risk may cause officers to over-respond (Kebbell, 2021 ), which may actually elevate risk or divert valuable resources to cases not requiring them (Bonta & Andrews, 2024 ). In fact, higher risk calls were treated with heightened response and officers paid more attention when risk was perceived as being higher to the victim. On Scene Factors Influencing Decisions to Administer the ODARA When officers arrive on the scene of an IPV call, there are several factors that can influence whether they choose to complete an ODARA. The presence of a physical component, including complaints related to physical violence, choking, signs of a struggle when officers arrive at the scene, or threats of violence or assault with a weapon may increase the likelihood that an officer completes an ODARA. This is consistent with the results of Ballucci and colleagues ( 2020 ) who reported that ODARAs were completed more often in cases involving current intimate partners (vs. past), physical violence, as well as the use of a weapon. Officers note that a case has to involve a couple in an intimate relationship and a physical component to administer an ODARA by policy. Additionally, previously completed ODARAs and information about the couple may help inform officer’s response to the call, which is more consistent with ODARA guidelines. History's the big thing. (…) I mean, a lot of times when you're going to a call, if it's a domestic, you find out who the parties are involved. You just do a background check. And a lot of the, with the history and the scoring, you can tell, um, whether there’s been history of this type of before, whether there's been violence or threats before. (...) So you prepare yourself before you even get there, so. (…) But to me, that's, that's valuable information for officers for officers going to these calls (ID #051 − 3). In addition, officers tended to comment that the presence of children, including evidence that children lived in the home such as cribs, tended to raise an officer’s perceived risk of the call and need for risk appraisal. But in my own head and and again, this is 20 years, if I go to one of those types of domestic, you know, violent offenses and I learn or become aware that the female party has a child from a previous marriage, relationship, whatever um it's it's usually it's usually been ongoing abuse and very serious abuse and the second huge red flag for me, on top of ODARA, is anytime I hear a client or a victim say that they they've been choked and they used the words choked, strangled suffocated. But it's usually that usually the female would describe it as he choked me or he tried to strangle me and when I hear that automatically my my instincts go to this is a hair away from a homicide (ID #11). Although the presence of children is one of the risk factors on the ODARA, it is not one of the criteria for when the ODARA is to be completed. The fact that officers are also aware of the dangers of physical violence, including the risk of recidivism in higher risk cases that involve physical assault (Radatz & Hilton, 2019 ) is consistent with prior research. It is also a positive indication that the officer was aware it was a risk factor. Officers may pay closer attention to children in the home due to concerns about harm to the child, as well as greater awareness of IPV risk factors on the ODARA. Assessing the overall scene is part of officers’ response. Some may pay more attention to resolving an ongoing dispute and conduct interviews with witnesses, the accused and victim to gather relevant information. Officers may be influenced by what they observe when they arrive. Some officers highlighted that the ODARA is not a priority at that time, and they rely on discretion as described below. Ballucci et al. ( 2017 ) found similar concerns by officers who felt that one tool could not capture everything observed at a scene, or the totality of an IPV situation. However, officers expressed overall progressive views toward IPV by acknowledging the presence of barriers to a victim leaving an IPV situation such as financial, emotional, and lack of social connections. However, organization A required all members to automatically select the barriers risk factor for IPV calls on the ODARA which led to some members questioning the usefulness of items on the ODARA if some risk factors were automatically marked as present even when they may not necessarily apply. Further examination of the importance of barriers for preventing victims from leaving an IPV situation (Fleury et al., 1998 ), as well as what constitutes a barrier on the ODARA, may be helpful to address those concerns. The ODARA is designed to guide officers’ decision-making, but officers tended to use the ODARA after making decisions; thus, many described dealing with the call and related issues before even thinking about the ODARA. If this is how most officers are using the tool, then the ODARA would not be having its intended purpose of guiding officer decision-making, as one officer explains, “So it's more of a review tool than an actual (…) risk assessment kind of” (ID #051 − 2). The risk to this practice is that officers may not recognize the risk associated with a case when certain risk factors are not identified at the scene and subsequently increase the risk to the victim ( Given that this practice has been noted in previous research (Ballucci et al., 2017 ), increased attention to officer practices, as well as working with officers to manage their workload and response processes, may be necessary. However, as indicated by responses described above, the ODARA can be a useful tool when responding to IPV incidents at some point in the response process. Officers broadly held views that were both positive and negative with respect to their own perceptions of the ODARA and its use. Endorsing the Value of the ODARA Positive views toward the ODARA encompass officers’ perceptions of the ODARA as holding value for their work as a first responder, as well as value for IPV victims, IPV response, and for informing other criminal-justice decision makers such as the Crown or judges. Guidance on officer actions Individuals who expressed positive views toward the ODARA noted that they found it helpful for providing guidance on officer actions. For example, officers noted that the items on the ODARA could be useful for guiding their questioning: “Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, it can guide you in your questions and it can help you if you miss things as well.” (ID #055). Officers described ODARA items as serving as a reminder of questions to ask, as well as guiding their process in information-gathering at the scene. Additionally, the standardized nature of the ODARA was noted as a positive, “Um, it’s a cut and dry form so it's filled out, supposed to be filled out the same way, by every member and then it kind of standardizes our classifications as well so I think it kind of streamlines and um is a good way to manage our records for that, for response to those calls.” (ID #006). This understanding is consistent with one of the main tenets of risk assessment that the tool be standardized so police (or other users) can consistently apply it to inform interventions that reduce harm to victims (Moser, 2012 ). Moreover, officers in Ballucci et al.’s ( 2017 ) survey also noted that items on the risk tools can be useful to ensure that all information on the form is filled out correctly, and that risk is accurately reflected in its scoring. The use of unstructured risk assessment or reliance on intuition or previous experience has consistently been demonstrated to be less reliable than structured or actuarial risk assessment tools (Grove et al., 2000 ; van der Put et al., 2019 ). Reflecting their understanding of the need for structured risk decision-making, officers discussed how, prior to the introduction of the ODARA, risk was identified by “gut” or “intuition” rather than the presence of risk factors identified through empirical research: I would say before the ODARA came along. Um. We are all, I say we, the police, we're all reliant on our gut. (…) So we wouldn't necessarily have that quantitative correlation, where we're we're physically seeing and filling out a form and physically seeing (clears throat) a number at the end for that that result that says, OK, it's beyond this so we're, we're into a higher percent of recidivism (ID #11). A strength is that the ODARA can accurately predict recidivism based on information that officers can readily access (Hilton et al., 2004 ). As such, officer perceptions that the ODARA provides a quantifiable measure of risk and greater insight into the level of risk is in line with previous research. When officers are able to identify high risk cases through higher ODARA scores, it makes it easier to refer victims to services: “Hmm (pause). I guess, uh, if, like I was telling you earlier, the score, if it's above 7, then we can refer them to the CCR [Co-ordinated Community Response] referral (…) That I was talking about. That would be the biggest one to know to when to refer that one” (ID #052 − 2). Conversely, it can be more difficult to refer victims to services in lower-risk cases: “Um, but like I said before, there are, there are certain instances where it's not considered high risk and therefore the, those resources aren't as quick, I guess to be put in place” (ID #054). A critical component of risk assessment is incorporating services required for victims based on the level of risk (Nicholls et al., 2013 ). Training in risk assessment can make it easier for officers to refer victims to relevant services (Ballucci et al., 2017 ), and for high-risk victims to receive necessary supports through police referrals (Messing et al., 2015 ). The responses given by officers on victim services is in line with the literature on the value of the ODARA for prioritizing high-risk IPV service calls. The above quote highlights the importance of ODARA scores for securing resources for victims to ensure their safety, with the appropriate understanding that higher risk cases should be prioritized and receive more urgent and intensive services than lower risk cases (Nicholls et al., 2013 ). However, there is dissatisfaction in the consequential delay this creates for less privileged cases to also receive timely service. As noted by Hilton et al. ( 2004 ), officers in high-risk situations must make quick, yet critical, decisions regarding “victim assistance” (p. 268). More supports may be available for high-risk cases given the association between higher scores for accused, or victim’s partners, and subsequent recidivism and revictimization of victims (Hilton et al., 2004 ). Knowledge of Previous IPV Context One of the ways that officers may recognize higher-risk calls, or patterns of IPV, is by referring to the couple’s history of IPV by reviewing prior ODARA’s available in the file. Officers reflected on the value of the ODARA for seeing the progression of IPV severity over time as a valuable aspect of the tool: Um, if you're getting them on the first time, they don't want to provide a statement they just want to make a report. (…) It's good to get that ODARA beforehand, of this is where the violence [is] at right now. (…) And then as it go, it kind of goes and escalates. Your ODARA report should reflect the escalation and then when it hits the peak of something really bad happens and then maybe she still doesn't want to cooperate or he doesn't want to cooperate and it starts to come back down into the lull. You can see it. (…) And then. Properly, like realistically, prop- if they're properly done, you should be able to see the, the growth and then the lull and the growth and then the lull. (ID #051 − 2) Prior ODARAs also allow officers to see the IPV history of the accused or victims across different partners as well: “It is helpful. It’s, it's good for documentation. It's good to, um. Some people that are involved in IPVs, it's not just a one time event. So sometimes it's, uh, with the same partner or different partners. So it's good to keep, uh, records and have them to, uh, look back on” (ID #15). Officers also recognized that not all incidents involve physical assaults, and that records can be helpful in identifying patterns of IPV over time. Record keeping is crucial, as there is significant overlap or co-occurrence of physical and psychological aggression (Hacıaliefendioğlu et al., 2021 ), and perpetrators who are arrested for IPV have a much higher risk of recidivism and prosecution for IPV (Petersson & Strand, 2019 ). Thus, identifying perpetrators at less severe stages of IPV and implementing necessary strategies to reduce recidivism can be effective at reducing risk to victims. Studies have shown that police are more likely to arrest perpetrators in higher risk cases even without the use of risk assessment tools, and arrest is related to delayed recidivism (Hilton et al., 2007b ). Having a prior history of IPV may inform future arrests or responses to future events by officers: “It's, it's a really good tool in terms of finding out the risk of recidivism um how in a, to kind of back that up, we can show when we first score somebody if it's anywhere between, I would say a 5 to a 7 there's a good chance that we're going to have another another incident” (ID #053 − 3). Thus, ensuring accurate record keeping and risk assessment may lead to lower risk to IPV victims over time. Legal Impacts When asked about the perceived value of the ODARA for other criminal justice decision-makers such as the Crown or judges, some officers indicated that ODARA scores can be especially useful in court or for victim services as those individuals were not present at the scene of the index event: “I think for other, yeah for other, uh, service like Crowns and again like, uh, Victim Services, Department of Social Development all-they, because they don't respond to the call and they don't ask the questions, it would be very helpful for them” (ID #050 − 2). ODARA scores may also help inform sentencing for the accused, “Yeah. I think it's important. Especially for the Crown. Especially the judges for delivering sentences and stuff. The history of this type of stuff is crucial for them to determine what the sentence would be. (…) I would think it's very valuable” (ID #051 − 3). The value for other criminal justice decision-makers was especially highlighted for higher risk cases: Well, I mean, yeah, if if you know. If there's high risk or higher likelihood that the person will reoffend based on the proper ODARA then yeah, the Crown should be able to use that and seek for a higher and like higher penalty or you know, like proposed like other conditions within the release order from the judge” (ID #003). One of the main considerations of courts when determining if an accused should be detained is considering the level of risk posed by the accused and subsequent risk of reoffending (Milgrim et al., 2015 ). The ODARA may be a helpful tool by highlighting higher risk cases, particularly the quantified risk of recidivism, which in turn increases the chances of the accused being detained post charge by seeking to deny bail or impose specific bail conditions tied to the risk. Furthermore, risk assessment tools provide evidence which can be considered by the Crown or judges when making decisions related to sentencing (Canales et al., 2013 ). Judges in the United States who utilize risk assessment tools have reduced the number of lower-risk offenders kept in custody prior to trial and tools are also used when making decisions regarding release or detention prior to trial (Milgrim et al., 2015 ). Some of the recommendations from the Domestic Violence Death Review Committee in New Brunswick in 2018 included ensuring courts received training on IPV, and the importance of courts and other criminal justice decision-makers in addressing IPV in the province (Office of the Chief Coroner, 2018 ). Responses provided by officers who had positive views toward the ODARA are in line with the ideal use of the ODARA when an integrated system that incorporates police, Crown or judges, and victim services is in place. This ideal was reiterated by officers during a panel discussion by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), who indicated that intimate partner coordinators can be essential for providing added supports to victims throughout the process, particularly if the case goes to court (Royal Canadian Mounted Police, 2016 ). In cases where police have to make decisions about whether to detain an accuser post-arrest or release on an undertaking pending the court appearance on a charge, they may consult the ODARA score: “Um, when you go and you run the person and you afterwards and you-you're kind of deciding like, OK, how are we gonna deal with this are we gonna go straight in custody. Are we cu-are we gonna cut them loose on an undertaking like you-your ODARA scores and and kind of have they been deemed high risk?” (ID #051 − 2). In previous research, police have been more likely to arrest individuals who pose a higher risk, and more likely to recommend charges (Ballucci et al., 2020 ; Jung & Himmen, 2022 ). As ODARA scores increase, officers are also more likely to recommend the accused be detained prior to trial, particularly higher risk male suspects (deJong, 2022 ). In summary, a number of officers considered the value in IPV risk instruments; and the ODARA specifically, in structuring risk appraisals and the factors to be considered, providing a record trail of risk patterns for informing release decision-making at the police level and decisions of the Crown and judiciary once a case goes to court. Despite these positive perspectives, criticisms and challenges within the ODARA and risk assessment process around its use and influence were more dominant in the narrative of officers. Criticisms of the ODARA Critical views encompassed doubts or concerns about the lack of impact the ODARA had as a risk assessment tool, concerns about its constraint on officer discretion or decision-making, and issues related to scoring the tool. Missing the “Why” & “How” Officers highlighted that the ODARA is something that is done as part of procedure, but are unsure what impact, if any, the ODARA serves: “Why am I doing it [ODARA]? I dunno, I, ‘cause someone told me I have to do it. Is there a benefit to it? I don't know 'cause I've never seen it benefit anybody” (ID #055 − 1). Part of officer’s concerns about the usefulness of the ODARA may be explained by a lack of checks and balances ensuring that ODARA’s are completed correctly, “I know I've probably done it incorrectly. No one ever came and said, hey, I don't know if this. (…) (laughs) So no one's looking at it. Right?” (ID #050 − 1). Other related sentiments were that the ODARA was a waste of time as officers did not see the value in using it as part of their IPV response, and that the ODARA did not influence officer’s decision-making. Many officers expressed that they prefer to use their own judgment, experience, and assess the overall call situation rather than relying on the ODARA as an indicator of risk. It is worthy of note that officers tended to fill out the ODARA after the index incident, which may further reinforce why officers do not see value in the ODARA as a risk assessment tool at the scene when decisions are actively being made about risk and actions. The following quote expresses sentiments across several sub-themes: It doesn't. (…) It doesn't influence at all. (…) It's a scoring procedure. It's something we do there's some redundant questions in there that kind of inflate numbers. So understand that the scoring is, you know, seven or higher is considered a high risk, but generally speaking, we know who these people are we know what the risks are, the ODARA doesn't influence me on that decision whatsoever (ID #15 − 0). Many of the sentiments expressed by officers, including that the ODARA is an overall waste of time and uncertainty with how the ODARA information is used, is consistent with some of the findings of Ballucci and colleagues’ ( 2017 ) themes of officer’s overall resistance or criticism of risk assessment. However, research has consistently shown that actuarial risk assessment outperforms unstructured or personal judgements, and that when police use subjective judgments, they may not complete the ODARA in cases where it is necessary to do so (e.g., presence of substance use; Ballucci et al., 2020 ). Furthermore, relying on subjective judgements or reactive policing can prevent proactive responses to IPV, and police may miss critical risk factors that are less common indicators of IPV (Canales et al., 2013 ; Gill et al., 2021). The lack of understanding of how the ODARA is used, as well as officers expressing that they do not think the Crown or judges use the ODARA in their decision-making, may reflect issues related to training. Increased training and information sessions about the ODARA to highlight its usage and how it can inform IPV responding may be necessary to address officer views. Officers’ views of ODARA and IPV risk training quality informs this deficit in knowledge and is discussed later. Personal beliefs toward IPV affect response Another concern raised by some participants was that other officers’ own personal views toward the ODARA may bias their scoring, or otherwise impact the way they approach the tool, as explained by this officer, “Uh. I think when you deal with any type of form sometimes maybe you'd have some personal biases in there (pause) just based off the question and the, the police officer filling it out may have a certain bias uh before filling it out” (ID #053). The majority of officers in a New Brunswick study adopted “conventional” attitudes toward IPV, whereby violence was seen as a major indicator of IPV, and other factors (e.g., coercive control) may not be acknowledged (Gill et al., 2021). In addition, approximately 30% of that sample held the view that victims could easily leave the situation and held some blame for IPV (Gill et al., 2021). Other studies have shown that officers may mis-identify the risk associated with some cases or rely on “guesswork” to fill out forms based on their judgment (Myhill et al., 2023 ). Future training highlighting progressive definitions of IPV that challenge outdated views, as well as stressing the importance of considering empirically relevant risk factors is needed to address unhelpful bias in IPV risk appraisal and its role in decision-making for police officers. Issues with scoring the ODARA Critiques regarding scoring the ODARA were also related to officers’ feeling that they did not have enough discretion in assigning risk to cases, and critiques about scoring itself that generated total risk estimates. Officers noted that since the ODARA is mandatory in the province, they do not have any discretion about when to choose to use it. Moreover, there were concerns that the tool could miss information (e.g., limited to information provided at the scene or in