Domestic Violence Risk Assessments: Tools, Not Crystal Balls

Risk assessments  in domestic and family violence are designed to guide and inform decision-making. When used carefully, they enable practitioners to uncover underlying issues. However, without competence or context, they risk misdirection, missing the target, or providing false security.

As many will know, domestic violence seldom starts with physical injuries or a police call. It typically begins more subtly, with a pattern that gradually escalates and can be difficult to detect until it becomes pervasive or critical. So, how can we foresee what might happen next? More importantly, how do we respond to it?

This is where domestic violence (DV) risk assessments come into play. These tools assist professionals in understanding complex situations. They are utilised by police, courts, social workers, and healthcare providers to assess the likelihood of someone reoffending, escalating, or causing severe harm. While these tools are beneficial, they are not flawless.

Risk assessments can inform decisions but do not guarantee outcomes.

What We're Getting Right

Many of today's widely used tools, such as the ODARA, SARA, and the Danger Assessment, have been utilised for several years and been subject to various degrees of empirical testing and research. They have undeniably brought order to chaos by providing a structure and a foundation to assess risk.

The tools provide guidance on identifying key risk factors including past violence, threats, stalking behaviours, or access to weapons. Their primary strength lies in their structure: they ensure consistent responses across systems, reduce reliance on intuition, and support clear safety planning. Although these tools can highlight risk factors, they don’t provide all the answers. These tools don't replace clinical judgment; they are intended to enhance it.

Risk assessment allow us to organise information, create alignment, and use a common language to communicate concerns. When everyone speaks the same risk language, we can respond appropriately, not in silos or reactively, but together. These tools also empower frontline workers. For instance, domestic violence advocates and therapists often use them to guide protective actions. Whether this involves helping someone relocate, apply for a court order, or simply better understand their own risk level. The best tools don't just assess risk; they guide decisions that allow for a clear management plan to address the concerns. 

Where the Cracks Begin to Show

Risk assessments provide probabilities, not certainties. They can sometimes overlook the nuances of a situation, especially when abuse isn’t physical. Coercive control, financial abuse, and emotional manipulation often don’t register as clearly measurable “events,” which can lead to underestimating risk. Tools are also often heavily skewed towards those with a history of past criminality or domestic violence, meaning that those without this can be seen as a ‘lower risk’, something that has caught many police services and other agencies out.

Somewhere between professional pressure and system fatigue, risk assessments can become routine. The score is calculated, the form is filed, and the urgency fades. Research is clear: many who go on to murder their partners were previously labelled low risk. It can be easy to miss during times of pressure, that these tools don't measure escalation. They can't always detect underlying shifts, such as sudden housing loss, pregnancy, or unexpected court decisions. Risk assessments are not well suited to track dynamic threats, this requires a different lens and a different set of factors and markers.

We repeatedly encounter the same blind spots. Coercive control, a set of behaviours aimed at isolating, eroding, and dominating, is often overlooked. This is partly due to systems focusing on visible violence and partly because training emphasises overt signs of physical harm, not subtle or pervasive undertones. Even the best-designed assessment can be undermined by the system surrounding it. In overstretched services or busy courtrooms, these tools may be skipped, misapplied, or interpreted through personal bias. Without proper training and institutional support, a checklist becomes just another piece of paper.

Risk assessments are essential for informed practice, but a risk tool is only as strong as the user or system behind it. A great tool will be ineffective in a disorganised or dysfunctional system.

What can victims tell us?

When examining the complexities of domestic violence and risk assessment, victim experiences can be used to enhance our understanding of risk factors. By recognising that risk disclosures often come quietly, entangled in shame or masked by minimisation, we can shift our focus to asking the correct questions and shifting a victims perception. For instance, Dr Jane Monckton Smith’s work heavily advocates for incorporating survivor narratives to enhance contextual understanding. After all, domestic violence is an interpersonal crime and it is crucial to understand the dynamics of the relationship. Current risk assessments with their predominate focus on physical violence can miss emotional, psychological and coercive factors.

Thorough risk assessment practices should focus on the perpetrator and the victim. It is critical to ensure that an assessment is not completed solely on a perpetrator’s account. It must incorporate victim information, or at a minimum, police documentation and victim statements. It is also vital that any risk assessment makes recommendations around victim safety and does not just comment on the perpetrator’s risk level. Management strategies to reduce the likelihood of future violence are needed, along with recommendations around keeping the victim safe. Listening to victims is an important way of developing safety plans.

How to Use Risk Assessments Wisely

Risk assessment offers us a chance to intervene and put much needed supports and strategies in place. But only if we view it not as a prediction, but as prevention. That means staying alert, staying uncomfortable, and being ready to act even when the threat isn't visible. The first step is to combine these instruments with professional judgment. Tools are a starting point, not the complete picture. It is also important to remember that risk isn’t fixed and interpersonal relationships are dynamic. While risk assessments may tell us how concerning the situation is and the likelihood of future offending, a lot can change within the space of weeks, or months and a risk score or level doesn’t provide any reassurance to mitigating these dynamic changes and threats. Our practice must be versatile and flexible, and encompass frequent reviews and reassessment.

Risk assessments must also be incorporated across services. Improving our understanding of concerns and establishing foundational knowledge of the issue through a risk assessment is an essential starting point. It's also challenging when agencies have different systems and processes, with some using evidence based practices, and others employing tools that were designed decades ago and never properly validated. When everyone is aligned, responses can be faster, safer, and more consistent.

Finally, we need to adapt to changing times. The landscape of abuse is evolving—cyberstalking, GPS tracking, tech-facilitated threats. Tools need to keep pace. They also need to incorporate survivor voices in their design, as those experiencing abuse understand better than anyone what risk feels like.

Domestic violence risk assessments are not perfect, then again, no risk assessments are bulletproof. They're not a crystal ball, but in the right hands, they can provide insight, bring structure to chaos, and support us to make effective and informed decisions. This work isn't about being right; it's about being prepared and objective.