The BBC’s headline today “Domestic abuse screening tool doesn’t work, minister says” should stop us all in our tracks. For over 16 years, the Dash questionnaire has been relied upon by police, health and social care to determine the level of support victims receive. Yet evidence has been mounting that it fails to correctly identify those at highest risk. And still, it remains in operation.
This isn’t a new revelation. Academics, practitioners and frontline services have long voiced concerns. Studies have shown that the majority of victims later judged to be at high risk had previously been classified as “standard” or “medium” by Dash. Families who have lost loved ones are now considering seeking legal action, having been failed by systems that depended on a flawed tool.
As a clinical psychologist who has worked in forensic mental health, I understand the challenges of assessing risk. Risk is dynamic, complex, and often difficult to measure. But this much is clear, the tools we use must be both reliable and valid. In clinical practice, a risk assessment tool that had been repeatedly discredited would never continue to be used for years on end. It would be updated, adapted, or replaced. That’s because lives are at stake. Why is this not the same standard in domestic abuse services?
Ellen Miller, CEO of SafeLives, the charity that developed Dash, has acknowledged that the tool should have been updated. And yet, despite years of evidence, that update never came. What’s more troubling is that SafeLives has now been tasked with reviewing the very system it is a part of.
That raises serious questions about independence and accountability. How can victims and practitioners trust the outcome if the review sits with those tied to the failings?
This is not about blaming individuals or organisations. It is about recognising the systemic reluctance to move beyond established tools, even when their shortcomings are evident. It is about asking why academic evidence, practitioner insights, and survivors’ voices are consistently overshadowed by the dominance of established structures.
So where do we go from here?
- We need reviews of risk assessment processes to be led by independent experts: clinicians, researchers, and survivors with no vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
- We need policing, health, and social care to urgently review how Dash is being applied in practice and to identify safer, evidence-based alternatives.
- We need to take academic research and frontline experience seriously, rather than treating them as optional add-ons.
- Frontline practitioners need adequate training to assess risks associated with domestic abuse. Training that gives practitioners the confidence to understand nuances associated with domestic abuse - for example, understanding that a smiley emoji within a text message may increase the risk towards a victim.The victim knows the perpetrator the best.
Most importantly, we need to recognise that every delay, every refusal to change, places real people at risk of further harm, or worse.
We cannot wait for the “perfect” tool.
Risk will never be static, and no form will ever capture every nuance. But there are tools, methods, and approaches that can do far better than what is currently in place. Using a tool that is known to fail is not a way forward, it is a decision with consequences, and those consequences are measured in lives lost.