the system), or that officer perceptions of risk may not line up with those indicated by the ODARA score and makes it difficult to follow the guidance of the tool’s research. The following officer expresses concerns related to the tool’s mandatory nature and perception of risk: Um, but there's no discretion at all it has to be used in every domestic situation. So to me it's, it's something on file to be able to say, look, we scored this every time we scored this, um, and this, this these are our recommendations, but I, I just don't understand the ranking part of it (…) the zero to six (…) and seven and up. To me, anything above 50% should be high risk and it's not so I don't understand that part. (…) And there are some people that we deal with that score low (…) And in my opinion would be higher just based on the information that I know (ID #054). Thus, some officers view that being restricted to the ODARA items is problematic as it misses information they view as relevant to risk. Thus, responses also show insufficient understanding of how these risk levels are described and what they actually represent. Previous risk assessment research has emphasized that police officers may fear losing their ability to implement their experience at the scene with the introduction of the ODARA and similar tools (Ballucci et al., 2017 ). However, Kebell (2021) showed that officers lose confidence in judgements as IPV severity decreases and subsequently, risk perceptions can become distorted. Concerns about officer discretion, as well as difficulties with scoring could be addressed by refresher courses, or further relevant training to understand how the tool can inform decision-making and police action as training has been shown to increase officer performance in risk assessment, as well as confidence ratings in assessing risk, competency, and identifying risk factors for IPV (Hilton et al., 2007a ; Storey et al., 2011 ). Although overall officer views toward the ODARA could largely be divided into positive and negative views, officers did provide constructive recommendations for improving the tool based on their experiences. However, these recommendations were not always consistent across officers, and some relate to broader IPV responding. Recommendations for Improvement Among recommendations that were provided by officers, some indicated they would like New Brunswick to adopt processes from other provinces, or for their police organization to adopt processes from other municipal organizations, such as better defining the role of police agencies and Crowns in the use of the ODARA. Some officers valued the structure the ODARA provides in deciding whether or not the accused should be kept in custody, but other officers wanted to see more discretion given to them with regard to the decision to apply the ODARA and handling of IPV cases. In some cases, officers felt arrests should still be made regardless of whether IPV victims provide a statement, “(…) So the other person gets arrested. Whether they say no, I don't want to give a video statement. I don't want to provide a written statement. I don't want to do anything. (…) OK well, too bad they're still under arrest. And that doesn't happen here. Now I don't know if that's a department issue or a decision made by our Crown Prosecutor's Office. But that's that's the conflict I'm having with IPV files between the two agencies” (ID #150). IPV victims may experience difficulty interpreting what is happening to them as abuse, or domestic violence, and may also be fearful of speaking to police or other professionals as it may lead to further abuse by a partner (Fleury et al., 1998 ; Goodfriend & Arriaga, 2018 ; Vranda et al., 2018 ). Others advocated for the inclusion of features from other risk assessment tools in the ODARA, such as including more measures of severity, or providing space on the ODARA for officers to justify their scoring. It is worth noting that the ODARA does include a narrative portion where officers can explain their scoring, but the scoring is nevertheless very prescriptive and requires minimal discretion to score. This type of comment suggests that at least some officers are either not relying on the extensive scoring rules or are wanting to over-ride or substitute their own interpretation of the risk item meaning. A similar sentiment shared was officers’ who desired greater discretion when approaching IPV. One officer explained, “Like, I'm looking for other things, like firearms for me just behaviors for me are a little bit more important than some of the stuff I think that’s on there. There's some good stuff on there gives you like a baseline” (ID #6). Officers acknowledged the role ODARA plays in risk assessment, but expressed frustrations with reactive approaches to IPV which is notable given that increased use of officer discretion (as opposed to using risk assessment tools) is associated with reactive, rather than proactive, IPV response (Canales et al., 2013 ). As indicated in that paper, the desire for greater discretion may be due to the fact that many officers only use the scoring sheet, and rarely consult or have access to the manual to score the ODARA. Thus, it is possible that further training on scoring the ODARA, justification for using standardized scoring rules and explanations for the prioritization of ODARA risk items may be required to ensure ODARA’s are being fully completed. Among recommendations specifically targeted towards officer use of the ODARA and its scoring and item content, some indicated that they found the ODARA asks too many related questions and would like to see the wording of risk factors updated to make criteria clearer. Thus, relevance of item nuance and distinction is likely missing in the understanding of many officers. Another recommendation was the inclusion of items related to choking as it has been observed in IPV cases but is not an item on the ODARA. Indeed, choking is associated with a higher level of violence in IPV cases, as well as an increased risk of future violence or homicide (Glass et al., 2009 ; Moser, 2012 ). It is possible, therefore, that strangulation could be added as a risk factor in the ODARA in the future and would be a welcome addition by police officers. To improve accessibility with the ODARA and its item scoring, officers recommended being able to carry a card or have easy access to ODARA items at the scene to ensure all questions are asked to accurately score the tool. Moreover, officers recommended a scoring guide or short form instructions to ensure ease of scoring or move the task of scoring the ODARA to other staff members to reduce the workload to officers. Increased training on the importance of on-scene information gathering that directly feeds into risk assessment may be beneficial to address some officer recommendations but the tool needs to be compatible with such use. Additionally, the implementation of simplified instructions and increased accessibility of ODARA items may assist officers in using the tool in real time as opposed to hours or days later after important decisions have already been made. Training Experience All officers were asked to describe the training they received on the ODARA. Training differed based on whether officers were new to the police organization, given that some received academy training on the tool, and other more senior members received in-person or online training or refresher courses. Some received minimal training. When provided, training tended to involve a power-point presentation or online module where officers learned about the policy surrounding the ODARA, its items, and how to score it. In general, officers had mixed views of the training, or lack thereof, that they received. Strengths in ODARA Training Among officers who had positive views of their training, they emphasized the educational value of speaking to victims, using real life IPV cases, and understanding the purpose and scoring of the ODARA. These individuals tended to describe the training as helpful to them and commented that there was little that they would change or add, as highlighted below. If someone just throws something at you and tells you this is the new way of doing things, it's one you can be taken one way. But when someone takes time to present it and explain logically why it's being used, where it comes from, how it should be used, pros and cons, it allows you better as a student or a uh candidate, or whatever you want to call it um to absorb the information (…) So I thought it was delivered very well, yeah (ID #006). In cases where officers, particularly younger officers, had questions about scoring the ODARA; they expressed feeling comfortable asking another officer for help. Other officers may be more knowledgeable about certain risk factors or were willing to read over files to assist as indicated by this respondent, “I have, yeah, just to double check on some questions I have. Um, if I don't know right away, I'll ask whoever I'm working with, see what their thoughts are. And if we don't come up with a solid answer on it, then refer back to the manual every once in a while, just to see if we can get [the] right answer” (ID #13). Naturally, perhaps as a result of effective training and their overall positive experience of using the tool, many participants shared that they found the ODARA easy and straightforward to score and had not experienced any significant challenges in its scoring. Challenges in ODARA Training Among officers who held less positive views about training, some had received no training at all, or received brief training that they felt did not provide them with enough information to properly score the tool or understand its value for use once scored. As one officer expressed, training may be very brief in contrast to the sessions described by those with more positive views of training, “Well, I got like a 5-minute talk about it. (…) And that would have been my first week here. (…) So yeah” (ID #051 − 2). Even if officers received training, some found it was not applicable to the kinds of situations they encounter on IPV calls, as one officer describes, There's rarely a situation where you're like, hey, can we sit down and have a cup of tea now and talk about these questions that I need to ask you for the ODARA? It's not like that. (…) I've seen it in videos, I-I-like videos are coming to mind of [an] officer, y'know like, staged videos for training then I'm just like, OK like, that's not how it happens (ID #19 − 0). Recommendations for Improved Training Recommendations for training improvement included reinforcing the purpose of the tool, including more real-life examples, increased refreshers or future training sessions, and in general, clarification on certain aspects of the tool including scoring. As prior research has shown, officers perform better after receiving training, when tested by assessing risk on vignettes or case studies. In particular, officers who use the item booklet as opposed to just the scoring sheet, perform better (Hilton et al., 2007a ; Hilton & Ham, 2015 ; Storey et al., 2011 ). However, many officers in the current study relied solely on the scoring sheet and rarely consulted instruction booklets or manuals for the ODARA which may negatively affect their ability to score the tool. Incorporating aspects of prior studies, such as vignettes or mock cases may be more effective in targeting the hands-on, real-world experiences of officers and how they can incorporate the ODARA in the field. A reliance on formal training is key (e.g., ODARA 101 online training, or in-person training from a master trainer), in comparison to field only learning that is unstructured, consistent, and poorly supervised, to ensure standards are met in knowledge of the tool. Conclusion & Implications for Practice Officers expressed a range of opinions about the ODARA, including positive views which emphasized its usefulness and value for risk assessment and IPV, as well as negative views in that officers indicated that the ODARA was nothing more than another form of paperwork that does not influence their decision-making. Procedural changes such as making ODARA instructions or manuals more easily available and emphasizing its real-time usage within each police organization may help to encourage its use. A fundamental piece that appears to be missing is “why” the ODARA is an effective tool when used properly. Officer recommendations for improvement should be taken into account as they grant insight into what features officers find useful and render them more open to reliance on the tool, and how risk assessment practices can be modified to account for administrative issues such as under-staffing, paperwork, and the limited amount of time officers have to complete paperwork for IPV files prior to court. The fact that the presence of physical violence, choking, and children influences officer’s decision to score the ODARA is reflective of familiarity of IPV risk factors, but they may not know how to integrate these risks in the context of the ODARA. In addition, some officer’s desire for greater discretion in tool use and risk appraisal is contrasted with concerns that scoring on the ODARA is too subjective, as well as other officer’s perceptions that the tool is effective and relatively easy to use. Information sessions and training on why certain risk factors are present on the ODARA and not other features that officers may consider important at the scene may address concerns that officers may be missing vital pieces of information when conducting risk assessments. Although most officers received varied amounts of training, some had not received training at all which is concerning as officer performance improves significantly even after basic training with a scoring booklet (Hilton & Ham, 2015 ). Making training standardized and including more hands-on and real-world elements may not only improve the training experience but reinforce the value of the tool and when officers should complete their scoring, as many do not think about or score the ODARA until later in their IPV response. Standardized training, such as the ODARA 101 training that is available online, incorporates many aspects officers indicated they would find helpful such as asking officers to score practice cases and watch videos (Ham et al., 2019 ). The program allows officers to complete it at any time and pause progress to continue later, which reflects the concerns raised by officers, such as under-staffing and paperwork, and aids in the program’s accessibility. Additionally, officers have to score several cases reliably prior to completing training. The training has been updated to reflect the varied experiences of women in IPV cases (e.g., varied locations, experiences of Indigenous women), as well as other helpful features including English and French translations, as well as the option to take a test via an interview, police records, or a mix of the two (Ham et al., 2019 ). Evaluations of the ODARA 101 have indicated that it is cost effective, and the majority of officers pass the first time they take the test and rate the program highly in terms of its quality and user-friendliness (Ham et al., 2019 ; Hilton & Ham, 2015 ). Given the existence of an accessible form of ODARA training, police organizations could ask new officers to complete the ODARA 101 training as part of onboarding and to update experienced officers to show its value to them with regards to enhancing victim safety. Training needs to do more than teach officers how to score the tool by also teaching them to use the risk information to inform their decision-making and actions. Limitations The officers in the present study were recruited from three police organizations across New Brunswick. As such, the views expressed by officers and subsequent recommendations proposed may not be applicable to other provinces or processes of IPV risk assessment. However, efforts were made to recruit officers from a range of police organizations. Additionally, officers mostly identified as men, and it is possible that perspectives on ODARA usage may differ based on gender identity. Future research should seek to recruit more officers identifying as women. Officers were not asked about why they chose to participate in the study, and thus it is possible that officers who chose to participate felt more positively or negatively towards the ODARA. However, there were a range of views expressed even within individual interviews. Future Directions Future studies could examine whether the recommendations proposed are effective in encouraging ODARA use in line with the policies on IPV calls within New Brunswick. It is also worthy to examine whether views and officer perspectives toward the ODARA and its usage differ by province as several provinces now use the ODARA regularly for IPV risk assessment. This current study is one of few that has analyzed officer experiences using the ODARA using qualitative methods. It is worthy of note that many of the views expressed by officers are consistent with the qualitative survey findings of Ballucci et al. ( 2017 ). As such, these views may reflect common concerns raised by officers in New Brunswick and reflect a greater need for policy and training changes to not only address negative or critical perceptions of risk assessment but also improve overall IPV response and risk assessment among municipal police organizations within the province. Declarations Ethical Approval The study received ethical approval from the research ethics board (REB) at the authors’ institution. Funding Author A.L.M. received a Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) Student Leadership Grant sponsored by BMS to support this work. Availability of Data and Materials This declaration is not applicable. Author Contribution A.L.M. was the primary investigator and was involved in all aspects of the study, including design, interviewing, transcription, coding, and manuscript preparation. M.A.C. provided supervision and assisted with all aspects of the study design and implementation. M.A.C also provided feedback on the final manuscript. J.S. assisted with the transcription of interviews and acted as a second coder. D.W. assisted with interviewing. References Ballucci, D., Gill, C., & Campbell, M. A. (2017). The power of attitude: The role of police culture and receptivity of risk assessment tools in IPV calls. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice , 11 (3), 242–257. https://doi-org.proxy.hil.unb.ca/ 10.1093/police/pax018 Ballucci, D., Campbell, M. A., & Gill, C. (2020). Use of the ODARA by police officers for intimate partner violence: Implications for practice in the field. Journal of Community Safety & Well-Being , 5 (3), 91–102. https://doi.org/10.35502/jcswb.150 Belfrage, H., Strand, S., Storey, J. E., Gibas, A. L., Kropp, P. R., & Hart, S. D. (2012). Assessment and management of risk for intimate partner violence by police officers using the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment guide. Law and Human Behavior , 36 (1), 60–67. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/lwhmbv36&i=60 Breul, N., & Keith, M. (2016). Deadly calls and fatal encounters: Analysis of U.S. law enforcement line of duty deaths when officers responded to dispatched calls for service and conducted enforcement (2010–2014). National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. https://www.valorforblue.org/Documents/Publications/Public/2000 2014LODDAnalysis-NLEOMF-COPSoffice.pdf Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2024). The psychology of criminal conduct . Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/The-Psychology-of-Criminal Conduct/BontaAndrews/p/book/9781032272856?srsltid = AfmBOoqTl9Iqs 8kirIkqmmL7 vVNP6gqxS-3TNs9qz4_jSIPgBRAko Bourgon, G., Mugford, R., Hanson, K., & Coligado, M. (2018). Offender risk assessment practices vary across Canada. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice , 60 (2), 167–205. https://www.muse.jhu.edu/article/691007 . Burczycka, M., & Conroy, S. (2017). Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2015. Juristat , Catelogue no. 85-002-X, ISSN 1209–6393. Statistics Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2017001/article/14698-eng.pdf Campbell, M. A., Gill, C., & Ballucci, D. (2018). Informing police response to intimate partner violence: Predictors of perceived usefulness of risk assessment screening. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology , 33 , 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-017-9244y Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. (2016). Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2014 . https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002x/2016001/article/14303-eng.pdf Canales, D., Macaulay, A., McDougall, A., Wei, R., & Campbell, M. A. (2013). A brief synopsis of risk assessment screening tools for frontline professionals responding to intimate partner violence . Centre for Criminal Justice Studies. University of New Brunswick. https://psytel.eu/ENGAGE/Bibliography/ipvrisktoolsynopsis2013.pdf Cantos, A. L., Kosson, D. S., Goldstein, D. A., & O’Leary, K. D. (2019). Treatment impact on recidivism of family only vs. generally violent partner violence perpetrators. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology , 19 (3), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2019.05.002 deJong, E. J. (2022). Integrating science and policing: Evaluating and exploring intimate partner violence risk assessment in frontline police work in Canada . (Ph.D. dissertation, University of New Brunswick). Department of Justice Canada. (2023a). Inventory of Spousal Violence Risk Assessment Tools Used in Canada . https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/fv-vf/rr09_7/p4.html Department of Justice Canada. (2023b). Programming Responses for Intimate Partner Violence . https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/ipv-vpi/p6.html Eke, A. W., Hilton, N. Z., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Houghton, R. E. (2011). Intimate partner homicide: Risk assessment and prospects for prediction. Journal of Family Violence , 26 , 211–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-010-9356-y Fleury, R. E., Sullivan, C. M., Bybee, D. I., & Davidson 2nd, W. S. (1998). “Why don’t they just call the cops?”: Reasons for differential police contact among woman with abusive partners. Violence and Victims , 13 (4), 333–346. https://connect.springerpub.com/content/sgrvv/13/4/333 Gill, C., Campbell, M. A., & Ballucci, D. (2021). Police officers’ definitions and understandings of intimate partner violence in New Brunswick, Canada. The Police Journal: Theory, Practice & Principles , 94 (1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032258X19876974 Gill, C., Fitch, L., Greenwood, K. (2016). National framework for collaborative police action on intimate partner violence (IPV). https://www.cacp.ca/_Library/resources/National_Framework_for_Collaborative_Polic Action_on_Intimate_Partner_Violence_-_March_2016. pdf Glass, N., Laughon, K., Campbell, J., Wolf Chair, A. D., Block, C. R., Hanson, G., Sharps, P. W., & Taliaferro, E. (2009). Non-fatal strangulation is an important risk factor for homicide of women. Emergency Medicine Journal , 35 (3), 329–335. https://www.jemjournal.com/article/S0736- 4679(07)00414-3/abstract Goodfriend, W., & Arriaga, X. B. (2018). Cognitive reframing of intimate partner aggression: Social and contextual influences. