How Do I, As a Forensic Psychologist, Use the SARA-V3 to Advance Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Case Formulation and Risk Management?

The SARA-V3 explicitly encourages evaluators to move beyond static risk indicators toward case formulation and risk management planning. A critical step in that process is the intentional integration of protective factors as dynamic variables that shape intervention and supervision.

Protective factors in IPV cases may include stable employment, genuine engagement in treatment, prosocial supports, compliance with court orders, or demonstrated non-violent coping skills under stress. However, they should not be treated as offsets that “cancel out” risk. Instead, they must be evaluated dynamically and contextually. Research on protective factors in violence risk assessment, including the development of the SAPROF, demonstrates that protection functions only to the extent that it actively disrupts known risk pathways. For example, engagement in batterer intervention may reduce risk only when paired with monitoring for coercive control behaviors. This synthesis strengthens risk management recommendations and is grounded in empirical reasoning.

In practice, novice or under-trained evaluators may overvalue protective factors without sufficient attention to their context. For example, employment may function as a protective factor only when it provides structure, accountability, and social support. In contrast, employment that increases stress or unsupervised time may offer little protective value. Similarly, treatment engagement must be evaluated for what is providing the individual, not simply just attending. Attendance alone does not equate to risk reduction. Forensic psychologists must assess insight into treatment needs, demonstrated gains, behavioral accountability, and the individual’s ability to apply learned skills during periods of emotional arousal or relational conflict.

Accordingly, the protective role of any factor must be considered at the individual level rather than assumed to be generally applicable. Within an SPJ framework, protective factors are best conceptualized as mechanisms that reduce opportunities or increase the likelihood of detecting risky behavior. When protective factors are assessed and articulated in this manner, they become actionable components of risk management rather than abstract positives.

IPV does not occur in isolation. Many individuals evaluated using the SARA-V3 also present with histories of general violence. In such cases, cross-domain violence risk assessment becomes essential. Forensic psychologists frequently integrate the SARA-V3 with broader structured professional judgment tools, such as the HCR-20, to distinguish relationship-specific violence risk from a more generalized propensity for violence. This integration allows evaluators to determine whether violence is primarily situational and relational, or whether it reflects broader patterns of impulsivity, emotional dysregulation, or aggression across contexts.

The SARA-V3 may also be used in conjunction with other SPJ tools when IPV presents with unique or compounding characteristics. For example, when sexual violence, paraphilic interests, or sexually coercive behavior are evident, evaluators may incorporate instruments such as the RSVP to more fully assess risk pathways that extend beyond relational conflict. This flexible, case-responsive approach ensures that assessment strategies are tailored to the specific forms of violence under consideration rather than applied uniformly.

Importantly, discrepancies between assessment tools should not be interpreted as errors. Instead, they represent clinically meaningful data that can inform nuanced risk formulation. Elevated IPV risk alongside comparatively lower general violence risk may indicate the need for targeted, relationship-focused interventions and monitoring. In contrast, convergence across IPV-specific and general violence domains may support recommendations for more intensive containment, supervision, and treatment strategies. The evaluator’s task is not to report scores in isolation, but to translate these patterns into coherent, defensible explanations for courts and treatment providers.

Courts often struggle to interpret multiple assessment results when findings are presented without integration. Forensic psychologists therefore play a critical interpretive role by synthesizing information across tools, explaining apparent inconsistencies, and linking risk formulations to practical, case-specific recommendations. This integrative function is central to effective forensic practice and enhances the utility of violence risk assessments in legal decision making.

Complex IPV cases, those involving mutual violence allegations, same-sex relationships, cultural power dynamics, or co-occurring mental illness, test the limits of rote tool use. The SARA-V3 is particularly well-suited to these cases because it prioritizes pattern recognition, escalation trajectories, and contextual triggers over binary conclusions.

Structured professional judgment requires evaluators consider why certain risk factors are given greater weight in each case. For example, past violations of protective orders may carry different implications depending on motivation and behavioral patterns. Similarly, substance use may function as a disinhibitor in some cases and as a peripheral factor in others. The SARA-V3 is not designed to function as a checklist in which risk is determined by whether individual items are simply endorsed as present or absent; rather, it requires evaluators to interpret the meaning, relevance, and interaction of endorsed items within a structured clinical judgment framework.

Effective application of the SARA-V3 in complex cases also depends on a trajectory-based approach to risk. Rather than focusing on isolated incidents, forensic psychologists examine sequences of behavior over time, including escalation patterns, reconciliation cycles, and changes in violence. This approach is particularly important in cases involving mutual allegations, where distinguishing between situational violence and patterned coercion is essential.

Collateral and contextual information is central to this process. The SARA-V3 directs evaluators to integrate data from multiple sources, such as police records, court documents, medical and mental health records, and collateral interviews, to contextualize or corroborate self-report and identify patterns that may not be evident in a single data stream.

