The Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence, a U.S.-based non-governmental advocacy program, developed the Lethality Assessment Program [LAP]. This widely used LAP directs police officers to utilize, at the scene of an incident, a structured screening tool to help them identify intimate partner violence [IPV] victims at higher risk of severe injury or homicide and to immediately connect these higher-risk victims to a local domestic violence service hotline where a staff member will assist them in creating a safety plan and connecting to services. This presentation will report the critical outcomes produced by a U.S. Department of Justice-sponsored evaluation program. Four police forces responded to 9,765 IPV incidents that met the evaluation team’s selection criteria during a two-year evaluation period. Using law enforcement records and longitudinal victim interviews, this presentation will rely on multivariate data analyses that separately contrasts the 1,772 female-victim-index cases screened and connected to the DV hotline with the 2,526 victims who received less of the program and the 2,196 victims not screened by the police. Key outcomes include the timing and frequency of new offense by the perpetrator and recorded by the police, and victims’ reports of further aggression by this perpetrator within the first six months.

Bystanders are individuals who are not directly involved in intimate partner violence (IPV), but by their presence or awareness have the ability to intervene. According to the social role theory, men and women tend to differ in intervention behaviors as a result of gender role expectations. While vignette studies indicate women generally report a greater likelihood to intervene in IPV, less is known about factors that influence bystanders’ reporting of IPV in real-life cases. This study aims to provide insight in the aspects that influence intervention by reporting IPV, and to what extent gender plays a role in this. We conducted file research at “Veilig Thuis” [Safe at Home] in the Netherlands, a domestic violence agency where bystanders can report IPV anonymously or non-anonymously. Using a qualitative approach, we analyzed reports of IPV by bystanders between 2019 and 2020 (N=110) to examine the reasons among men and women to report IPV (anonymously). The majority of reports were made by women, who often reported anonymously. Reasons to report included concerns about safety and fear of escalation, especially when children were involved. Anonymous reporting was especially relevant for bystanders who feared for their safety or who were afraid of losing contact.

The limited freedom of movement, social isolation, and potential financial insecurities as a consequence of the implemented COVID-19 measures may have led to an increased risk of domestic violence. In addition, existing risk factors for domestic violence perpetration and victimization are potentially amplified during times of crisis. The aim of this study is to provide in-depth insight in the circumstances under which domestic violence occurs and how the pandemic may have exacerbated these circumstances. File research was conducted at one of the official domestic violence agencies (“Safe at Home”) in the Netherlands. A total of 174 domestic violence cases were selected by using a stratified sample based on year, period, reporter, and nature of domestic violence. The cases were analysed using a qualitative approach. The first preliminary results suggest that both direct (e.g., quarantine) and indirect consequences (e.g., fear of contamination) of the COVID-19 measures may function as a catalyst of domestic violence. In addition, the measures have had a great impact on assistance provided to individuals involved in domestic violence cases, increasing the risk for domestic violence to continue.

In many Western countries, batterers’ interventions have been developed in an attempt to reduce intimate partner violence (IPV). In the Netherlands, one of the court-mandated batterers’ intervention is called ‘BORG’. BORG is an intervention for convicted perpetrators of IPV, developed and executed by the Dutch Parole and Probation Service. BORG typically consists of twelve group sessions and three individual start and evaluation sessions. The intervention entails both feminist psychoeducational and cognitive behavioral components. The current study examined the effectiveness of the BORG in terms of domestic violence reconviction rates and explored possible success and failure factors of the BORG. First, using judicial data and survival analysis, the reconviction rate of 421 BORG-participants was compared to the reconviction rate of comparable convicted IPV-offenders. The intervention and control group were matched on several offender, criminal case and criminal career characteristics (e.g., age, type of IPV, type of punishment, number of prior criminal cases). Second, thirteen interviews were held with former BORG-participants. The quantitative results showed that domestic violence reconviction rates did not differ significantly between BORG-participants and the control group. The results from the interviews revealed several possible success and failure factors of the intervention.