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 15 (11). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15112464 Government of New Brunswick. (2023). Domestic and intimate partner violence (DIPV): Key concepts and statistics. https://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Corporate/Promo/equalityprofile/Final-DIPV-EN.pdf Griffiths, C. T., Murphy, J. J., & Tatz, M. (2015). Improving police efficiency: Challenges and opportunities . Research Division Public Safety Canada. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2015-r021/2015-r021-en.pdf Grove, W. M., Zald, D. H., Lebow, B. S., Snitz, B. E., & Nelson, C. (2000). Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment , 12 (1), 19–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.12.1.19 Guo, B., & Harstall, C. (2008). Spousal violence against women: Preventing recurrence (Report). Alberta, Canada: Institute of Health Economics. https://www.healthevidence.org/view-article.aspx?a=spousal-violence-womenpreventing recurrence-report-21301 Ham, E., Dip, P. G., Hilton, N. A., Giesbrecht, C. J., & Macdonald, S. (2019). ODARA 101: Look what’s new! Crime Scene , 26 (1), 6–7. https://osf.io/mhjqa Hacıaliefendioğlu, A., Yilmaz, S., Koyutürk, M., & Karakurt, G. (2021). Co-occurrence patterns of intimate partner violence. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. 26 , 79–90. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7958983/ Henning, K., Campbell, C. M., Stewart, G., & Johnson, J. (2021). Prioritizing police investigations of Intimate Partner Violence using actuarial risk assessment. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology , 36 , 667–678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-021-09466 7 Heyman, R. E., Smith Slep, A. M., & Foran, H. M. (2015). Enhanced definitions of Intimate Partner Violence for DSM-5 and ICD-11 may promote improved screening and treatment. Family Process , 54 (1), 64–81. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25620551/ Hilton, N. Z., Ham, E. (2015). Cost-effectiveness of electronic training in domestic violence risk assessment: ODARA 101. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 30 (6), 1065–1073. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514539762 Hilton, N. Z., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Lines, K. J. (2004). A brief actuarial assessment for the prediction of wife assault recidivism: The Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment. Psychological Assessment , 16 (3), 267–275. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.16.3.267 Hilton, N. A., Harris, G. T., & Rice, M. E. (2007b). The effect of arrest on wife assault recidivism, controlling for pre-arrest risk. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 34 , 1334–1344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854807300757 Hilton, N. Z., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Wyatt Eke, A., & Lowe-Wetmore, T. (2007a). Training front-line users in the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA): A tool for police domestic investigations. The Canadian Journal of Police & Security Services , 5 (1/2), 595–598. Jaffe, P., & Campbell, M. (2021, May 11–14). Research with service providers regarding domestic violence risk assessment, risk management and safety planning [Conference session]. Canadian Domestic Homicide Prevention Initiative Virtual National Conference. https://www.cdhpi.ca/sites/cdhpi.ca/files/Day%202_Research%20with%20service%20p oviders.pdf Jung, S., & Himmen, M. K. (2022). A field study on the police use of the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA). Journal of Threat Assessment and Management , 9 (4), 204–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/tam0000175 Kebbell, M. R. (2021). Police are influenced by anchoring and risk when allocating resources for scenario-based intimate partner violence cases. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 37 (17 18). https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211021974 Kebbell, M. R. (2019). Risk assessment for intimate partner violence: How can the police assess risk? Psychology, Crime & Law , 25 (8), 829–846. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2019.1597087 Lauria, I., McEwan, T. E., Luebbers, S., Simmons, M., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2017). Evaluating the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment in an Australian frontline police setting. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 44 (12), 1545–1558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854817738280 Messing, J. T., Campbell, J., Webster, D. W., Brown, S., Patchell, B., & Sullivan Wilson, J. (2015). The Oklahoma lethality assessment study: A quasi-experimental evaluation of the lethality assessment program. Social Science Review , 89 (3). https://doi.org/10.1086/683194 Messing, J. T., Thaller, J. (2012). The average predictive validity of intimate partner violence risk assessment instruments. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 28 (7), 1537–1558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512468250 Milgrim, A., Holsinger, A. M., Vannostrand, M., & Alsdorf, M. W. (2015). Improving public safety and fairness in pretrial decision making. Federal Sentencing Reporter , 27 (4), 216 221. https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2015.27.4.216 Moser, A. E. (2012). Validation and expansion of the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA) instrument: An early warning system . (Master’s dissertation, University of New Brunswick, 2012). Myhill, A., Hohl, K., & Johnson, K. (2023). The ‘officer effect’ in risk assessment for domestic abuse: Findings from a mixed methods study in England and Wales. European Journal of Criminology , 20 (3), 856–877. https://doi.org/10.1177/14773708231156331 Nicholls, T. L., Pritchard, M. M., Reeves, K. A., & Hilterman, E. (2013). Risk assessment in intimate partner violence: A systematic review of contemporary approaches. Partner Abuse , 4 (1), 76–168. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.4.1.76 Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Service. (2009). Risk assessments (ODARA) in spousal / partner violence cases . https://www.novascotia.ca/pps/publications/ca_manual/ProsecutionPolicies/ODARA%2 RISK%20ASSESSMENTS%20IN%20SPOUSALPARTNER%20CASES%20ALL.pdf Office of the Chief Coroner. (2018). Recommendations from the domestic violence death review committee. https://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/pssp/pdf/Publications/DomesticViolence2018. pdf Petersson, J., & Strand, S. (2019). Characteristics and recidivism in relation to arrest: Differentiating between partner violent perpetrator subtypes. Nordic Journal of Criminology , 21 (2), 203–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/2578983X.2020.1727119 Radatz, D. L., & Hilton, N. Z. (2019). Determining batterer intervention program treatment intensities: An illustration using the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment. Partner Abuse , 10 (3). https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.10.3.269 Royal Canadian Mounted Police. (2016). What one police action has the most positive impact when dealing with family violence? https : //www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/gazette/police-action has-the-positive-impact-when-dealing-family-violence?wbdisable = true Saxton, M. D., Jaffe, P. G., Straatman, A. -L., Olszowy, L., & Dawson, M. (2020). Measuring intimate partner violence risk: A national survey of Canadian police officers. Journal of Community Safety & Well-Being , 5 (3), 103–109. https://doi.org/10.35502/jcswb.144 Seewald, K., Rossegger, A., Urbaniok, F., & Endrass, J. (2017). Assessing the risk of intimate partner violence: Expert evaluations versus the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment. Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice , 17 (4), 217–231. https://doi-org.proxy.hil.unb.ca/ 10.1080/24732850.2017.1326268 Schafers, C., Olver, M. E., & Wormith, J. S. (2021). Dynamic appraisal of intimate partner violence risk and need: Results from an outpatient treatment program. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 48 (4), 481–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820980498 Statistics Canada. (2023a). Trends in police-reported family violence and intimate partner violence in Canada, 2022 . https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/dailyquotidien/231121/dq231121b-eng.htm Statistics Canada. (2023b). Police personnel and expenditures in Canada, 2023 . https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-627-m/11-627-m2024004-eng.htm Storey, J. E., Gibas, A. L., Reeves, K. A., & Hart, S. D. (2011). Evaluation of a violence risk (threat) assessment training program for police and other criminal justice professionals. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 38 (6), 554–564. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854811403123 Storey, J. E., Kropp, P. R., Hart, S. D., Belfrage, H., & Strand, S. (2013). Assessment and management of risk for intimate partner violence by police officers using the Brief Spousal Assault Form for the evaluation of risk. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 41 (2), 256–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854813503960 Svalin, K., & Levander, S. (2020). The predictive validity of intimate partner violence risk assessments conducted by practitioners in different settings-a review of the literature. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology , 35 , 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896019-09343-4 Ulmer, J. C. (2015). The Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA): A validation and comparison study for an Oregonian law enforcement agency . (Doctoral dissertation, George Fox University, 2015). van der Put, C. E., Gubbels, J., & Assink, M. (2019). Predicting domestic violence: A meta analysis on the predictive validity of risk assessment tools. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 47 , 100–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2019.03.008 Vranda, M. N., Kumar, C. N., Muralidhar, D., Janardhana, N., & Sivakumar, P. T. (2018). Barriers to disclosure of intimate partner violence among female patients availing services at tertiary care psychiatric hospitals: A qualitative study. Journal of Neurosciences in Rural Practice , 9 (3), 326–330. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6050765/ Women and Gender Equality Canada (WAGE). (2022). Fact sheet: Intimate Partner Violence . https://www.canada.ca/en/women-gender-equality/gender-based-violence/intimate partner-violence.html Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files AppendixA.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {\"props\":{\"pageProps\":{\"initialData\":{\"identity\":\"rs-6932083\",\"acceptedTermsAndConditions\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":true,\"archivedVersions\":[],\"articleType\":\"Research Article\",\"associatedPublications\":[],\"authors\":[{\"id\":494763411,\"identity\":\"6965f732-d960-4d43-aa1c-964aee1eb646\",\"order_by\":0,\"name\":\"Amy Lynn MacQuarrie\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"University of New Brunswick\",\"correspondingAuthor\":true,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Amy\",\"middleName\":\"Lynn\",\"lastName\":\"MacQuarrie\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":494763412,\"identity\":\"1fd0fb06-c9c2-418c-b87f-9d7153e05f2f\",\"order_by\":1,\"name\":\"Mary Ann Campbell\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"University of New Brunswick\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Mary\",\"middleName\":\"Ann\",\"lastName\":\"Campbell\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":494763413,\"identity\":\"83ad670b-4eb5-4c4d-ac40-2e3323e32d40\",\"order_by\":2,\"name\":\"Jodie Sullivan\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"University of New Brunswick\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Jodie\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Sullivan\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":494763414,\"identity\":\"02670099-7341-4d4a-ae75-f0eb2335671c\",\"order_by\":3,\"name\":\"Denika Widmer\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"University of New Brunswick\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Denika\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Widmer\",\"suffix\":\"\"}],\"badges\":[],\"createdAt\":\"2025-06-19 14:23:14\",\"currentVersionCode\":1,\"declarations\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6932083/v1\",\"doiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6932083/v1\",\"draftVersion\":[],\"editorialEvents\":[],\"editorialNote\":\"\",\"failedWorkflow\":false,\"files\":[{\"id\":88422502,\"identity\":\"102282b4-81aa-4e96-939e-c4efb831ba82\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-08-06 09:36:45\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":1,\"title\":\"Figure 1\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":146541,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eThemes and Sub-Themes\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"1.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6932083/v1/d2f9534462c1f197fc066096.png\"},{\"id\":88424868,\"identity\":\"881561bf-683e-487d-9f24-770947299f6c\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-08-06 09:52:45\",\"extension\":\"pdf\",\"order_by\":0,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"manuscript-pdf\",\"size\":940783,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"manuscript.pdf\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6932083/v1/7b7600a3-2212-496a-86ec-00b2aeceebc8.pdf\"},{\"id\":88422500,\"identity\":\"c854463d-8abf-4baa-8c1e-7ad2108567f5\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-08-06 09:36:45\",\"extension\":\"docx\",\"order_by\":1,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"supplement\",\"size\":16996,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"AppendixA.docx\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6932083/v1/53e1f4a4408fc3847e7a4058.docx\"}],\"financialInterests\":\"No competing interests reported.\",\"formattedTitle\":\"Risk Assessment and the ODARA: Police Officer Perspectives and Experiences\",\"fulltext\":[{\"header\":\"Introduction\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eIntimate Partner Violence (IPV) refers to harm, or threats of harm, that are inflicted by current or former partners or spouses and can include physical, emotional, sexual, and other forms of violence or abuse (Heyman et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR27\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2015\\u003c/span\\u003e; Women and Gender Equality Canada [WAGE], 2022). According to police reported data in Canada, rates of IPV among women were 3.5 times higher than men in 2019, and self reported data indicated that women were more likely to experience various forms of abuse, severe forms of IPV, and fear of their partner which can be an indicator of IPV (WAGE, 2022). Women are more likely to report IPV crimes to police and are at a higher risk of intimate partner homicide than men, with women aged 25 to 29 years old having the highest risk (Burczycka \\u0026amp; Conroy, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR7\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e). Rates of IPV increased during the COVID-19 pandemic from 2019 to 2021, before remaining stable in Canada in 2022 (Statistics Canada, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR51\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023a\\u003c/span\\u003e). In New Brunswick, Canada, IPV rates per 100,000 population were above the national average from 2014 to 2022 (Statistics Canada, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR51\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023a\\u003c/span\\u003e). In a 2014 report, police reported IPV in New Brunswick was 328.3 per 100,000 people, above the national average of 301.1 per 100,000 people (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR9\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2016\\u003c/span\\u003e). More recently, the rate of police reported IPV was 497 per 100,000 persons in New Brunswick compared to 345 in Canada (Government of New Brunswick, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR20\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e). As police calls for services go, IPV cases are among the most dangerous (Breul \\u0026amp; Keith, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR4\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2016\\u003c/span\\u003e). Factors such as limited resources, staffing issues, lack of information or lack of accurate information, and presence of a violent or armed suspect help explain why IPV calls can be potentially deadly to responding officers (Breul \\u0026amp; Keith, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR4\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2016\\u003c/span\\u003e). Due to the danger posed by IPV, particularly to women, the use of coordinated responses to IPV, which includes collaboration with family or victim services, and the use of risk assessment tools by police officers, has been implemented in New Brunswick and elsewhere in Canada (Department of Justice Canada, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR14\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023b\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003ePolice officers use risk assessment tools to inform their actions when responding to IPV calls. According to Belfrage et al. (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR3\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2012\\u003c/span\\u003e) and Storey et al. (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR54\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2013\\u003c/span\\u003e), higher scores on The Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) and Brief Spousal Assault Form for the Evaluation of Risk (B-SAFER), respectively, were related to an increase in the number of interventions recommended by police. Risk management or interventions for IPV can include contacting victim supports, installing alarm systems in a home, police contacts, or contacting a prosecutor to name a few examples. When police recommend more interventions in cases that score highly on risk assessment tools, this can lead to a decrease in recidivism and thus reduce the risk for harm to victims by the accused (Storey et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR54\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2013\\u003c/span\\u003e). The shift towards prevention of IPV by police, as well as the identified value of risk assessments in IPV cases (Gill et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR17\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2016\\u003c/span\\u003e), has led to an increase in research on how officers are using the tools.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eIn a survey of attitudes toward risk assessment tools for IPV in New Brunswick, Canada, the majority of police officers indicated that risk assessment tools could be useful, that they would administer the tools, and had previously used a risk assessment tool (Campbell et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR8\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2018\\u003c/span\\u003e). Although most officers (66%) had previously used a risk assessment tool, most of them (57.6%) had not received training on IPV (Campbell et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR8\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2018\\u003c/span\\u003e). Similarly, police officers and other professionals (e.g., child and family services, healthcare workers) have reported that not everyone in their workplace receives formal training, and that a variety of tools may be used (Jaffe \\u0026amp; Campbell, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR32\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e), which can further complicate risk assessment practices.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eThe Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA) was originally implemented in Ottawa, Ontario in 2004 as a risk assessment tool to identify men accused of IPV who posed a high risk to a female partner (Solicitor General, 2004). The ODARA was designed to be used by police officers responding to IPV calls involving a physical assault or credible threats of death in heterosexual couples. The instrument consists of 13-items based on empirical risk factors for IPV (e.g., prior domestic assault, presence of children, threats to kill or harm) that are dichotomously scored based on the presence of those risk factors as identified by police officers. Scores range from 0 to 13, with higher scores indicating an increased risk of recidivism, and thus, an increase in the threat the accused poses to the victim of IPV (Hilton et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR29\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2004\\u003c/span\\u003e; Radatz \\u0026amp; Hilton, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR46\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e). Several provinces in Canada, including New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Saskatchewan have since adopted the ODARA as a formal risk assessment tool (Department of Justice, 2023a).