A common misapplication of risk assessments is treating them as static determinations rather than dynamic tools. The SARA-V3 is designed to support ongoing risk monitoring, making it especially useful.

IPV risk is rarely stable. Relationship status changes, substance use patterns fluctuate, treatment engagement waxes and wanes, and stressors, such as custody disputes or housing instability, can alter risk trajectories. The SARA-V3 allows evaluators to track these shifts by re-evaluating dynamic risk factors over time. Re-assessment using the SARA-V3 can help determine whether risk for future IPV is escalating, stabilizing, or diminishing, and whether management strategies remain adequate. Importantly, changes in risk should be interpreted in relation to specific conditions rather than as global improvement or deterioration.

As forensic psychologists, evaluators must also remain cautious not to equate short-term behavioral compliance with sustained risk reduction. Temporary calm may reflect avoidance, external containment, or situational constraints rather than meaningful internal change. The SARA-V3 supports evaluators in distinguishing between superficial compliance and deeper shifts that are more relevant to long-term risk.

When used longitudinally, the SARA-V3 strengthens communication across systems by providing a shared framework for assessing change. This consistency improves care, supervision decisions, and helps courts understand why modifications to intervention and supervision may be warranted even in the absence of new criminal charges.

A defining strength of the SARA-V3 is its recognition that IPV risk is relational. Assessing victim vulnerability does not mean assigning blame; it means identifying conditions that increase exposure to harm, inform safety planning, and guide system-level interventions. 

Victim vulnerability factors refer to characteristics or circumstances that may influence a victim’s capacity to engage in effective self-protective behavior. These factors may include social isolation, dependency, immigration status, prior trauma exposure, or limited access to financial, legal, or community resources. Forensic psychologists play a critical role in ensuring that such variables are identified and incorporated into risk formulations without pathologizing victims or undermining their credibility.

Incorporating victim vulnerability into IPV risk formulation allows evaluators to generate actionable, safety-oriented recommendations. These may include support for protective orders, targeted referrals, and supervision conditions that address both perpetrator behavior and victim safety. Importantly, IPV risk does not reside solely within the individual who uses violence; it emerges within relational, situational, and systemic contexts that shape opportunity, exposure, and escalation.

Forensic psychologists must therefore use clear and precise language that distinguishes vulnerability from culpability, particularly in legal settings where victim credibility may already be subject to scrutiny. When assessed and articulated appropriately, victim vulnerability enhances the practical utility of IPV risk evaluations by informing individualized safety planning, supervision strategies, and referral decisions. This approach also assists courts in understanding why specific protective measures are necessary, proportionate, and responsive to the realities of the case.

The SARA-V3 was developed for the realities of IPV cases, which rarely conform to simple explanations or single-domain risk models. Its clinical value does not lie in item counts or categorical labels, but in its ability to organize complex information into a coherent risk formulation. When used as intended, the SARA-V3 functions as a structured reasoning framework that helps guide evaluators to assess the likelihood, imminence, and severity of future violence while remaining attentive to the relevance of various contexts, change over time, and intervention.

Effective application of the SARA-V3 requires disciplined clinical judgment. This includes evaluating how risk and protective factors operate within specific relationships, integrating findings across assessment tools, attending to escalation trajectories, and incorporating victim vulnerability into safety-oriented recommendations. It structures professional judgment, allowing evaluators to move beyond checklist-driven conclusions toward case-specific risk management.

For forensic psychologists who are seeking to advance their expertise in IPV assessment, mastery of the SARA-V3 lies in synthesis rather than administration. When embedded within a structured professional judgment framework, the SARA-V3 enables evaluations that are empirically informed, ethically grounded, and practically useful to courts, supervision agencies, and treatment providers navigating the nuanced realities of intimate partner violence.

Training

• Violence Risk Assessment Certificate
• Evaluation of Risk for Intimate Partner Violence with the SARA-V3
• SARA Research Update
• Foundations of Violence Risk Assessment and Management
• Advanced Issues in the Assessment of Risk for Violence: Formulation
• B-SAFER
• Stalking Assessment and Management Guidelines (SAM) Overview
• Forensic Case Formulation and Treatment Planning

Blog Posts

• An Introduction to Violence Risk Assessments
• Intimate Partner Violence (SARA-V3 & B-SAFER-2)
• The Relationships Between Psychopathy, Alcohol Use, and Intimate Partner Violence
• ODARA + SARA = Prediction of Intimate Partner Violence and General Criminal Recidivism - CONCEPT Professional Training
• Support for the option of alternative dispute resolution for cases reporting high levels of intimate partner violence
• Behaviorally Specific Detailed Assessment Tools Uncover More Intimate Partner Violence Victimization