Risk assessment and interventions for victims of domestic abuse: consultation response analysis

Question 3: Risk Assessment

The third question in this consultation asked:

In your view, what is the best model for professionals assessing risk in relation to domestic abuse?

Responses to this question broadly covered the same 3 themes that we saw with the previous question:

1. Key characteristics that the risk assessment model should have

2. Key components that the risk assessment model should have

3. Examples of named risk assessment tools and models

It was noted within the responses that the aims of the risk assessment should be established at the outset, since the kind of harm that assessment is aiming to prevent should direct the form that it takes.

This corresponds to a query that was also raised about the consultation more broadly – whether only interventions for those deemed to be at high risk from domestic abuse were within the scope of the consultation. Responses suggest that this was generally assumed to be the case, although as this report reflects, comments were also given about responses for those deemed to be at lower risk.

1. Key characteristics that the risk assessment model should have

National

There was strong support for a single domestic abuse risk assessment approach and tool being used by service providers across Scotland, to promote consistency, collaboration and shared understanding. It was noted that this should include clear guidelines on thresholds – the point at which given actions should be taken. Some responses supported national use of an existing tool, while others suggested a new tool be developed. One suggestion was to connect a nationally endorsed approach to the provision of Scottish Government grants.

Flexible

However, as with comments on appropriate models of multi-agency working, a need for flexibility in terms of risk assessment models was also highlighted.

Some suggested that while some consistency of approach would be helpful, sector-specific risk assessment tools would be more appropriate and that it may be more helpful to endorse a number of different tools which could be selected from according to the context in which they are to be used. Some comments suggested that different but related tools are currently being used successfully alongside one another by different organisations in the same area.

Allows for professional judgement

Responses highlighted a desire for the risk assessment model to allow for the use of professional judgement by those with understanding of domestic abuse, noting that this is key to effective assessment, and that any tools should be considered a useful guide. SafeLives noted that their own approach and training promotes the use of ‘structured professional judgement’.

Identifies those at highest risk

It was suggested that the model should aim to identify those who are at highest risk from domestic abuse, both of homicide and other serious harm.

Duty of care

Some comments emphasised a need to underpin risk assessment with the principle of ‘duty of care’, or the duty to prevent harm. It was emphasised that this must include all harm, not only physical but also psychological and emotional.

Understanding of barriers to disclosure

Responses noted the need for risk assessment approaches to consider the barriers that victims face in speaking up about their abuse, such as fear of reprisal or doubt that they will be believed.

Regularly reviewed and updated

Comments suggested regular reviews and improvements be made to the risk assessment model and tools.

2. Key components that the risk assessment model should have

Continuous and responsive risk assessment

Comments highlighted a demand for risk assessment to be continuous and responsive to changes in the victim’s circumstances and need, on the understanding that risk can change quickly.

Consideration of past abuse

Some responses noted that it is important that risk assessments include abuse that the perpetrator has committed in the past.

Consideration of abuse other than physical

There was a strong demand in responses for risk assessment to take full account of non-physical abuse, such as all aspects of coercive control including coercion of children, and the pattern of behaviour. Some responses indicated that non-physical abuse should in fact be given greater weight, since research has shown it to be a more effective indicator of homicide and other harm. It was also emphasised, however, in understanding that non-physical abuse can be just as harmful as physical abuse, that risk assessments should also focus on preventing psychological and emotional harm as much as homicide or other physical harm. One response suggested the model should be underpinned by a ‘psychological formulation approach.’

Consideration of animal abuse

The Scottish SPCA suggested that risk assessment should also assess for risk of harm to animals, as well as ensuring that any previous harm to animals which is identified is referred to appropriate animal welfare organisations.

Consideration of potential breaches of safety measures

It was suggested that risk assessment should encompass consideration of the likelihood and potential impact of any breaches to the safety measures that are put in place to promote victims’ safety, and include mitigations.

Self-assessment

Responses noted that victims’ self-assessment of risk has been found to be an important part of effective assessment of risk of harm, and that it would be useful to include this in the risk assessment model(s) used.

Separate risk assessments for children and young people

Several respondents proposed that there is a need for separate risk assessments for children and young people involved in cases of domestic abuse. Responses suggested that the risk faced by children and young people cannot be accurately gauged by a risk assessment focused on an adult who is considered the primary victim of the abuse.

Screening for perpetrators presenting as victims

Some responses suggested that risk assessment models should include screening for perpetrators who might be presenting as victims. The importance of information sharing between partners was highlighted in this respect.

Conducted away from perpetrators

The importance of not conducting risk assessments in close proximity to perpetrators was highlighted.

Corroboration of claims

It was suggested by some respondents that risk assessment should include investigation adequate to corroborate claims of domestic abuse, and that risk assessment should be based on more than one source. One response suggested that sometimes false or exaggerated accusations of domestic abuse can be made with the intention of restricting a parent’s access to their children.

Conducted by staff in a range of public services

Some responses suggested that there should be staff in a range of public services who are trained to conduct risk assessments (and to make appropriate referrals). It was felt that this was important to facilitate early intervention. One comment suggested that a shorter version of the Dash Checklist be considered, in light of the fact that staff in public services are also required to conduct a range of other risk assessments.