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eThe ODARA is classified as an actuarial risk assessment tool wherein risk factors are identified in empirical research and then translated into a measure that can be scored. Compared to other structured clinical judgement or unstructured clinical decision-making approaches to risk assessment, actuarial tools can be used by individuals who do not have formal clinical training or skills, such as police officers (Braaf \\u0026amp; Sneddon, 2007). In general, actuarial risk assessment tools including the B-SAFER and the ODARA perform better at distinguishing between lower and higher risk IPV cases compared to structured clinical decision making or judgement tools (van der Put et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR57\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e). Even when scored by students, ODARA scores were more accurate in predicting future recidivism compared to clinical judgments made by forensic psychiatrists in Switzerland (Seewald et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR49\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e). Other commonly used risk assessment tools employed by officers responding to IPV calls, such as the SARA and The Danger Assessment (DA), were not developed using actuarial methods, contain some items that are less predictive of IPV, and were not designed to be used by front-line officers (Hilton et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR29\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2004\\u003c/span\\u003e). In a review of the risk assessment tools used by jurisdictions across Canada, the ODARA was the most commonly used tool (Bourgon et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR6\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2018\\u003c/span\\u003e). The ODARA has strong predictive validity for future IPV in studies comparing IPV tools, often outperforming the SARA and the DA in risk prediction (Guo \\u0026amp; Harstall, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR23\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2008\\u003c/span\\u003e; Henning et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR26\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e; Messing \\u0026amp; Thaller, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR38\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2012\\u003c/span\\u003e; Svalin \\u0026amp; Levander, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR55\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e). Additionally, in a survey of police officers from across Canada (Saxton et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR48\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e), the majority indicated that they engaged in risk assessment for IPV (52.7%), risk management (52.7%), and used the ODARA as a structured risk assessment tool (63.2%). However, based on the findings of Saxton et al.\\u0026rsquo;s (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR48\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e) survey, a significant portion of these officers are not engaging in IPV risk assessment practices.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eThe value in using the ODARA is that its score allows police officers and other criminal justice decision-makers, such as Crown attorneys or judges, to effectively discriminate between higher or lower risk IPV cases, which can inform future decision-making in the case (Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Service, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR43\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2009\\u003c/span\\u003e). Prior research has demonstrated that the ODARA can distinguish between cases where there was a future physical assault or nonphysical abuse (Moser, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR40\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2012\\u003c/span\\u003e; Schafers et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR50\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e), with scores of 7\\u0026ndash;13 highlighting the most severe risk (Lauria et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR36\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e). The ODARA is also effective at predicting future intimate partner homicide and can promote violence prevention (Eke et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR15\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2011\\u003c/span\\u003e). Although the ODARA is a widely used risk assessment instrument, studies have shown that its use can vary by police organization. Also, there are a multitude of factors, including visible injuries to the victim, that can impact whether the ODARA is used (Ballucci et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR2\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e). Use of the ODARA is important to consider, as its use is associated with whether officers make an arrest and whether charges are recommended against the accused (Ballucci et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR2\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e; Jung \\u0026amp; Himmen, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR33\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e). Police response to IPV calls, however, remains the same in New Brunswick regardless of whether the case poses lower or higher risk (Moser, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR40\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2012\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eFormal training on a risk assessment measure has been shown to increase accuracy of ratings. When comparing ODARA scoring between officers who received only the ODARA scoring sheet versus those who received the instruction booklet that provides scoring rules and context for ODARA administration, those who received the booklet were more accurate than untrained users. Similarly, accuracy of ODARA scoring among professionals has been shown to improve with access to the ODARA booklet and a training session (Hilton et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR31\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2007a\\u003c/span\\u003e). Both in-person and electronic training are equally effective for ensuring ODARA scoring accuracy (Hilton \\u0026amp; Ham, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR28\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2015\\u003c/span\\u003e). Although officers may vary in the nature of their IPV risk assessment training, it is evident based on qualitative responses provided by officers that the use of risk assessment tools helps inform police action (Ballucci et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR1\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e). Risk assessment tools also provide officers with risk factors they should be aware of, assist in decision-making, and make officers aware of whether a particular IPV call is higher risk based on prior history (Ballucci et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR1\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eAlthough some officers have reported positive views toward risk assessment tools (e.g., Campbell et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR8\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2018\\u003c/span\\u003e), others feel that it takes away police officers\\u0026rsquo; agency and disregards or diminishes their knowledge and experience (Ballucci et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR1\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e). Officers may draw on their past experience and knowledge based on their exposure to prior cases (Kebebell, 2021), which can then influence perceptions of risk in biased ways that are contrary to risk measured via structured risk appraisal processes. Given that higher scores on risk assessment tools predict IPV, the use of such tools can lead to proactive versus reactive police responses, as higher scores on risk assessment tools are associated with future IPV (Canales et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR10\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2013\\u003c/span\\u003e). In a survey of officer understandings of IPV in New Brunswick, Canada, the majority (58.6%) of officers defined IPV in terms of the presence of violence, and only 39.1% included other factors (e.g., power-dynamics or manipulation by the aggressor) in their definition of IPV Gill et al., 2021). Thus, Gill and colleagues (2021) noted that risk assessment tools such as the ODARA are an important tool for police to ensure accurate assessment of risk, particularly when physical forms of violence may not be apparent via visible injuries or damaged property. Risk assessment tools can be beneficial for providing officers with guidance on factors to investigate, as well as ensuring consistency in the risk appraisal process across IPV perpetrators (Kebbell, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR35\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eMost studies examining the use of the ODARA have relied on archival data to examine its predictive validity (e.g., Hilton et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR29\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2004\\u003c/span\\u003e; Moser, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR40\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2012\\u003c/span\\u003e; Radatz \\u0026amp; Hilton, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR46\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e; Ulmer, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR56\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2015\\u003c/span\\u003e). Studies examining the use of the ODARA by police officers have also relied on pre-existing files (e.g., Ballucci et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR2\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e; Jung \\u0026amp; Himmen, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR33\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e). Few studies (e.g., Ballucci et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR1\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e) have used qualitative approaches to gain insight into officer experiences using risk assessment tools and how it influences their decision-making process, including when using the ODARA. Given the diverse opinions officers have expressed toward the structured IPV risk assessment (Ballucci et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR1\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e), as well the ODARA\\u0026rsquo;s popularity as a risk assessment tool in Canada in police contexts (Saxton et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR48\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e), the current study aimed to address this gap in the literature. The present study sought to understand the experiences of New Brunswick police officers using the ODARA in terms of their understanding of using the ODARA and its function, training on IPV and the tool, and recommendations for improvements in the tool to enhance their use of it.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Method\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eIn the present study, qualitative, interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) was used to understand the unique experiences of officers who use the ODARA, their decision-making processes when deciding whether or not to score the ODARA, and recommendations for improvement to the ODARA and process around its use.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec3\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003eParticipants\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eChiefs of police from three municipal police forces within New Brunswick were asked to partner on the study via an email outlining the study, research questions, and aims of the research. After agreement from the chiefs of police, two interviewers arranged dates at all three sites to conduct in-person interviews with guidance from senior officers on duty. Supervisors informed officers on shift that interviewers were available should they wish to participate. Interviewers were assigned a private room or space at each site to ensure participant confidentiality and officers were informed that transcripts would be anonymized and that their participation would not impact their employment. A minimum of \\u003cem\\u003eN =\\u003c/em\\u003e 30 participants was sought (i.e., ten from each site). Interviewer dates were scheduled accordingly to ensure access to multiple officer shifts.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e A total of 35 New Brunswick police officer participants were recruited to participate in semi-structured interviews using a sample of general duty front-line patrol officers who had experience using the ODARA. There were \\u003cem\\u003en\\u003c/em\\u003e = 14 participants from organization A, \\u003cem\\u003en\\u003c/em\\u003e = 10 from organization B, and \\u003cem\\u003en =\\u003c/em\\u003e 11 from organization C. Officers were recruited from a blend of urban, suburban, and rural patrol areas in three small to midsized organizations within New Brunswick. Police agencies were composed of approximately 40 to 150 officers depending on the organization. Participants had a mean age of 37.46 years (\\u003cem\\u003eSD =\\u003c/em\\u003e 8.95), with ages ranging from 23 to 51 years of age. Most officers identified as men (\\u003cem\\u003en =\\u003c/em\\u003e 25, 71.43%). Most officers were at the constable rank (\\u003cem\\u003en\\u003c/em\\u003e = 22, 62.87%), followed by sergeant (\\u003cem\\u003en\\u003c/em\\u003e = 7, 20.00%), corporal (\\u003cem\\u003en\\u003c/em\\u003e = 3, 8.57%), and other (e.g., senior constable, detective constable, etc.; \\u003cem\\u003en\\u003c/em\\u003e = 3, 8.57%). Officers had been employed as a police officer for an average of 12.28 years (\\u003cem\\u003eSD =\\u003c/em\\u003e 8.05) and had been employed at their current organization for an average of 10.43 years (\\u003cem\\u003eSD =\\u003c/em\\u003e 8.39). Some officers (\\u003cem\\u003en\\u003c/em\\u003e = 11) had previously used other risk assessment tools such as the B-SAFER (\\u003cem\\u003en\\u003c/em\\u003e = 3, 8.57%), DA (\\u003cem\\u003en\\u003c/em\\u003e = 3, 8.57%) and other risk assessments or IPV forms (\\u003cem\\u003en\\u003c/em\\u003e = 9, 25.71%).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003eMaterials\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eA semi-structured interview guide was developed to explore police officer experiences and views toward the ODARA (see Appendix A). The guide was composed of the following: 1. demographic questions (i.e., age, gender identification, rank, length of employment as a police officer, length of time worked with current organization, and average IPV calls responded to each month); 2. overall thoughts on the ODARA; 3. details regarding ODARA training such as when it was received, what the training contained, and whether the officers’ perceived the training as helpful or not helpful: 4. overall use of the ODARA and its impact on decision-making (e.g., “What influences your decision to score the ODARA or not”), when the ODARA is completed (i.e., “On average, how long after you respond to an IPV call do you complete the ODARA?”): 5. how closely officers follow scoring criteria for the ODARA and overall perceptions of the scoring process; and 6. the value of the ODARA for the Crown attorneys or judges. Probing questions were asked as deemed necessary by interviewers to obtain clarification or allow officers to expand on answers. Additionally, interviewers included summaries at the end of each interview to ensure officer views were accurately understood and represented.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003eProcedure\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e The study received ethical approval from the institution’s research ethics board at the author’s university. The interview guide was developed by the first and second authors, the latter being an expert in IPV risk assessment and the use of the ODARA by police as well as police psychology more generally. Upon indicating their interest in participating, officers were given an informed consent form which required their signature before continuing. Interviews were audio recorded with participant consent. In cases where participants did not consent to audio recording (\\u003cem\\u003en\\u003c/em\\u003e = 5) interviewers wrote down participant responses as accurately as possible. Interviews were conducted at each of the three police sites by one of two interviewers. Each interview took place during officer shifts and was conducted in a private location. No information was provided back to supervisors, managers, or other persons about whether an individual consented or not to participate upon voluntarily agreeing to meet with the interviewers. No incentives were provided for participation. Emails from the researchers were sent out to all employees by the organization’s administration to let them know about the study in advance. Recorded interviews were transcribed and all identifiable information was redacted before analyses\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003eData Analysis Plan\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eBraun and Clarke’s (2019) guidance on interpretative phenomenological analysis was used as it focuses on subjectivity and the complexity of the human experience. As the current study aimed to understand police experiences, interpretative phenomenological analysis is particularly useful as this qualitative approach acknowledges the lived experiences of each participant (Braun \\u0026amp; Clarke, 2013).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eInitial themes were developed by the lead author and a research assistant who each randomly selected five interviews and developed themes based on relevant quotes and patterns identified in participant responses. Themes were developed based on guidance provided by Braun and Clarke (2013) on thematic and interpretative phenomenological analysis. The initial themes developed by both researchers were compared and differences were resolved by discussion. Further narrowing of themes and codes, or sub-themes and patterns that fit under an overall theme, was completed by the lead researcher after manually coding all interviews using thematic analysis and identifying relevant quotes.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eTo ensure accuracy of themes and codes, themes and codes were reviewed with a senior police officer within a patrol setting who had not participated in the study, to gain further insight into results and make final adjustments to data presentation. De-identified quotes are used to exemplify themes as relevant.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003ePositionality Statement\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe lead researcher in the present study, who assumes primary responsibility for data analyses and theme generation, has previously had positive and limited, interactions with police. She identifies as a white cis-gender woman who is enrolled in graduate school. Additionally, she does not have any personal experience with IPV. Her understanding of IPV and police views and experiences using the ODARA is interpreted with an academic lens and attempts have been made to be aware of, and reduce, biases where possible. Results were presented to an officer who is experienced using the ODARA for quality assurance. This aided the researcher in ensuring themes accurately represented officer views. Obtaining feedback from an individual with experience using the ODARA was also helpful in organizing themes and sub-themes in a meaningful way.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec11\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cdiv class=\\\"BlockQuote\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec12\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cdiv class=\\\"BlockQuote\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003cdiv class=\\\"BlockQuote\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec14\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cdiv class=\\\"BlockQuote\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003cdiv class=\\\"BlockQuote\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec15\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cdiv class=\\\"BlockQuote\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec17\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cdiv class=\\\"BlockQuote\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec19\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cdiv class=\\\"BlockQuote\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec22\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cdiv class=\\\"BlockQuote\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec23\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e\\u003cdiv class=\\\"BlockQuote\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec24\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec25\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec26\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec27\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Results \\u0026 Discussion\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eIn general, officer views toward the ODARA broadly fell under “positive” and “negative” themes. These elements were contextualized across overall themes which encompassed parameters that affect an officer’s decision to use the tool, views toward the ODARA, recommendations for improvement, and finally, overall views and experiences with training on the tool. A visual representation of themes and sub-themes is shown in Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Fig1\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch3\\u003eParameters for Decision to Use the ODARA\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eOfficers were asked to comment on the policy guiding the use of the ODARA at their organization, as well as factors that influenced their decision to use the tool. Officers emphasized that the ODARA is mandatory in cases involving IPV, and that there are a wide range of factors that may influence how the tool is used, and whether or not officers choose to score it.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch3\\u003ePolicy is it’s Mandatory, Sort of\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eOfficers indicated that the ODARA was mandatory at their organization in cases of IPV, and that there were checks and balances in place to ensure that files contained the ODARA when necessary, “And so there's really 4 checkpoints that they would have to pass through and at any stage that the investigating officer hasn't completed one where there ought to be one, it's sent that investigation is sent back for them to complete so we really want to capture that” (ID #11). The ODARA was formally adopted as a risk assessment tool in New Brunswick in 2014 (Department of Justice Canada, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR14\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023b\\u003c/span\\u003e), and officer responses are consistent with that policy. This understanding also stands in stark contrast to those officers who indicated that there were no checks in balances in place at their organization, or at least that these checks and balances were not actually followed in reality despite their existence in protocol documents.