Domestic violence, sexual violence, stalking, and strangulation are pervasive crimes in communities worldwide, and the complexity and volume of such cases can present significant challenges to police agencies and the communities they serve.1
The landscape of policing is constantly evolving. Given this dynamic context, an agency self-assessment and accompanying community assessment are useful tools for thinking critically about current practices, identifying areas of strength, and discerning opportunities to update and enhance services. Information gleaned from newly released IACP assessments enables law enforcement leaders to candidly and thoughtfully evaluate their practices and policies to create stronger responses to domestic violence, sexual violence, stalking, and strangulation.
While individuals of any gender or sexual orientation can experience gender-based violence, women and sexual or gender minorities experience the highest rates of gender-based violence.2 More than one-third of adult women in the United States have experienced sexual violence, physical violence, stalking, or a combination of these crimes by an intimate partner at some point in their lives.3 Over half of all homicides of adult women in the United States are related to intimate partner violence, and more than three-quarters were preceded by the victims being stalked by the person who killed them.4 Strangulation is a particularly grave indicator of future lethality in intimate partner violence.5 For victims who have previously been strangled by an intimate partner, the risk that they will be killed by that partner in the future increases sevenfold.6
Agency and Community Assessments
In November 2020, the IACP released an agency self-assessment and several other accompanying resources that agencies can use to evaluate their responses to and investigations of domestic violence, sexual violence, stalking, and strangulation. These tools were developed as part of the Enhancing Community Trust: Proactive Approaches to Domestic and Sexual Violence project, funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women. As part of this project, six pilot agencies (Arlington Police Department, Texas; Central Bucks Regional Police Department, Pennsylvania; Duluth Police Department, Minnesota; Gainesville Police Department, Florida; Laramie Police Department, Wyoming; and Mansfield Police Department, Massachusetts) tested and provided feedback on these tools.
| Table 1: Overview of Assessments | |
| Agency Self-Assessment | Community Assessment |
|
Comprehensive internal assessment with 77 multiple choice and open-ended questions |
Community assessment with 23 open-ended questions for gathering qualitative information from external organizations |
|
Sections: I. Policies & Practices II. Hiring & Promotion Practices III. Training IV. Data Collection & Analysis V. Culture & Accountability VI. Collaboration |
Sections: I. Organization & Community Background II. Collaboration III. Community Confidence |
The agency self-assessment and a community assessment were developed so that agencies can both internally and externally assess their responses to and investigations of these crimes. Together, these assessments are intended to assist agencies in comprehensively reviewing and evaluating their current policies and practices related to domestic violence, sexual violence, stalking, and strangulation.
Given the comprehensive nature of this process and the many competing priorities of police agencies, the assessments were designed so that agencies can complete these assessments one section at a time. This enables agencies to be strategic and set target dates for completing each section of the agency self-assessment. In addition, the community assessment creates a structured process that invites feedback from community-based organizations, agencies, and individuals who provide support, services, advocacy, and resources to victims.
With regular review of policies and practices, agencies can lead the charge with a proactive approach that better equips agency members to support victims, hold offenders accountable, and increase public trust.
Notes:
1For the purposes of this document, an “intimate partner” is generally defined as a person with whom one has a close personal relationship that could involve ongoing contact, emotional connection, sexual behavior, identity as dating partners, and/or familiarity with each other’s lives, such as current or former spouses, boyfriends, girlfriends, dating partners, or sexual partners. For the purposes of this document, status as an intimate partner is not dependent upon marital status or cohabitation. The legal definition of an intimate partner may vary by jurisdiction; agency representatives should make themselves aware of applicable legal definitions in their area and consider those in the development/revision of any related policy; Matthew J. Breiding et al., Intimate Partner Violence Surveillance Uniform Definitions and Recommended Data Elements (Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2015); Sharon G. Smith et al., The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010-2012 State Report (Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2017); Nick Breul and Mike Keith, 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 (U.S. Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services and National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, 2016).
2“Sexual or gender minorities” generally refers to individuals who identify as members of LGBTQ+ communities, including but not limited to those who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, gender nonconforming, queer, and intersex; Smith et al., The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS); Mikel L. Walters, Jieru Chen, and Matthew J. Breiding, The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 Findings on Victimization by Sexual Orientation (Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2013); Matthew J. Breiding, Jieru Chen, and Michele C. Black, Domestic/Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010 (Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2014); Michele C. Black et al., The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 Summary Report (Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2011); Callie Marie Rennison, Rape and Sexual Assault: Reporting to Police and Medical Attention, 1992–2000 (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002); Shannan Catalano, Intimate Partner Violence: Attributes of Victimization, 1993–2011 (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2013); Michael Planty et al., Female Victims of Sexual Violence, 1994-2010 (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2013).
3Black et al., The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey.
4Emiko Petrosky et al., “Racial and Ethnic Differences in Homicides of Adult Women and the Role of Intimate Partner Violence – United States, 2003–2014,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 66, no. 28 (July 21, 2017): 741–746; Judith M. McFarlane et al., “Stalking and Intimate Partner Femicide,” Homicide Studies 3, no. 4 (November 1999): 300-316. The co-occurrence of stalking and intimate partner violence is widely recognized among experts from the field, and many risk and lethality assessment tools include questions about stalking behaviors of offenders. However, the specific connection between stalking and femicide is limited in current research due to the challenges that researchers have in gaining access to comprehensive risk factors in recent femicides.
5Gael Strack and Casey Gwinn, “Strangulation and Domestic Violence: The Edge of Homicide,” Domestic Violence Report 19, no. 6 (August/September 2014): 81, 90, 93.
6Nancy Glass et al., “Non-fatal Strangulation Is an Important Risk Factor for Homicide of Women,” Journal of Emergency Medicine 35, no. 3 (October 2008): 329–335.
Please cite as
Audrey Eisemann, “IACP@Work: Assessing Responses to Gender-Based Violence,” Police Chief 88, no.1 (January 2021): 66–67.
