Table of Contents
Introduction to Spousal Assault Risk Assessment
The Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA) by Kropp, Hart, Webster & Eaves (1995) is used to assess the risk of intimate partner violence. Their tool recognizes that intimate partner violence may occur without regard to gender (male on female, female on male, female on female, male on male, and any other combination including trans and non-binary individuals), marital status (married and commonlaw individuals may engage in intimate partner violence), and does not necessarily require physical injury.
What follows is a brief summary of how to administer and score the SARA. More comprehensive information can be found in the manual itself. The SARA may be administered by minimally trained individuals up to Forensic Psychologists and Psychiatrists.
The SARA is comprised of 20 items that to provide a framework of historic, static and dynamic risk factors that have been shown to increase risk.
Information Required Prior to Assessment
All available sources of information should be consulted before completing the SARA. This should include:
- Interviews with both the accused/perpetrator and the victim/survivor(s) with a goal of collecting the SARA items
- Standard measures for substance abuse (drugs and alcohol), personality, and IQ if available; the SARA manual recommends the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (MAST) by Seltzer (1971) for alcohol, and the Drug Abuse Screening Test (Skinner, 1982) for drugs, and the Personality Assessment Inventory by Morey (1991) for personality
- Police reports, court documents, criminal records, etc.
- Interviews with relatives or children who may have been exposed to abuse
- Interview with probation officers
Coding
All items in the SARA are scored based on a 3-point scale:
- 0 = Absent
- 1 = Subthreshold
- 2 = Present
If there is not enough to code an item, it should be excluded, not coded as absent. For instance, if there is no information to confirm or deny a current substance abuse issue, this should be left blank and noted, not assumed to be absent.
Critical Items
Some items are considered critical items – if these are present then it is enough to assume that potential/actual victims are at risk. These items are coded on a 2-point scale:
- 0 = Absent
- 1 = Present
These items are chosen as critical items based on the evaluator’s judgement.
Summarizing Risk
The result of a risk assessment will usually address two issues:
- Is there risk to the partner?
- Is there risk to children/non-spouse/others?
This summary is coded on a 3-point scale,
- 1 = Low
- 2 = Moderate
- 3 = High
Communicating Risk
Writing a risk assessment is outside the scope of this article but you may see the original guide for more detailed information or my blog post about documenting suicide risk assessments for more information.
Assessment Items and Risk Management
For more detailed rating criteria please consult the original guide. The coding has been omitted from this table in appreciation for the original author’s copyright.
Item Name | Coding | Risk Management Strategies |
1 – Past Assault of Family Members | Intensive supervision or monitoring | |
2 – Past Assault of Strangers or Acquaintances | Intensive supervision or monitoring | |
3 – Past Violation of Conditional Release or Community Supervision | Intensive supervision or monitoring | |
4 – Recent Relationship Problems | Interpersonal treatment (individual or group)
Legal advice or dispute resolution Vocational counselling |
|
5 – Recent Employment Problems | Interpersonal treatment (individual or group)
Vocational counselling |
|
6 – Victim of and/or Witness to Family Violence as a Child or Adolescent | None given in guide;Interpersonal treatment (individual or group) | |
7 – Recent Substance Abuse/Dependence | Court-ordered abstinence, drug testing
Alcohol/drug treatment |
|
8 – Recent Suicidal or Homicidal Ideation/Intent | Crisis counselling
Hospitalization Psychotropic medication Court-ordered weapons restrictions |
|
9 – Recent Psychotic or Manic Symptoms | Crisis counselling
Hospitalization Psychotropic medication Court-ordered weapons restrictions |
|
10 – Personality Disorder with Anger, Impulsivity or Behavioural Instability | Intensive supervision
Long-term individual therapy Group treatment Psycho-education |
|
11 – Past Physical Assault | None given in guide;
Intensive supervision or monitoring |
|
12 – Past Sexual Assaut/Sexual Jealousy | None given in guide;
Intensive supervision or monitoring Long-term individual therapy |
|
13 – Past Use of Weapons and/or Credible Threats of Death | None given in guide;
Court-ordered weapons restrictions |
|
14 – Recent Escalation in Frequency or Severity of Assault | None given in guide; | |
15 – Past Violations of “No Contact” Orders | Intensive supervision or monitoring | |
16 – Extreme Minimization or Denial of Spousal Assault History | Intensive supervision
Long-term individual therapy Group treatment Psycho-education |
|
17 – Attitudes That Condone or Support Spousal Assault | Intensive supervision
Long-term individual therapy Group treatment Psycho-education |
|
18 – Severe and/or Sexual Assault | None given in guide; long-term individual therapy | |
19 – Use of Weapons and/or Credible Threats of Death | None given in guide; long-term individual therapy
Court-ordered weapons restrictions
|
|
20 – Violation of “No Contact” order | Intensive supervision or monitoring |
Other Considerations
The SARA manual indicates a number of other risk factors which may be factored into the assessment at the expert judgement of the evaluator. Examples of these include:
- Current emotional crisis
- History of torturing or disfiguring intimate partners
- Victim or witness of political persecution, torture, or violence
- Sexual sadism
- Easy access to firearms
- Stalking
- Recent loss of social support network
Bibliography
Kropp, PR., Hart, S.D., Webster, C.D. & Eaves, D. (1995) Manual for the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide, 2nd ed., The British Columbia Institute Against Family Violence.
Morey, L.C. (1991) Personality Assessment Inventory Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Selzer, M. (1971) The Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test: The quest for a new diagnostic instrument. American Journal of Psychiatry, 127. 1653-1658.
Skinner, H.A. (1982) The Drug Abuse Screening Test. Addictive Behaviour. 7, 363-371.
when questioning the validity of the assessment. I am struggling to find a determination on what is considered “recent” when referring to points 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 & 14.
What time frame would be considered recent. In the past 3 months, 6 months, 12months, 18 months, 2 years?
My concern is, if left open to interpretation or self determination of what “recent” is. A person who was considered a high risk of lethality, having spent 18months seeing a psych or doing rehabilitation programs, being heavily monitored will still be considered that very same risk.
I would greatly appreciate the clarification.
Kind Regards,
Hi Teagan,
Thanks for reaching out. The SARA is now in its third edition which clarifies the recent definitions. Unfortunately I believe I’ve lost my copy of the SARA2 manual and don’t have access to the SARA3 manual so I can’t say how soon they think “recent” should be defined as. If you find out, let us know!
Dustin