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eIn general, responses indicated that the ODARAs are completed relatively quickly after the index events, with officers answering that it would be completed within the same shift, the same day, or within a few hours of the call to reflect the seriousness of IPV calls, as well as time limits to get the case to court, “Uh, we have 21 days to have a charged file for IPV um before the courts so it's a very short time compared to all the other files that we have to have so. Um, filling out forms is usually done the same shift” (ID #15). However, other officers indicated that ODARAs may not be completed as quickly if there is no arrest, and some had initially not realized how quickly ODARAs must be completed after the call, “No, ODARA, is probably, the probably the second thing I would complete. Especially if there was a criminal charge, I would try to get it done as quickly as I could, but if it's if there's no arrest it might sit, you know, two or three weeks” (ID #15 − 0). Thus, the implication of this mindset or practice is that higher risk IPV situations may get missed when insufficient grounds are met for a charge from the index event. Some studies have found support for ODARA’s predictive ability for IPV recidivism, but lower validity for predicting police charges for IPV recidivism compared to when the tool is used by researchers (Jung \\u0026amp; Himmen, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR33\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e). This finding may suggest that additional factors, such as when ODARAs are completed and the manner in which they are completed affects scoring. For example, if ODARAs are not filled out on scene or shortly thereafter, it may be that crucial information is missed as the ODARA is which also negatively affects the tools risk assessment.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eThere are a range of factors related to staffing and resources that can affect officers’ ability to accurately appraise risk of the ODARA. Specifically, officers cited factors such as call volume, staffing, the time it takes to complete the ODARA, dealing with other aspects of the case (e.g., arrest, interviewing involved parties), large volumes of competing paperwork, as well as difficulty accessing information necessary to complete the ODARA as factors that may delay ODARA completion, or make it more difficult for officers to gather relevant information and accurately assess risk by completing the tool.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eWhich obviously pushes your, you know, your ability to come back to the office and do your paperwork that pushes, that could be hours, it just depends on the call volume of the day or it depends on how serious in nature the the domestic or IPV file, the case that you're working on, is where you're maybe you're you're having to spend more time at the scene or the residence, whatever the case may be and you don't have access to your computer where you come back and actually get your paperwork and file work already started and done. So really it could be just a matter of anything or maybe it's really drastic and the fact that you have to find housing for the individual uh - who's needing somewhere else to go or maybe you've actually arrested the person and you have to take them to jail. Yeah, there's all kinds of different situations that it could be really. (ID #17 − 0)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eAccording to Statistics Canada, the rate of police strength as a human resource, or officers per 100,000 in the population, has been decreasing in recent years (Statistics Canada, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR52\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023b\\u003c/span\\u003e). In New Brunswick, there was a decrease of 1.8% of officers per 100,000 people in 2023 compared to 2022 (Statistics Canada, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR52\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023b\\u003c/span\\u003e). Reports have also indicated an increase in the amount of paperwork officers must take part in as part of the judicial process if the case goes to court (Griffiths et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR21\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2015\\u003c/span\\u003e). Additionally, processes may be different across jurisdictions, particularly the use of technology and how communications are made for case information, which may further complicate attempts to obtain necessary materials to score risk tools and appraise risk properly (Griffiths et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR21\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2015\\u003c/span\\u003e). These resource factors appear to contribute to officers’ capacity to complete the ODARA at all, and sometimes in a timely manner when they do complete it regardless of policy.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003ePerceptions of Risk and the Administration of the ODARA\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eThere were two overall viewpoints on how officers viewed risk and IPV. Some responded that IPV calls are always high risk regardless of ODARA scores, which is not consistent with risk assessment practices and the ODARA (Hilton et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR29\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2004\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eUm, but it's not like. If I was, if I were to go to a domestic call, I'm not looking to see what the ODARA was, whether it was high risk or not because I'm going to identify all those things as I go along in the domestic anyways, right. And we would look at every call as high risk when we go into it. (…) Right? So, whether they score two or three, that's not going to be any decision maker for me when I go to a call because I'm looking at it as an individual call. (ID #050 − 2)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eApproaching all calls as high risk may cause officers to over-respond (Kebbell, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR34\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e), which may actually elevate risk or divert valuable resources to cases not requiring them (Bonta \\u0026amp; Andrews, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR5\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2024\\u003c/span\\u003e). In fact, higher risk calls were treated with heightened response and officers paid more attention when risk was perceived as being higher to the victim.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003eOn Scene Factors Influencing Decisions to Administer the ODARA\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eWhen officers arrive on the scene of an IPV call, there are several factors that can influence whether they choose to complete an ODARA. The presence of a physical component, including complaints related to physical violence, choking, signs of a struggle when officers arrive at the scene, or threats of violence or assault with a weapon may increase the likelihood that an officer completes an ODARA. This is consistent with the results of Ballucci and colleagues (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR2\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e) who reported that ODARAs were completed more often in cases involving current intimate partners (vs. past), physical violence, as well as the use of a weapon. Officers note that a case has to involve a couple in an intimate relationship and a physical component to administer an ODARA by policy. Additionally, previously completed ODARAs and information about the couple may help inform officer’s response to the call, which is more consistent with ODARA guidelines.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eHistory's the big thing. (…) I mean, a lot of times when you're going to a call, if it's a domestic, you find out who the parties are involved. You just do a background check. And a lot of the, with the history and the scoring, you can tell, um, whether there’s been history of this type of before, whether there's been violence or threats before. (...) So you prepare yourself before you even get there, so. (…) But to me, that's, that's valuable information for officers for officers going to these calls (ID #051 − 3).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eIn addition, officers tended to comment that the presence of children, including evidence that children lived in the home such as cribs, tended to raise an officer’s perceived risk of the call and need for risk appraisal.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eBut in my own head and and again, this is 20 years, if I go to one of those types of domestic, you know, violent offenses and I learn or become aware that the female party has a child from a previous marriage, relationship, whatever um it's it's usually it's usually been ongoing abuse and very serious abuse and the second huge red flag for me, on top of ODARA, is anytime I hear a client or a victim say that they they've been choked and they used the words choked, strangled suffocated. But it's usually that usually the female would describe it as he choked me or he tried to strangle me and when I hear that automatically my my instincts go to this is a hair away from a homicide (ID #11).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eAlthough the presence of children is one of the risk factors on the ODARA, it is not one of the criteria for when the ODARA is to be completed. The fact that officers are also aware of the dangers of physical violence, including the risk of recidivism in higher risk cases that involve physical assault (Radatz \\u0026amp; Hilton, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR46\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e) is consistent with prior research. It is also a positive indication that the officer was aware it was a risk factor. Officers may pay closer attention to children in the home due to concerns about harm to the child, as well as greater awareness of IPV risk factors on the ODARA.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eAssessing the overall scene is part of officers’ response. Some may pay more attention to resolving an ongoing dispute and conduct interviews with witnesses, the accused and victim to gather relevant information. Officers may be influenced by what they observe when they arrive. Some officers highlighted that the ODARA is not a priority at that time, and they rely on discretion as described below. Ballucci et al. (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR1\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e) found similar concerns by officers who felt that one tool could not capture everything observed at a scene, or the totality of an IPV situation. However, officers expressed overall progressive views toward IPV by acknowledging the presence of barriers to a victim leaving an IPV situation such as financial, emotional, and lack of social connections. However, organization A required all members to automatically select the barriers risk factor for IPV calls on the ODARA which led to some members questioning the usefulness of items on the ODARA if some risk factors were automatically marked as present even when they may not necessarily apply. Further examination of the importance of barriers for preventing victims from leaving an IPV situation (Fleury et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR16\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1998\\u003c/span\\u003e), as well as what constitutes a barrier on the ODARA, may be helpful to address those concerns.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eThe ODARA is designed to guide officers’ decision-making, but officers tended to use the ODARA after making decisions; thus, many described dealing with the call and related issues before even thinking about the ODARA. If this is how most officers are using the tool, then the ODARA would not be having its intended purpose of guiding officer decision-making, as one officer explains, “So it's more of a review tool than an actual (…) risk assessment kind of” (ID #051 − 2). The risk to this practice is that officers may not recognize the risk associated with a case when certain risk factors are not identified at the scene and subsequently increase the risk to the victim ( Given that this practice has been noted in previous research (Ballucci et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR1\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e), increased attention to officer practices, as well as working with officers to manage their workload and response processes, may be necessary. However, as indicated by responses described above, the ODARA can be a useful tool when responding to IPV incidents at some point in the response process. Officers broadly held views that were both positive and negative with respect to their own perceptions of the ODARA and its use.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003eEndorsing the Value of the ODARA\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003ePositive views toward the ODARA encompass officers’ perceptions of the ODARA as holding value for their work as a first responder, as well as value for IPV victims, IPV response, and for informing other criminal-justice decision makers such as the Crown or judges.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003eGuidance on officer actions\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eIndividuals who expressed positive views toward the ODARA noted that they found it helpful for providing guidance on officer actions. For example, officers noted that the items on the ODARA could be useful for guiding their questioning: “Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, it can guide you in your questions and it can help you if you miss things as well.” (ID #055). Officers described ODARA items as serving as a reminder of questions to ask, as well as guiding their process in information-gathering at the scene. Additionally, the standardized nature of the ODARA was noted as a positive, “Um, it’s a cut and dry form so it's filled out, supposed to be filled out the same way, by every member and then it kind of standardizes our classifications as well so I think it kind of streamlines and um is a good way to manage our records for that, for response to those calls.” (ID #006). This understanding is consistent with one of the main tenets of risk assessment that the tool be standardized so police (or other users) can consistently apply it to inform interventions that reduce harm to victims (Moser, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR40\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2012\\u003c/span\\u003e). Moreover, officers in Ballucci et al.’s (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR1\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e) survey also noted that items on the risk tools can be useful to ensure that all information on the form is filled out correctly, and that risk is accurately reflected in its scoring.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eThe use of unstructured risk assessment or reliance on intuition or previous experience has consistently been demonstrated to be less reliable than structured or actuarial risk assessment tools (Grove et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR22\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2000\\u003c/span\\u003e; van der Put et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR57\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e). Reflecting their understanding of the need for structured risk decision-making, officers discussed how, prior to the introduction of the ODARA, risk was identified by “gut” or “intuition” rather than the presence of risk factors identified through empirical research:\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eI would say before the ODARA came along. Um. We are all, I say we, the police, we're all reliant on our gut. (…) So we wouldn't necessarily have that quantitative correlation, where we're we're physically seeing and filling out a form and physically seeing (clears throat) a number at the end for that that result that says, OK, it's beyond this so we're, we're into a higher percent of recidivism (ID #11).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eA strength is that the ODARA can accurately predict recidivism based on information that officers can readily access (Hilton et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR29\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2004\\u003c/span\\u003e). As such, officer perceptions that the ODARA provides a quantifiable measure of risk and greater insight into the level of risk is in line with previous research. When officers are able to identify high risk cases through higher ODARA scores, it makes it easier to refer victims to services: “Hmm (pause). I guess, uh, if, like I was telling you earlier, the score, if it's above 7, then we can refer them to the CCR [Co-ordinated Community Response] referral (…) That I was talking about. That would be the biggest one to know to when to refer that one” (ID #052 − 2). Conversely, it can be more difficult to refer victims to services in lower-risk cases: “Um, but like I said before, there are, there are certain instances where it's not considered high risk and therefore the, those resources aren't as quick, I guess to be put in place” (ID #054). A critical component of risk assessment is incorporating services required for victims based on the level of risk (Nicholls et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR42\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2013\\u003c/span\\u003e). Training in risk assessment can make it easier for officers to refer victims to relevant services (Ballucci et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR1\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e), and for high-risk victims to receive necessary supports through police referrals (Messing et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR37\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2015\\u003c/span\\u003e). The responses given by officers on victim services is in line with the literature on the value of the ODARA for prioritizing high-risk IPV service calls. The above quote highlights the importance of ODARA scores for securing resources for victims to ensure their safety, with the appropriate understanding that higher risk cases should be prioritized and receive more urgent and intensive services than lower risk cases (Nicholls et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR42\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2013\\u003c/span\\u003e). However, there is dissatisfaction in the consequential delay this creates for less privileged cases to also receive timely service. As noted by Hilton et al. (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR29\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2004\\u003c/span\\u003e), officers in high-risk situations must make quick, yet critical, decisions regarding “victim assistance” (p. 268). More supports may be available for high-risk cases given the association between higher scores for accused, or victim’s partners, and subsequent recidivism and revictimization of victims (Hilton et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR29\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2004\\u003c/span\\u003e). \\u003cb\\u003eKnowledge of Previous IPV Context\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e One of the ways that officers may recognize higher-risk calls, or patterns of IPV, is by referring to the couple’s history of IPV by reviewing prior ODARA’s available in the file. Officers reflected on the value of the ODARA for seeing the progression of IPV severity over time as a valuable aspect of the tool:\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eUm, if you're getting them on the first time, they don't want to provide a statement they just want to make a report. (…) It's good to get that ODARA beforehand, of this is where the violence [is] at right now. (…) And then as it go, it kind of goes and escalates. Your ODARA report should reflect the escalation and then when it hits the peak of something really bad happens and then maybe she still doesn't want to cooperate or he doesn't want to cooperate and it starts to come back down into the lull. You can see it. (…) And then. Properly, like realistically, prop- if they're properly done, you should be able to see the, the growth and then the lull and the growth and then the lull. (ID #051 − 2)\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003ePrior ODARAs also allow officers to see the IPV history of the accused or victims across different partners as well: “It is helpful. It’s, it's good for documentation. It's good to, um. Some people that are involved in IPVs, it's not just a one time event. So sometimes it's, uh, with the same partner or different partners. So it's good to keep, uh, records and have them to, uh, look back on” (ID #15).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eOfficers also recognized that not all incidents involve physical assaults, and that records can be helpful in identifying patterns of IPV over time. Record keeping is crucial, as there is significant overlap or co-occurrence of physical and psychological aggression (Hacıaliefendioğlu et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR25\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e), and perpetrators who are arrested for IPV have a much higher risk of recidivism and prosecution for IPV (Petersson \\u0026amp; Strand, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR45\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e). Thus, identifying perpetrators at less severe stages of IPV and implementing necessary strategies to reduce recidivism can be effective at reducing risk to victims. Studies have shown that police are more likely to arrest perpetrators in higher risk cases even without the use of risk assessment tools, and arrest is related to delayed recidivism (Hilton et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR30\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2007b\\u003c/span\\u003e). Having a prior history of IPV may inform future arrests or responses to future events by officers: “It's, it's a really good tool in terms of finding out the risk of recidivism um how in a, to kind of back that up, we can show when we first score somebody if it's anywhere between, I would say a 5 to a 7 there's a good chance that we're going to have another another incident” (ID #053 − 3). Thus, ensuring accurate record keeping and risk assessment may lead to lower risk to IPV victims over time.