Conducted by professionals who work with domestic abuse

Other responses suggested that risk assessments should be conducted by specialist domestic abuse workers, in the context of an ongoing relationship, based on research showing that disclosure can be more forthcoming and risk assessments more accurate in this case. It was proposed that perhaps initial risk assessments conducted within other service organisations could be followed up by another conducted by a specialist. Some Women’s Aid organisations reflected their experiences of this, such as:

‘… until the introduction of the GDPR advocacy workers at Perthshire Women’s Aid were receiving the contact details of women who had been assessed as Medium Risk as well as those assessed as High Risk. The benefit of this was the women assessed by the police as Medium risk were offered support by a specialist domestic abuse worker who were then able to continue to make an assessment of risk which resulted in a number of them then being reassessed as high risk without any further escalation and appropriate support was able to be put in place.’

– Perthshire Women's Aid

Support and supervision for those conducting risk assessments

Some comments noted the importance of ensuring that both support and supervision is given to staff conducting these risk assessments. This was differently framed as important to ensure that risk assessments are conducted properly, and to ensure that staff wellbeing is monitored and upheld.

3. Examples of named risk assessment tools and models

Many responses to this question endorsed the use of a risk assessment tool. Others also mentioned models that the risk assessment should be based on. Many responses recommended more than one, and suggestion was made that an audit be conducted to find out which tools, and where, are currently in use across Scotland. A need for further research and review of existing tools to ensure their effectiveness was also put forward (with one suggestion that Scottish Women’s Aid should lead on this).

One comment emphasised that risk indicators should not be confused with risk assessments, which are more comprehensive.

The named risk assessment tools and models mentioned in responses were:

SafeLives Dash Risk Identification Checklist

Overall, responses indicated strong support for the SafeLives Dash Risk Identification Checklist. Responses indicated that its benefits include:

• Specific to domestic abuse
• Risk-led
• Easy to use
• Useful for training new staff
• Evidence-based
• Captures a broad spectrum of abuse
• Captures additional intersectional risk factors, such as those faced by disabled, LGB or immigrant victims
• Facilitates discussion with victims
• Can be used by a variety of professionals
• Allows for use of professional judgement
• Enables identification of victims at high risk of homicide or serious harm
• Indicates appropriate actions and ensures that victims get help at the right time
• A common tool that can be used by partner organisations across the UK, to ensure standardisation and shared language
• Well-established
• Embedded in the criminal justice response to domestic abuse in Glasgow

‘The Safe Lives DASH risk check list is widely accepted and understood and has been developed over a period of time. The consideration of professional judgement is rightly [an] important element in the risk assessment ensuring that the score in relation to the clients answers is not the only criteria used.’

– Perth & Kinross Violence Against Women Partnership

Responses also highlighted some potential drawbacks with the tool, such as:

• It may not take adequate account of the risk posed by coercive control, which some research has shown to be a significant risk indicator
• It does not properly take historical abuse into account
• It does not account for additional risks faced by those with protected characteristics, including minority ethnic women, or those with additional support needs
• It could better enable consideration of children
• It could usefully facilitate the inclusion of greater detail, by requiring expanded rather than yes/no answers
• It is more effective used in the context of an established relationship with a support or advocacy worker, where disclosure may be more likely
• Experience is required to ensure that victims feel safe when responding
• Results are affected by whether or not professionals completing the checklist employ their professional judgement
• Relies on adequate training and understanding of domestic abuse
• Self-assessment may not be appropriately weighted

There was also mention of other non-specified tools produced by SafeLives.

Domestic Abuse Questionnaire

Responses indicated that the Police currently use the Domestic Abuse Questionnaire, which includes 3 more questions than the Dash Checklist. It was noted that being based on the Dash facilitates partnership working with organisations that use the Dash, but some responses were concerned that the additional 3 questions could lead to inconsistency. Police Scotland themselves commented that:

‘Police Scotland continue to support use of the DAQ but would welcome further discussion on the balance of their 27 questions compared to the 24 identical ones used by other areas … The domestic abuse reporting template that Police Scotland utilises in agreement with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) which seeks to improve the criminal justice response to domestic abuse also includes the indication of risk as a result of DAQ. The template is regarded as good practice by Police Scotland and COPFS and deviation from use of the DAQ would impact on that practice.’

– Police Scotland

College of Policing tool

Some responses mentioned a new tool piloted by the College of Policing in 2018, which included a greater focus on coercive control and was initially found to be more effective than the Dash Checklist in certain respects.

Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide

The Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide (SARA) was mentioned as a tool used for perpetrators of domestic abuse, including within criminal justice settings.

Specialist Risk Assessment Reports

Relationships Scotland highlighted Specialist Risk Assessment Reports as an effective means of assessing risk of harm to children as well as adult victims. They noted that these draw on multiple sources of information, including the victim, and recommend wider use and evaluation of these reports.

Safe and Together

A number of responses to this question highlighted the Safe and Together approach, with mention of questions used in Safe and Together assessment, and many suggested that this be integrated with the Dash Checklist. Safe and Together aims to promote the safety of children and young people living with domestic abuse in partnership with the non-perpetrating parent.