4601 Presidents Drive, Suite 370 | Lanham, MD 20706 | 301-429-

3601 |

Volume 5, Number 1 May 2015

Link

For national participants in MNADV’s

Lethality Assessment Program—Maryland Model

A periodic newsletter to update Lethality Assessment Program (LAP) participants throughout the country on events, reports, best practices, and other significant actions occurring in participating jurisdictions related to implementation of the LAP.

UPDATE: Trainings

Since our last published LAP Link in October, we’ve quadrupled our training count of the current OVW award from 2 to 8!

The following are the trainings we completed in fall 2014 and spring of 2015:

Three of these sites—Milwaukee, St. Clair , and Franklin Counties—are the first LAP-implementing jurisdictions in their

respective states! All together, we’ve trained 71 law enforcement agencies and 11 domestic violence service programs

across eight states on this award, affecting a total population of more than 3.5 million people.

Grand Forks County, ND

Chittenden County, VT (Burlington)

Milwaukee County, WI

Putnam, Cumberland, and White Counties, TN

Franklin County, OH (Columbus)

Buncombe and Davidson Counties, NC

Fairfax County, VA

St. Clair County, IL

4 agencies, 1 program

11 agencies, 1 program

20 agencies, 1 program

8 agencies, 2 programs

19 agencies, 1 program

6 agencies, 2 programs

1 agency, 2 programs

2 agencies, 1 program

ABOVE: Fairfax County, VA, is the

biggest jurisdiction to be trained

on the current award, with more

than 1300 officers serving more

than 1 million residents.

RIGHT: Buncombe County Sheriff’s

Office gave the MNADV trainers

deputy hats as parting gifts!

4601 Presidents Drive, Suite 370 | Lanham, MD 20706 | 301-429-3601

ABOVE: The small but mighty team

of the St. Clair County Sheriff’s

Department, Freeburg PD, and the

Violence Prevention Center

constitute the first LAP site in the

state of Illinois.

RIGHT: Our bulletin board of

patches continues to grow, with 71

law enforcement agencies trained

in just 8 months!

FEATURED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE: Data Collection As you may know, 100+ law enforcement agencies and 20 domestic violence service programs across the state of

Maryland send us their “LAP data” every year. This data is important for everyone, not just our Maryland partners, as it

allows MNADV to track trends in the rates of Screen administration, High-Danger assessments, victim communication with

hotline advocates, and ongoing service utilization. We then use the cumulative averages to help non-implementing and

newly-implementing communities know what to expect (for example, increased hotline call volume). We are also able to

help veteran LAP jurisdictions compare their implementation effectiveness against established fidelity measures.

While not mandatory, we strongly

encourage national sites to collect and

submit data to us. As a part of our cost-free

technical assistance, we provide

constructive feedback to sites about what

their data tells us about the strength and

coordination of collaborating partners. If

your site is not currently collecting data, to

the left are the data points for which

MNADV has benchmarks.

If you would like a Sample Data Spreadsheet for

tracking data, e-mail Abby at

ahannifan@mnadv.org. If you are already

collecting data, please send it to us! We are

especially interested in other data you may

collect—do you keep track of which services

High-Danger victims tend to use? How often High

-Danger victims need shelter? Which Lethality

Screen questions are answered “yes” most

often? Please share with us what you’ve learned!

UPDATE: Defining “Services”

In January MNADV hosted a webinar to clarify how we define and track the “services” a High-Danger victim may take

advantage of as a part of the LAP. As you read above, one of the data points we collect is the “service utilization rate”—

the percentage of High-Danger victims who spoke to a hotline advocate during the law-enforcement-referred hotline

call who further engage with the program.

In short, for the purposes of the LAP, a High-Danger victim who “goes into services” means that the victim took self-

initiated action to avail him or herself of the protective services of the LAP-implementing domestic violence service

program (DVSP). “Services,” then, include: Received non-residential, in-person services from the DVSP.

Participated in non-residential services via telephone with a DVSP advocate at the victim’s initiation which includes substantive,

continued communication usually but not necessarily over a prolonged period of time, and without ever physically going in to the

program’s facilities for services.

Went into shelter.

Petitioned for a protective order at court with the pre-arranged assistance of a DVSP advocate as a result of a connection made

via the LAP.

“Service utilization,” then, would become LAP data if the following variables are true: The victim had not previously availed him or herself of the DVSP’s services within a year of the LAP call with the hotline;

The victim told the program that s/he went into services as the result of the LAP protocol; OR

The victim had previously spoken with the DVSP, but after the administration of the LAP Screen, the victim escalated his/her

involvement with the DVSP by taking one or multiple of the actions listed above.

We regularly hear from our national partners that the LAP allows them to reach victims their programs have never seen

before. By tracking patterns in service utilization, your program will be able to think more critically about how well your

services are reaching High-Danger victims. You will also be able to share success stories with your law enforcement

partners in an anonymized way.

If you would like a copy of the “Services Definition” PowerPoint or the webinar recording, please e-mail Abby at ahannifan@mnadv.org.

Volume 5, Number 1 | Page 2 May 2015

For national participants in MNADV’s Lethality Assessment Program—Maryland Model

This project was supported by Grant No. 2011-TA-AX-K111 awarded by the Office on Violence Against Women, U.S. Department of Justice. The opin-ions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women.

LAP Fidelity Measures From data collected in Maryland between 2006-2013

Total # of Lethality Screens administered (per population)

1 Screen / 432 people in a law enforcement agency’s service population

% of total Screens are High-Danger Screens

53% of Screens administered are High-Danger

% of total Screens are non-High-Danger Screens

39% of Screens administered are non-High Danger

% of total Screens in which the victim does not/cannot answer

8% of Screens administered are “do not answer,” or DNA

% of High-Danger victims who speak with the hotline advocate

55% of High-Danger victims agree to speak with a hotline advocate

% of High-Danger victims who speak with an advocate who

further engage with the DVSP’s services

31% of High-Danger victims who speak with an advocate seek services

LAP Link |