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003eLegal Impacts\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eWhen asked about the perceived value of the ODARA for other criminal justice decision-makers such as the Crown or judges, some officers indicated that ODARA scores can be especially useful in court or for victim services as those individuals were not present at the scene of the index event: “I think for other, yeah for other, uh, service like Crowns and again like, uh, Victim Services, Department of Social Development all-they, because they don't respond to the call and they don't ask the questions, it would be very helpful for them” (ID #050 − 2). ODARA scores may also help inform sentencing for the accused, “Yeah. I think it's important. Especially for the Crown. Especially the judges for delivering sentences and stuff. The history of this type of stuff is crucial for them to determine what the sentence would be. (…) I would think it's very valuable” (ID #051 − 3). The value for other criminal justice decision-makers was especially highlighted for higher risk cases:\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eWell, I mean, yeah, if if you know. If there's high risk or higher likelihood that the person will reoffend based on the proper ODARA then yeah, the Crown should be able to use that and seek for a higher and like higher penalty or you know, like proposed like other conditions within the release order from the judge” (ID #003).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eOne of the main considerations of courts when determining if an accused should be detained is considering the level of risk posed by the accused and subsequent risk of reoffending (Milgrim et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR39\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2015\\u003c/span\\u003e). The ODARA may be a helpful tool by highlighting higher risk cases, particularly the quantified risk of recidivism, which in turn increases the chances of the accused being detained post charge by seeking to deny bail or impose specific bail conditions tied to the risk. Furthermore, risk assessment tools provide evidence which can be considered by the Crown or judges when making decisions related to sentencing (Canales et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR10\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2013\\u003c/span\\u003e). Judges in the United States who utilize risk assessment tools have reduced the number of lower-risk offenders kept in custody prior to trial and tools are also used when making decisions regarding release or detention prior to trial (Milgrim et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR39\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2015\\u003c/span\\u003e). Some of the recommendations from the Domestic Violence Death Review Committee in New Brunswick in 2018 included ensuring courts received training on IPV, and the importance of courts and other criminal justice decision-makers in addressing IPV in the province (Office of the Chief Coroner, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR44\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2018\\u003c/span\\u003e). Responses provided by officers who had positive views toward the ODARA are in line with the ideal use of the ODARA when an integrated system that incorporates police, Crown or judges, and victim services is in place. This ideal was reiterated by officers during a panel discussion by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), who indicated that intimate partner coordinators can be essential for providing added supports to victims throughout the process, particularly if the case goes to court (Royal Canadian Mounted Police, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR47\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2016\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eIn cases where police have to make decisions about whether to detain an accuser post-arrest or release on an undertaking pending the court appearance on a charge, they may consult the ODARA score: “Um, when you go and you run the person and you afterwards and you-you're kind of deciding like, OK, how are we gonna deal with this are we gonna go straight in custody. Are we cu-are we gonna cut them loose on an undertaking like you-your ODARA scores and and kind of have they been deemed high risk?” (ID #051 − 2). In previous research, police have been more likely to arrest individuals who pose a higher risk, and more likely to recommend charges (Ballucci et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR2\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e; Jung \\u0026amp; Himmen, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR33\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e). As ODARA scores increase, officers are also more likely to recommend the accused be detained prior to trial, particularly higher risk male suspects (deJong, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR12\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eIn summary, a number of officers considered the value in IPV risk instruments; and the ODARA specifically, in structuring risk appraisals and the factors to be considered, providing a record trail of risk patterns for informing release decision-making at the police level and decisions of the Crown and judiciary once a case goes to court. Despite these positive perspectives, criticisms and challenges within the ODARA and risk assessment process around its use and influence were more dominant in the narrative of officers.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003eCriticisms of the ODARA\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eCritical views encompassed doubts or concerns about the lack of impact the ODARA had as a risk assessment tool, concerns about its constraint on officer discretion or decision-making, and issues related to scoring the tool.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003eMissing the “Why” \\u0026amp; “How”\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eOfficers highlighted that the ODARA is something that is done as part of procedure, but are unsure what impact, if any, the ODARA serves: “Why am I doing it [ODARA]? I dunno, I, ‘cause someone told me I have to do it. Is there a benefit to it? I don't know 'cause I've never seen it benefit anybody” (ID #055 − 1). Part of officer’s concerns about the usefulness of the ODARA may be explained by a lack of checks and balances ensuring that ODARA’s are completed correctly, “I know I've probably done it incorrectly. No one ever came and said, hey, I don't know if this. (…) (laughs) So no one's looking at it. Right?” (ID #050 − 1). Other related sentiments were that the ODARA was a waste of time as officers did not see the value in using it as part of their IPV response, and that the ODARA did not influence officer’s decision-making. Many officers expressed that they prefer to use their own judgment, experience, and assess the overall call situation rather than relying on the ODARA as an indicator of risk. It is worthy of note that officers tended to fill out the ODARA after the index incident, which may further reinforce why officers do not see value in the ODARA as a risk assessment tool at the scene when decisions are actively being made about risk and actions. The following quote expresses sentiments across several sub-themes:\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eIt doesn't. (…) It doesn't influence at all. (…) It's a scoring procedure. It's something we do there's some redundant questions in there that kind of inflate numbers. So understand that the scoring is, you know, seven or higher is considered a high risk, but generally speaking, we know who these people are we know what the risks are, the ODARA doesn't influence me on that decision whatsoever (ID #15 − 0).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eMany of the sentiments expressed by officers, including that the ODARA is an overall waste of time and uncertainty with how the ODARA information is used, is consistent with some of the findings of Ballucci and colleagues’ (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR1\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e) themes of officer’s overall resistance or criticism of risk assessment. However, research has consistently shown that actuarial risk assessment outperforms unstructured or personal judgements, and that when police use subjective judgments, they may not complete the ODARA in cases where it is necessary to do so (e.g., presence of substance use; Ballucci et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR2\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e). Furthermore, relying on subjective judgements or reactive policing can prevent proactive responses to IPV, and police may miss critical risk factors that are less common indicators of IPV (Canales et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR10\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2013\\u003c/span\\u003e; Gill et al., 2021). The lack of understanding of how the ODARA is used, as well as officers expressing that they do not think the Crown or judges use the ODARA in their decision-making, may reflect issues related to training. Increased training and information sessions about the ODARA to highlight its usage and how it can inform IPV responding may be necessary to address officer views. Officers’ views of ODARA and IPV risk training quality informs this deficit in knowledge and is discussed later.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003ePersonal beliefs toward IPV affect response\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eAnother concern raised by some participants was that other officers’ own personal views toward the ODARA may bias their scoring, or otherwise impact the way they approach the tool, as explained by this officer, “Uh. I think when you deal with any type of form sometimes maybe you'd have some personal biases in there (pause) just based off the question and the, the police officer filling it out may have a certain bias uh before filling it out” (ID #053). The majority of officers in a New Brunswick study adopted “conventional” attitudes toward IPV, whereby violence was seen as a major indicator of IPV, and other factors (e.g., coercive control) may not be acknowledged (Gill et al., 2021). In addition, approximately 30% of that sample held the view that victims could easily leave the situation and held some blame for IPV (Gill et al., 2021). Other studies have shown that officers may mis-identify the risk associated with some cases or rely on “guesswork” to fill out forms based on their judgment (Myhill et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR41\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e). Future training highlighting progressive definitions of IPV that challenge outdated views, as well as stressing the importance of considering empirically relevant risk factors is needed to address unhelpful bias in IPV risk appraisal and its role in decision-making for police officers.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003eIssues with scoring the ODARA\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eCritiques regarding scoring the ODARA were also related to officers’ feeling that they did not have enough discretion in assigning risk to cases, and critiques about scoring itself that generated total risk estimates. Officers noted that since the ODARA is mandatory in the province, they do not have any discretion about when to choose to use it. Moreover, there were concerns that the tool could miss information (e.g., limited to information provided at the scene or in the system), or that officer perceptions of risk may not line up with those indicated by the ODARA score and makes it difficult to follow the guidance of the tool’s research. The following officer expresses concerns related to the tool’s mandatory nature and perception of risk:\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eUm, but there's no discretion at all it has to be used in every domestic situation. So to me it's, it's something on file to be able to say, look, we scored this every time we scored this, um, and this, this these are our recommendations, but I, I just don't understand the ranking part of it (…) the zero to six (…) and seven and up. To me, anything above 50% should be high risk and it's not so I don't understand that part. (…) And there are some people that we deal with that score low (…) And in my opinion would be higher just based on the information that I know (ID #054).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eThus, some officers view that being restricted to the ODARA items is problematic as it misses information they view as relevant to risk. Thus, responses also show insufficient understanding of how these risk levels are described and what they actually represent. Previous risk assessment research has emphasized that police officers may fear losing their ability to implement their experience at the scene with the introduction of the ODARA and similar tools (Ballucci et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR1\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e). However, Kebell (2021) showed that officers lose confidence in judgements as IPV severity decreases and subsequently, risk perceptions can become distorted. Concerns about officer discretion, as well as difficulties with scoring could be addressed by refresher courses, or further relevant training to understand how the tool can inform decision-making and police action as training has been shown to increase officer performance in risk assessment, as well as confidence ratings in assessing risk, competency, and identifying risk factors for IPV (Hilton et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR31\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2007a\\u003c/span\\u003e; Storey et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR53\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2011\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eAlthough overall officer views toward the ODARA could largely be divided into positive and negative views, officers did provide constructive recommendations for improving the tool based on their experiences. However, these recommendations were not always consistent across officers, and some relate to broader IPV responding.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003eRecommendations for Improvement\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e Among recommendations that were provided by officers, some indicated they would like New Brunswick to adopt processes from other provinces, or for their police organization to adopt processes from other municipal organizations, such as better defining the role of police agencies and Crowns in the use of the ODARA. Some officers valued the structure the ODARA provides in deciding whether or not the accused should be kept in custody, but other officers wanted to see more discretion given to them with regard to the decision to apply the ODARA and handling of IPV cases. In some cases, officers felt arrests should still be made regardless of whether IPV victims provide a statement, “(…) So the other person gets arrested. Whether they say no, I don't want to give a video statement. I don't want to provide a written statement. I don't want to do anything. (…) OK well, too bad they're still under arrest. And that doesn't happen here. Now I don't know if that's a department issue or a decision made by our Crown Prosecutor's Office. But that's that's the conflict I'm having with IPV files between the two agencies” (ID #150). IPV victims may experience difficulty interpreting what is happening to them as abuse, or domestic violence, and may also be fearful of speaking to police or other professionals as it may lead to further abuse by a partner (Fleury et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR16\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1998\\u003c/span\\u003e; Goodfriend \\u0026amp; Arriaga, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR19\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2018\\u003c/span\\u003e; Vranda et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR58\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2018\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eOthers advocated for the inclusion of features from other risk assessment tools in the ODARA, such as including more measures of severity, or providing space on the ODARA for officers to justify their scoring. It is worth noting that the ODARA does include a narrative portion where officers can explain their scoring, but the scoring is nevertheless very prescriptive and requires minimal discretion to score. This type of comment suggests that at least some officers are either not relying on the extensive scoring rules or are wanting to over-ride or substitute their own interpretation of the risk item meaning. A similar sentiment shared was officers’ who desired greater discretion when approaching IPV. One officer explained, “Like, I'm looking for other things, like firearms for me just behaviors for me are a little bit more important than some of the stuff I think that’s on there. There's some good stuff on there gives you like a baseline” (ID #6). Officers acknowledged the role ODARA plays in risk assessment, but expressed frustrations with reactive approaches to IPV which is notable given that increased use of officer discretion (as opposed to using risk assessment tools) is associated with reactive, rather than proactive, IPV response (Canales et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR10\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2013\\u003c/span\\u003e). As indicated in that paper, the desire for greater discretion may be due to the fact that many officers only use the scoring sheet, and rarely consult or have access to the manual to score the ODARA. Thus, it is possible that further training on scoring the ODARA, justification for using standardized scoring rules and explanations for the prioritization of ODARA risk items may be required to ensure ODARA’s are being fully completed.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eAmong recommendations specifically targeted towards officer use of the ODARA and its scoring and item content, some indicated that they found the ODARA asks too many related questions and would like to see the wording of risk factors updated to make criteria clearer. Thus, relevance of item nuance and distinction is likely missing in the understanding of many officers. Another recommendation was the inclusion of items related to choking as it has been observed in IPV cases but is not an item on the ODARA. Indeed, choking is associated with a higher level of violence in IPV cases, as well as an increased risk of future violence or homicide (Glass et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR18\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2009\\u003c/span\\u003e; Moser, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR40\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2012\\u003c/span\\u003e). It is possible, therefore, that strangulation could be added as a risk factor in the ODARA in the future and would be a welcome addition by police officers.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eTo improve accessibility with the ODARA and its item scoring, officers recommended being able to carry a card or have easy access to ODARA items at the scene to ensure all questions are asked to accurately score the tool. Moreover, officers recommended a scoring guide or short form instructions to ensure ease of scoring or move the task of scoring the ODARA to other staff members to reduce the workload to officers. Increased training on the importance of on-scene information gathering that directly feeds into risk assessment may be beneficial to address some officer recommendations but the tool needs to be compatible with such use. Additionally, the implementation of simplified instructions and increased accessibility of ODARA items may assist officers in using the tool in real time as opposed to hours or days later after important decisions have already been made.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003eTraining Experience\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eAll officers were asked to describe the training they received on the ODARA. Training differed based on whether officers were new to the police organization, given that some received academy training on the tool, and other more senior members received in-person or online training or refresher courses. Some received minimal training. When provided, training tended to involve a power-point presentation or online module where officers learned about the policy surrounding the ODARA, its items, and how to score it. In general, officers had mixed views of the training, or lack thereof, that they received.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003eStrengths in ODARA Training\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eAmong officers who had positive views of their training, they emphasized the educational value of speaking to victims, using real life IPV cases, and understanding the purpose and scoring of the ODARA. These individuals tended to describe the training as helpful to them and commented that there was little that they would change or add, as highlighted below.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eIf someone just throws something at you and tells you this is the new way of doing things, it's one you can be taken one way. But when someone takes time to present it and explain logically why it's being used, where it comes from, how it should be used, pros and cons, it allows you better as a student or a uh candidate, or whatever you want to call it um to absorb the information (…) So I thought it was delivered very well, yeah (ID #006).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eIn cases where officers, particularly younger officers, had questions about scoring the ODARA; they expressed feeling comfortable asking another officer for help. Other officers may be more knowledgeable about certain risk factors or were willing to read over files to assist as indicated by this respondent, “I have, yeah, just to double check on some questions I have. Um, if I don't know right away, I'll ask whoever I'm working with, see what their thoughts are. And if we don't come up with a solid answer on it, then refer back to the manual every once in a while, just to see if we can get [the] right answer” (ID #13). Naturally, perhaps as a result of effective training and their overall positive experience of using the tool, many participants shared that they found the ODARA easy and straightforward to score and had not experienced any significant challenges in its scoring.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003eChallenges in ODARA Training\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eAmong officers who held less positive views about training, some had received no training at all, or received brief training that they felt did not provide them with enough information to properly score the tool or understand its value for use once scored. As one officer expressed, training may be very brief in contrast to the sessions described by those with more positive views of training, “Well, I got like a 5-minute talk about it. (…) And that would have been my first week here. (…) So yeah” (ID #051 − 2). Even if officers received training, some found it was not applicable to the kinds of situations they encounter on IPV calls, as one officer describes,\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eThere's rarely a situation where you're like, hey, can we sit down and have a cup of tea now and talk about these questions that I need to ask you for the ODARA? It's not like that. (…) I've seen it in videos, I-I-like videos are coming to mind of [an] officer, y'know like, staged videos for training then I'm just like, OK like, that's not how it happens (ID #19 − 0).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003eRecommendations for Improved Training\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eRecommendations for training improvement included reinforcing the purpose of the tool, including more real-life examples, increased refreshers or future training sessions, and in general, clarification on certain aspects of the tool including scoring. As prior research has shown, officers perform better after receiving training, when tested by assessing risk on vignettes or case studies. In particular, officers who use the item booklet as opposed to just the scoring sheet, perform better (Hilton et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR31\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2007a\\u003c/span\\u003e; Hilton \\u0026amp; Ham, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR28\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2015\\u003c/span\\u003e; Storey et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR53\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2011\\u003c/span\\u003e). However, many officers in the current study relied solely on the scoring sheet and rarely consulted instruction booklets or manuals for the ODARA which may negatively affect their ability to score the tool. Incorporating aspects of prior studies, such as vignettes or mock cases may be more effective in targeting the hands-on, real-world experiences of officers and how they can incorporate the ODARA in the field. A reliance on formal training is key (e.g., ODARA 101 online training, or in-person training from a master trainer), in comparison to field only learning that is unstructured, consistent, and poorly supervised, to ensure standards are met in knowledge of the tool.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Conclusion \\u0026 Implications for Practice\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eOfficers expressed a range of opinions about the ODARA, including positive views which emphasized its usefulness and value for risk assessment and IPV, as well as negative views in that officers indicated that the ODARA was nothing more than another form of paperwork that does not influence their decision-making. Procedural changes such as making ODARA instructions or manuals more easily available and emphasizing its real-time usage within each police organization may help to encourage its use. A fundamental piece that appears to be missing is “why” the ODARA is an effective tool when used properly. Officer recommendations for improvement should be taken into account as they grant insight into what features officers find useful and render them more open to reliance on the tool, and how risk assessment practices can be modified to account for administrative issues such as under-staffing, paperwork, and the limited amount of time officers have to complete paperwork for IPV files prior to court. The fact that the presence of physical violence, choking, and children influences officer’s decision to score the ODARA is reflective of familiarity of IPV risk factors, but they may not know how to integrate these risks in the context of the ODARA. In addition, some officer’s desire for greater discretion in tool use and risk appraisal is contrasted with concerns that scoring on the ODARA is too subjective, as well as other officer’s perceptions that the tool is effective and relatively easy to use. Information sessions and training on why certain risk factors are present on the ODARA and not other features that officers may consider important at the scene may address concerns that officers may be missing vital pieces of information when conducting risk assessments.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eAlthough most officers received varied amounts of training, some had not received training at all which is concerning as officer performance improves significantly even after basic training with a scoring booklet (Hilton \\u0026amp; Ham, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR28\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2015\\u003c/span\\u003e). Making training standardized and including more hands-on and real-world elements may not only improve the training experience but reinforce the value of the tool and when officers should complete their scoring, as many do not think about or score the ODARA until later in their IPV response.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eStandardized training, such as the ODARA 101 training that is available online, incorporates many aspects officers indicated they would find helpful such as asking officers to score practice cases and watch videos (Ham et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR24\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e). The program allows officers to complete it at any time and pause progress to continue later, which reflects the concerns raised by officers, such as under-staffing and paperwork, and aids in the program’s accessibility. Additionally, officers have to score several cases reliably prior to completing training. The training has been updated to reflect the varied experiences of women in IPV cases (e.g., varied locations, experiences of Indigenous women), as well as other helpful features including English and French translations, as well as the option to take a test via an interview, police records, or a mix of the two (Ham et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR24\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e). Evaluations of the ODARA 101 have indicated that it is cost effective, and the majority of officers pass the first time they take the test and rate the program highly in terms of its quality and user-friendliness (Ham et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR24\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e; Hilton \\u0026amp; Ham, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR28\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2015\\u003c/span\\u003e). Given the existence of an accessible form of ODARA training, police organizations could ask new officers to complete the ODARA 101 training as part of onboarding and to update experienced officers to show its value to them with regards to enhancing victim safety. Training needs to do more than teach officers how to score the tool by also teaching them to use the risk information to inform their decision-making and actions.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003eLimitations\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eThe officers in the present study were recruited from three police organizations across New Brunswick. As such, the views expressed by officers and subsequent recommendations proposed may not be applicable to other provinces or processes of IPV risk assessment. However, efforts were made to recruit officers from a range of police organizations. Additionally, officers mostly identified as men, and it is possible that perspectives on ODARA usage may differ based on gender identity. Future research should seek to recruit more officers identifying as women. Officers were not asked about why they chose to participate in the study, and thus it is possible that officers who chose to participate felt more positively or negatively towards the ODARA. However, there were a range of views expressed even within individual interviews.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003eFuture Directions\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eFuture studies could examine whether the recommendations proposed are effective in encouraging ODARA use in line with the policies on IPV calls within New Brunswick. It is also worthy to examine whether views and officer perspectives toward the ODARA and its usage differ by province as several provinces now use the ODARA regularly for IPV risk assessment.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eThis current study is one of few that has analyzed officer experiences using the ODARA using qualitative methods. It is worthy of note that many of the views expressed by officers are consistent with the qualitative survey findings of Ballucci et al. (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR1\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e). As such, these views may reflect common concerns raised by officers in New Brunswick and reflect a greater need for policy and training changes to not only address negative or critical perceptions of risk assessment but also improve overall IPV response and risk assessment among municipal police organizations within the province.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Declarations\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eEthical Approval\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe study received ethical approval from the research ethics board (REB) at the authors’ institution.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eFunding\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eAuthor A.L.M. received a Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) Student Leadership Grant sponsored by BMS to support this work.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eAvailability of Data and Materials\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThis declaration is not applicable.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003ch2\\u003eAuthor Contribution\\u003c/h2\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eA.L.M. was the primary investigator and was involved in all aspects of the study, including design, interviewing, transcription, coding, and manuscript preparation. M.A.C. provided supervision and assisted with all aspects of the study design and implementation. M.A.C also provided feedback on the final manuscript. J.S. assisted with the transcription of interviews and acted as a second coder. D.W. assisted with interviewing.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"References\",\"content\":\"\\u003col\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eBallucci, D., Gill, C., \\u0026amp; Campbell, M. A. (2017). The power of attitude: The role of police culture and receptivity of risk assessment tools in IPV calls. \\u003cem\\u003ePolicing: A Journal of Policy and Practice\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e11\\u003c/em\\u003e(3), 242\\u0026ndash;257. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi-org.proxy.hil.unb.ca/\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://doi-org.proxy.hil.unb.ca/\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003e10.1093/police/pax018\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1093/police/pax018\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eBallucci, D., Campbell, M. A., \\u0026amp; Gill, C. (2020). Use of the ODARA by police officers for intimate partner violence: Implications for practice in the field. \\u003cem\\u003eJournal of Community Safety \\u0026amp; Well-Being\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e5\\u003c/em\\u003e(3), 91\\u0026ndash;102. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.35502/jcswb.150\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.35502/jcswb.150\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eBelfrage, H., Strand, S., Storey, J. E., Gibas, A. L., Kropp, P. R., \\u0026amp; Hart, S. D. (2012). Assessment and management of risk for intimate partner violence by police officers using the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment guide. \\u003cem\\u003eLaw and Human Behavior\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e36\\u003c/em\\u003e(1), 60\\u0026ndash;67. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/lwhmbv36\\u0026amp;i=60\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/lwhmbv36\\u0026amp;i=60\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eBreul, N., \\u0026amp; Keith, M. (2016). \\u003cem\\u003eDeadly calls and fatal encounters: Analysis of U.S. law enforcement line of duty deaths when officers responded to dispatched calls for service and conducted enforcement (2010\\u0026ndash;2014).\\u003c/em\\u003e National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www.valorforblue.org/Documents/Publications/Public/2000 2014LODDAnalysis-NLEOMF-COPSoffice.pdf\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www.valorforblue.org/Documents/Publications/Public/2000 2014LODDAnalysis-NLEOMF-COPSoffice.pdf\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eBonta, J., \\u0026amp; Andrews, D. A. (2024). \\u003cem\\u003eThe psychology of criminal conduct\\u003c/em\\u003e. Routledge. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www.routledge.com/The-Psychology-of-Criminal Conduct/BontaAndrews/p/book/9781032272856?srsltid\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;AfmBOoqTl9Iqs\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www.routledge.com/The-Psychology-of-Criminal Conduct/BontaAndrews/p/book/9781032272856?srsltid\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;AfmBOoqTl9Iqs\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e8kirIkqmmL7 vVNP6gqxS-3TNs9qz4_jSIPgBRAko\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eBourgon, G., Mugford, R., Hanson, K., \\u0026amp; Coligado, M. (2018). Offender risk assessment practices vary across Canada. \\u003cem\\u003eCanadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e60\\u003c/em\\u003e(2), 167\\u0026ndash;205. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www.muse.jhu.edu/article/691007\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www.muse.jhu.edu/article/691007\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eBurczycka, M., \\u0026amp; Conroy, S. (2017). Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2015. \\u003cem\\u003eJuristat\\u003c/em\\u003e, Catelogue no. 85-002-X, ISSN 1209\\u0026ndash;6393. Statistics Canada. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2017001/article/14698-eng.pdf\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2017001/article/14698-eng.pdf\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eCampbell, M. A., Gill, C., \\u0026amp; Ballucci, D. (2018). Informing police response to intimate partner violence: Predictors of perceived usefulness of risk assessment screening. \\u003cem\\u003eJournal of Police and Criminal Psychology\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e33\\u003c/em\\u003e, 175\\u0026ndash;187. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-017-9244y\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1007/s11896-017-9244y\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eCanadian Centre for Justice Statistics. (2016). \\u003cem\\u003eFamily violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2014\\u003c/em\\u003e. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002x/2016001/article/14303-eng.pdf\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002x/2016001/article/14303-eng.pdf\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eCanales, D., Macaulay, A., McDougall, A., Wei, R., \\u0026amp; Campbell, M. A. (2013). \\u003cem\\u003eA brief synopsis of risk assessment screening tools for frontline professionals responding to intimate partner violence\\u003c/em\\u003e. Centre for Criminal Justice Studies. University of New Brunswick. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://psytel.eu/ENGAGE/Bibliography/ipvrisktoolsynopsis2013.pdf\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://psytel.eu/ENGAGE/Bibliography/ipvrisktoolsynopsis2013.pdf\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eCantos, A. L., Kosson, D. S., Goldstein, D. A., \\u0026amp; O\\u0026rsquo;Leary, K. D. (2019). Treatment impact on recidivism of family only vs. generally violent partner violence perpetrators. \\u003cem\\u003eInternational Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e19\\u003c/em\\u003e(3), 171\\u0026ndash;180. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2019.05.002\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.ijchp.2019.05.002\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003edeJong, E. J. (2022). \\u003cem\\u003eIntegrating science and policing: Evaluating and exploring intimate partner violence risk assessment in frontline police work in Canada\\u003c/em\\u003e. (Ph.D. dissertation, University of New Brunswick).\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eDepartment of Justice Canada. (2023a). \\u003cem\\u003eInventory of Spousal Violence Risk Assessment Tools Used in Canada\\u003c/em\\u003e. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/fv-vf/rr09_7/p4.html\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/fv-vf/rr09_7/p4.html\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eDepartment of Justice Canada. (2023b). \\u003cem\\u003eProgramming Responses for Intimate Partner Violence\\u003c/em\\u003e. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/ipv-vpi/p6.html\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/ipv-vpi/p6.html\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eEke, A. W., Hilton, N. Z., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., \\u0026amp; Houghton, R. E. (2011). Intimate partner homicide: Risk assessment and prospects for prediction. \\u003cem\\u003eJournal of Family Violence\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e26\\u003c/em\\u003e, 211\\u0026ndash;216. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-010-9356-y\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1007/s10896-010-9356-y\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eFleury, R. E., Sullivan, C. M., Bybee, D. I., \\u0026amp; Davidson 2nd, W. S. (1998). \\u0026ldquo;Why don\\u0026rsquo;t they just call the cops?\\u0026rdquo;: Reasons for differential police contact among woman with abusive partners. \\u003cem\\u003eViolence and Victims\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e13\\u003c/em\\u003e(4), 333\\u0026ndash;346. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://connect.springerpub.com/content/sgrvv/13/4/333\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://connect.springerpub.com/content/sgrvv/13/4/333\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e Gill, C., Campbell, M. A., \\u0026amp; Ballucci, D. (2021). Police officers\\u0026rsquo; definitions and understandings of intimate partner violence in New Brunswick, Canada. \\u003cem\\u003eThe Police Journal: Theory, Practice \\u0026amp; Principles\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e94\\u003c/em\\u003e(1), 20\\u0026ndash;39. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0032258X19876974\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1177/0032258X19876974\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eGill, C., Fitch, L., Greenwood, K. (2016). \\u003cem\\u003eNational framework for collaborative police action on intimate partner violence (IPV).\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www.cacp.ca/_Library/resources/National_Framework_for_Collaborative_Polic Action_on_Intimate_Partner_Violence_-_March_2016.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www.cacp.ca/_Library/resources/National_Framework_for_Collaborative_Polic Action_on_Intimate_Partner_Violence_-_March_2016.\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003epdf\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eGlass, N., Laughon, K., Campbell, J., Wolf Chair, A. D., Block, C. R., Hanson, G., Sharps, P. W., \\u0026amp; Taliaferro, E. (2009). Non-fatal strangulation is an important risk factor for homicide of women. \\u003cem\\u003eEmergency Medicine Journal\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e35\\u003c/em\\u003e(3), 329\\u0026ndash;335. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www.jemjournal.com/article/S0736-\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www.jemjournal.com/article/S0736-\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e4679(07)00414-3/abstract\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eGoodfriend, W., \\u0026amp; Arriaga, X. B. (2018). Cognitive reframing of intimate partner aggression: Social and contextual influences. \\u003cem\\u003eInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e15\\u003c/em\\u003e(11). \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15112464\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.3390/ijerph15112464\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eGovernment of New Brunswick. (2023). \\u003cem\\u003eDomestic and intimate partner violence (DIPV): Key concepts and statistics.\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Corporate/Promo/equalityprofile/Final-DIPV-EN.pdf\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Corporate/Promo/equalityprofile/Final-DIPV-EN.pdf\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eGriffiths, C. T., Murphy, J. J., \\u0026amp; Tatz, M. (2015). \\u003cem\\u003eImproving police efficiency: Challenges and opportunities\\u003c/em\\u003e. Research Division Public Safety Canada. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2015-r021/2015-r021-en.pdf\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2015-r021/2015-r021-en.pdf\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eGrove, W. M., Zald, D. H., Lebow, B. S., Snitz, B. E., \\u0026amp; Nelson, C. (2000). Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. \\u003cem\\u003ePsychological Assessment\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e12\\u003c/em\\u003e(1), 19\\u0026ndash;20. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.12.1.19\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1037/1040-3590.12.1.19\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eGuo, B., \\u0026amp; Harstall, C. (2008). \\u003cem\\u003eSpousal violence against women: Preventing recurrence (Report).\\u003c/em\\u003e Alberta, Canada: Institute of Health Economics. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www.healthevidence.org/view-article.aspx?a=spousal-violence-womenpreventing recurrence-report-21301\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www.healthevidence.org/view-article.aspx?a=spousal-violence-womenpreventing recurrence-report-21301\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eHam, E., Dip, P. G., Hilton, N. A., Giesbrecht, C. J., \\u0026amp; Macdonald, S. (2019). ODARA 101: Look what\\u0026rsquo;s new! \\u003cem\\u003eCrime Scene\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e26\\u003c/em\\u003e(1), 6\\u0026ndash;7. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://osf.io/mhjqa\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://osf.io/mhjqa\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eHacıaliefendioğlu, A., Yilmaz, S., Koyut\\u0026uuml;rk, M., \\u0026amp; Karakurt, G. (2021). Co-occurrence patterns of intimate partner violence. \\u003cem\\u003ePacific Symposium on Biocomputing. 26\\u003c/em\\u003e, 79\\u0026ndash;90. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7958983/\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7958983/\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eHenning, K., Campbell, C. M., Stewart, G., \\u0026amp; Johnson, J. (2021). Prioritizing police investigations of Intimate Partner Violence using actuarial risk assessment. \\u003cem\\u003eJournal of Police and Criminal Psychology\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e36\\u003c/em\\u003e, 667\\u0026ndash;678. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-021-09466 7\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1007/s11896-021-09466 7\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eHeyman, R. E., Smith Slep, A. M., \\u0026amp; Foran, H. M. (2015). Enhanced definitions of Intimate Partner Violence for DSM-5 and ICD-11 may promote improved screening and treatment. \\u003cem\\u003eFamily Process\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e54\\u003c/em\\u003e(1), 64\\u0026ndash;81. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25620551/\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25620551/\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eHilton, N. Z., Ham, E. (2015). Cost-effectiveness of electronic training in domestic violence risk assessment: ODARA 101. \\u003cem\\u003eJournal of Interpersonal Violence\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e30\\u003c/em\\u003e(6), 1065\\u0026ndash;1073. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514539762\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1177/0886260514539762\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eHilton, N. Z., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., \\u0026amp; Lines, K. J. (2004). A brief actuarial assessment for the prediction of wife assault recidivism: The Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment. \\u003cem\\u003ePsychological Assessment\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e16\\u003c/em\\u003e(3), 267\\u0026ndash;275. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.16.3.267\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1037/1040-3590.16.3.267\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eHilton, N. A., Harris, G. T., \\u0026amp; Rice, M. E. (2007b). The effect of arrest on wife assault recidivism, controlling for pre-arrest risk. \\u003cem\\u003eCriminal Justice and Behavior\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e34\\u003c/em\\u003e, 1334\\u0026ndash;1344. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0093854807300757\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1177/0093854807300757\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eHilton, N. Z., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Wyatt Eke, A., \\u0026amp; Lowe-Wetmore, T. (2007a). Training front-line users in the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA): A tool for police domestic investigations. \\u003cem\\u003eThe Canadian Journal of Police \\u0026amp; Security Services\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e5\\u003c/em\\u003e(1/2), 595\\u0026ndash;598.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eJaffe, P., \\u0026amp; Campbell, M. (2021, May 11\\u0026ndash;14). \\u003cem\\u003eResearch with service providers regarding domestic violence risk assessment, risk management and safety planning\\u003c/em\\u003e [Conference session]. Canadian Domestic Homicide Prevention Initiative Virtual National Conference. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www.cdhpi.ca/sites/cdhpi.ca/files/Day%202_Research%20with%20service%20p oviders.pdf\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www.cdhpi.ca/sites/cdhpi.ca/files/Day%202_Research%20with%20service%20p oviders.pdf\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eJung, S., \\u0026amp; Himmen, M. K. (2022). A field study on the police use of the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA). \\u003cem\\u003eJournal of Threat Assessment and Management\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e9\\u003c/em\\u003e(4), 204\\u0026ndash;217. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/tam0000175\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1037/tam0000175\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eKebbell, M. R. (2021). Police are influenced by anchoring and risk when allocating resources for scenario-based intimate partner violence cases. \\u003cem\\u003eJournal of Interpersonal Violence\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e37\\u003c/em\\u003e(17 18). \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211021974\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1177/08862605211021974\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eKebbell, M. R. (2019). Risk assessment for intimate partner violence: How can the police assess risk? \\u003cem\\u003ePsychology, Crime \\u0026amp; Law\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e25\\u003c/em\\u003e(8), 829\\u0026ndash;846. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2019.1597087\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1080/1068316X.2019.1597087\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLauria, I., McEwan, T. E., Luebbers, S., Simmons, M., \\u0026amp; Ogloff, J. R. P. (2017). Evaluating the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment in an Australian frontline police setting. \\u003cem\\u003eCriminal Justice and Behavior\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e44\\u003c/em\\u003e(12), 1545\\u0026ndash;1558. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0093854817738280\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1177/0093854817738280\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eMessing, J. T., Campbell, J., Webster, D. W., Brown, S., Patchell, B., \\u0026amp; Sullivan Wilson, J. (2015). The Oklahoma lethality assessment study: A quasi-experimental evaluation of the lethality assessment program. \\u003cem\\u003eSocial Science Review\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e89\\u003c/em\\u003e(3). \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1086/683194\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1086/683194\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eMessing, J. T., Thaller, J. (2012). The average predictive validity of intimate partner violence risk assessment instruments. \\u003cem\\u003eJournal of Interpersonal Violence\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e28\\u003c/em\\u003e(7), 1537\\u0026ndash;1558. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512468250\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1177/0886260512468250\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eMilgrim, A., Holsinger, A. M., Vannostrand, M., \\u0026amp; Alsdorf, M. W. (2015). Improving public safety and fairness in pretrial decision making. \\u003cem\\u003eFederal Sentencing Reporter\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e27\\u003c/em\\u003e(4), 216 221. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2015.27.4.216\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1525/fsr.2015.27.4.216\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eMoser, A. E. (2012). \\u003cem\\u003eValidation and expansion of the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA) instrument: An early warning system\\u003c/em\\u003e. (Master\\u0026rsquo;s dissertation, University of New Brunswick, 2012).\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eMyhill, A., Hohl, K., \\u0026amp; Johnson, K. (2023). The \\u0026lsquo;officer effect\\u0026rsquo; in risk assessment for domestic abuse: Findings from a mixed methods study in England and Wales. \\u003cem\\u003eEuropean Journal of Criminology\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e20\\u003c/em\\u003e(3), 856\\u0026ndash;877. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/14773708231156331\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1177/14773708231156331\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eNicholls, T. L., Pritchard, M. M., Reeves, K. A., \\u0026amp; Hilterman, E. (2013). Risk assessment in intimate partner violence: A systematic review of contemporary approaches. \\u003cem\\u003ePartner Abuse\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e4\\u003c/em\\u003e(1), 76\\u0026ndash;168. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.4.1.76\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1891/1946-6560.4.1.76\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eNova Scotia Public Prosecution Service. (2009). \\u003cem\\u003eRisk assessments (ODARA) in spousal / partner violence cases\\u003c/em\\u003e. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www.novascotia.ca/pps/publications/ca_manual/ProsecutionPolicies/ODARA%2 RISK%20ASSESSMENTS%20IN%20SPOUSALPARTNER%20CASES%20ALL.pdf\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www.novascotia.ca/pps/publications/ca_manual/ProsecutionPolicies/ODARA%2 RISK%20ASSESSMENTS%20IN%20SPOUSALPARTNER%20CASES%20ALL.pdf\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eOffice of the Chief Coroner. (2018). \\u003cem\\u003eRecommendations from the domestic violence death review committee.\\u003c/em\\u003e \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/pssp/pdf/Publications/DomesticViolence2018.\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/pssp/pdf/Publications/DomesticViolence2018.\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003epdf\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003ePetersson, J., \\u0026amp; Strand, S. (2019). Characteristics and recidivism in relation to arrest: Differentiating between partner violent perpetrator subtypes. \\u003cem\\u003eNordic Journal of Criminology\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e21\\u003c/em\\u003e(2), 203\\u0026ndash;222. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/2578983X.2020.1727119\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1080/2578983X.2020.1727119\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eRadatz, D. L., \\u0026amp; Hilton, N. Z. (2019). Determining batterer intervention program treatment intensities: An illustration using the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment. \\u003cem\\u003ePartner Abuse\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e10\\u003c/em\\u003e(3). \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.10.3.269\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1891/1946-6560.10.3.269\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eRoyal Canadian Mounted Police. (2016). \\u003cem\\u003eWhat one police action has the most positive impact when dealing with family violence? https\\u003c/em\\u003e:\\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003e//www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/gazette/police-action has-the-positive-impact-when-dealing-family-violence?wbdisable\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;true\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"http:////www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/gazette/police-action has-the-positive-impact-when-dealing-family-violence?wbdisable\\u0026thinsp;=\\u0026thinsp;true\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eSaxton, M. D., Jaffe, P. G., Straatman, A. -L., Olszowy, L., \\u0026amp; Dawson, M. (2020). Measuring intimate partner violence risk: A national survey of Canadian police officers. \\u003cem\\u003eJournal of Community Safety \\u0026amp; Well-Being\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e5\\u003c/em\\u003e(3), 103\\u0026ndash;109. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.35502/jcswb.144\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.35502/jcswb.144\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eSeewald, K., Rossegger, A., Urbaniok, F., \\u0026amp; Endrass, J. (2017). Assessing the risk of intimate partner violence: Expert evaluations versus the Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment. \\u003cem\\u003eJournal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e17\\u003c/em\\u003e(4), 217\\u0026ndash;231. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi-org.proxy.hil.unb.ca/\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://doi-org.proxy.hil.unb.ca/\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003e10.1080/24732850.2017.1326268\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1080/24732850.2017.1326268\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eSchafers, C., Olver, M. E., \\u0026amp; Wormith, J. S. (2021). Dynamic appraisal of intimate partner violence risk and need: Results from an outpatient treatment program. \\u003cem\\u003eCriminal Justice and Behavior\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e48\\u003c/em\\u003e(4), 481\\u0026ndash;501. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820980498\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1177/0093854820980498\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eStatistics Canada. (2023a). \\u003cem\\u003eTrends in police-reported family violence and intimate partner violence in Canada, 2022\\u003c/em\\u003e. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/dailyquotidien/231121/dq231121b-eng.htm\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/dailyquotidien/231121/dq231121b-eng.htm\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eStatistics Canada. (2023b). \\u003cem\\u003ePolice personnel and expenditures in Canada, 2023\\u003c/em\\u003e. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-627-m/11-627-m2024004-eng.htm\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-627-m/11-627-m2024004-eng.htm\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eStorey, J. E., Gibas, A. L., Reeves, K. A., \\u0026amp; Hart, S. D. (2011). Evaluation of a violence risk (threat) assessment training program for police and other criminal justice professionals. \\u003cem\\u003eCriminal Justice and Behavior\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e38\\u003c/em\\u003e(6), 554\\u0026ndash;564. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0093854811403123\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1177/0093854811403123\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eStorey, J. E., Kropp, P. R., Hart, S. D., Belfrage, H., \\u0026amp; Strand, S. (2013). Assessment and management of risk for intimate partner violence by police officers using the Brief Spousal Assault Form for the evaluation of risk. \\u003cem\\u003eCriminal Justice and Behavior\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e41\\u003c/em\\u003e(2), 256\\u0026ndash;271. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0093854813503960\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1177/0093854813503960\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eSvalin, K., \\u0026amp; Levander, S. (2020). The predictive validity of intimate partner violence risk assessments conducted by practitioners in different settings-a review of the literature. \\u003cem\\u003eJournal of Police and Criminal Psychology\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e35\\u003c/em\\u003e, 115\\u0026ndash;130. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11896019-09343-4\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1007/s11896019-09343-4\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eUlmer, J. C. (2015). \\u003cem\\u003eThe Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA): A validation and comparison study for an Oregonian law enforcement agency\\u003c/em\\u003e. (Doctoral dissertation, George Fox University, 2015).\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003evan der Put, C. E., Gubbels, J., \\u0026amp; Assink, M. (2019). Predicting domestic violence: A meta analysis on the predictive validity of risk assessment tools. \\u003cem\\u003eAggression and Violent Behavior\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e47\\u003c/em\\u003e, 100\\u0026ndash;116. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2019.03.008\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1016/j.avb.2019.03.008\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eVranda, M. N., Kumar, C. N., Muralidhar, D., Janardhana, N., \\u0026amp; Sivakumar, P. T. (2018). Barriers to disclosure of intimate partner violence among female patients availing services at tertiary care psychiatric hospitals: A qualitative study. \\u003cem\\u003eJournal of Neurosciences in Rural Practice\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e9\\u003c/em\\u003e(3), 326\\u0026ndash;330. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6050765/\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6050765/\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eWomen and Gender Equality Canada (WAGE). (2022). \\u003cem\\u003eFact sheet: Intimate Partner Violence\\u003c/em\\u003e. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://www.canada.ca/en/women-gender-equality/gender-based-violence/intimate partner-violence.html\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"https://www.canada.ca/en/women-gender-equality/gender-based-violence/intimate partner-violence.html\\\" targettype=\\\"URL\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003c/ol\\u003e\"}],\"fulltextSource\":\"\",\"fullText\":\"\",\"funders\":[],\"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow\":false,\"hasManuscriptDocX\":true,\"hasOptedInToPreprint\":true,\"hasPassedJournalQc\":\"\",\"hasAnyPriority\":false,\"hideJournal\":true,\"highlight\":\"\",\"institution\":\"\",\"isAcceptedByJournal\":false,\"isAuthorSuppliedPdf\":false,\"isDeskRejected\":\"\",\"isHiddenFromSearch\":false,\"isInQc\":false,\"isInWorkflow\":false,\"isPdf\":false,\"isPdfUpToDate\":true,\"isWithdrawnOrRetracted\":false,\"journal\":{\"display\":true,\"email\":\"info@researchsquare.com\",\"identity\":\"researchsquare\",\"isNatureJournal\":false,\"hasQc\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":true,\"externalIdentity\":\"\",\"sideBox\":\"\",\"snPcode\":\"\",\"submissionUrl\":\"/submission\",\"title\":\"Research Square\",\"twitterHandle\":\"researchsquare\",\"acdcEnabled\":true,\"dfaEnabled\":false,\"editorialSystem\":\"\",\"reportingPortfolio\":\"\",\"inReviewEnabled\":false,\"inReviewRevisionsEnabled\":true},\"keywords\":\"ODARA, risk assessment, police, intimate partner violence, qualitative\",\"lastPublishedDoi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6932083/v1\",\"lastPublishedDoiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6932083/v1\",\"license\":{\"name\":\"CC BY 4.0\",\"url\":\"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/\"},\"manuscriptAbstract\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eThe Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA) is an actuarial risk assessment tool that is effective at predicting risk of recidivism by offenders in intimate partner violence cases (IPV) and has been formally adopted as a risk assessment tool by police in New Brunswick. Training and implementation of the tool across Canada is mixed, however, and previous studies have shown that officers express varying opinions as to the usefulness of the tool. Previous studies relied on archival data to assess officer use of the ODARA. The present study used qualitative semi-structured interviews with \\u003cem\\u003eN\\u0026thinsp;=\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u0026thinsp;35 officers from three municipal police organizations within New Brunswick, Canada. Five overall themes were developed using interpretative phenomenological analysis. Officers overall expressed positive (e.g., informs decision making, has legal impacts) and negative (e.g., not helpful for decision making, not sure why ODARA is being used) views toward the ODARA regarding its usefulness, impact on decision-making, as well as value or lack of value for the Crown or judges. Recommendations for improvement, insights on when officers use the ODARA and why, and views on training were also explored. Results highlight the need for intimate partner violence training and policy changes within police organizations to address police barriers to using risk assessment tools on scene, as well as concerns about the usefulness of such tools.\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"manuscriptTitle\":\"Risk Assessment and the ODARA: Police Officer Perspectives and Experiences\",\"msid\":\"\",\"msnumber\":\"\",\"nonDraftVersions\":[{\"code\":1,\"date\":\"2025-08-06 09:36:40\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6932083/v1\",\"editorialEvents\":[{\"type\":\"communityComments\",\"content\":0}],\"status\":\"published\",\"journal\":{\"display\":true,\"email\":\"info@researchsquare.com\",\"identity\":\"researchsquare\",\"isNatureJournal\":false,\"hasQc\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":true,\"externalIdentity\":\"\",\"sideBox\":\"\",\"snPcode\":\"\",\"submissionUrl\":\"/submission\",\"title\":\"Research Square\",\"twitterHandle\":\"researchsquare\",\"acdcEnabled\":true,\"dfaEnabled\":false,\"editorialSystem\":\"\",\"reportingPortfolio\":\"\",\"inReviewEnabled\":false,\"inReviewRevisionsEnabled\":true}}],\"origin\":\"\",\"ownerIdentity\":\"b5728f75-6596-4bc0-b06b-cb365c68b784\",\"owner\":[],\"postedDate\":\"August 6th, 2025\",\"published\":true,\"recentEditorialEvents\":[{\"type\":\"editorInvitedReview\",\"content\":\"\",\"date\":\"2026-05-05T09:48:02+00:00\",\"index\":25,\"fulltext\":\"\"}],\"rejectedJournal\":[],\"revision\":\"\",\"amendment\":\"\",\"status\":\"posted\",\"subjectAreas\":[],\"tags\":[],\"updatedAt\":\"2025-08-06T09:36:40+00:00\",\"versionOfRecord\":[],\"versionCreatedAt\":\"2025-08-06 09:36:40\",\"video\":\"\",\"vorDoi\":\"\",\"vorDoiUrl\":\"\",\"workflowStages\":[]},\"version\":\"v1\",\"identity\":\"rs-6932083\",\"journalConfig\":\"researchsquare\"},\"__N_SSP\":true},\"page\":\"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]\",\"query\":{\"redirect\":\"/article/rs-6932083\",\"identity\":\"rs-6932083\",\"version\":[\"v1\"]},\"buildId\":\"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7\",\"isFallback\":false,\"isExperimentalCompile\":false,\"dynamicIds\":[84888],\"gssp\":true,\"scriptLoader\":[]}","source_license":"CC-BY-4.0","license_restricted":false}