The BBC ran a story this week wherein MP Jess Phillips complains that the DASH risk assessment has ‘obvious problems’ and ‘doesn’t work’. From a quick read the first impression is that the tool itself is deficient, but that isn’t the whole story. The piece also acknowledges that the problem is not so much the tool as the worker:

“Any risk assessment tool is only as good as the person who is using it,” she said, adding that practitioners needed to be trained to understand that risk was dynamic.

People were killed even when deemed to be at high risk, she added. “The grading system won’t immediately protect you… It is the systems that flow from those risk assessments that matter much, much, much more than the score.”

For those who don’t know, DASH stands for Domestic, Abuse, Stalking, Harassment and Honour-Based Violence assessment, and is described by the BBC as ‘a list of 27 questions put to victims, to 24 of which they answer yes, no or don’t know’. You can view the DASH and guidance here (although the version available online is said to be distinct from the one used by the police it does look almost identical if not identical). Family lawyers are very familiar with it – we see it almost every time we receive a bundle containing police disclosure, because almost all police forces use it as a tool when called out to domestic incidents or when dealing with complaints of domestic abuse. The familiar questions and answers appear in police log after police log, sometime repeatedly for one family, sometimes asked of both parties. Typically the responses are staccato responses, in a single yes / no format, or with a short descriptive phrase. Sometimes they are later interrogated when allegations of abuse are tried and tested by cross examination – why didn’t you mention the rape when you were asked questions by PC Plod? As recorded in the police logs we see there is often little to no analysis of the responses, although there is more often these days oversight of the logs by a second officer responsible for compliance, who may redirect the officers on the ground to go back and complete certain tasks before the matter can be filed or progressed. When a victim changes their mind and wishes to retract a complaint in the days after an arrest, or refuses to be safeguarded there may well be some brief analysis included in the log – but more often the yes/ no responses are simply followed by a recording that the case is ‘medium’ or ‘standard’ risk, and a referral is made to an external domestic abuse agency, which in practice probably means that the victim is given a web address or phone number to call, or that the agency is given their details. From what we see in the family court precious few of these referrals go anywhere, often because the victim doesn’t follow up or engage. Often we see a log closed due to ‘evidential difficulties’ with the victim signposted to organisations like NCDV to obtain a non-molestation order (in itself a limited form of protection since such organisations will typically not support victims to make non-emergency applications). It is only when a case is identified as ‘high risk’ that a referral to a MARAC is made (multi-agency risk assessment committee). It is surprisingly uncommon in the papers I read (given the gravity of alleged abuse described) for a family / victim to be referred to a MARAC.

It’s important to say that what I see is only a narrow window into the use of the DASH – and my overall impression is subjective, and based on police logs which may not be a representative sample. Plus, what is recorded in the log is not necessarily a complete record of all the events and analysis that has taken place. But I have seen a lot of DASH risk assessments, read a lot of police logs, and tracked through investigations from start to finish with an outsider’s after-the-event perspective as I go about my work preparing for a trial of who did what to whom – and I have to say that more often than I am comfortable with I am left wondering why the dots were never joined, and why the police didn’t see the case as high risk. Easy for me to say in the cold light of day, from the comfort of my office, with time to reflect and nothing else to focus on. I’ve seen the Body Worn Camera footage too, and I know its pressurised and fraught for officers at the scene, and how the demands of each shout compete with the requirements to log and deal with admin. But still, when I think about how effectively and reliably victims of abuse are identified, supported, protected in the cases I see – its a very mixed bag.

I’ve seen at least one post on LinkedIn from an IDVA or DA worker in response to the BBC piece complaining effectively that condemning DASH is throwing out the baby with the bathwater and that the problem is very much about a lack of training and the way the tool is used. I’m inclined to agree. Some officers really get it, but some really don’t – an understanding of domestic abuse and the dynamic nature of risk (it changes over time – and particularly that it increases at separation) is something that takes time, experience and training to grasp. So that is not a criticism of individual officers: it’s a training issue.

But its also a resource issue – sometimes victims of abuse are slow to help themselves, sometimes they don’t even see abuse as abuse, sometimes they find it hard to trust police, and sometimes they feel unable to be honest about what is happening to them. And the police are always overstretched, and usually firefighting to manage situations of acute and obvious risk. So it is easy to see why, when it becomes clear that a prosecution isn’t going anywhere (‘evidential difficulties’ etc), from a police perspective it’s job done. Over here in the family court though, we see what happens after the police / CPS decide to NFA – life goes on, abuse continues, often it escalates, sometimes a victim does manage to exit the relationship under their own steam, and sometimes social services intervene. The family lawyer looking in and looking back has the advantage of witness statements prepared in the victim’s own time, schedules of allegations, and a raft of other evidence not available to the police. It’s easy for us, from our privileged vantage point to see risk levels that the police perhaps did not.

So I am left with an uneasy sense that the way a DASH risk assessment often functions for overstretched police officers and forces is to give the police a green light to stop worrying and move on whenever the score tots up to ‘standard’ or ‘medium’ – like a sort of magic wand waved: ‘mischief managed’, ‘risk assessed’. If I’m right about that then DASH as currently implemented really isn’t effectively managing or reducing risk, and sometimes it may even be increasing it by providing false reassurance to those tasked with protecting the public. The idea that DASH is being used as the complete answer or shortcut to risk assessment rather than as part of a more holistic, ongoing consideration of risk, also features in the BBC piece, so it doesn’t seem that my hunch is completely without foundation.

It’s beyond my pay grade or expertise to know how to solve that, but it probably lies both in training about how domestic abuse operates and manifests, and in how to make good use of the DASH risk assessment (both of which themselves require resourcing) – and in the proper resourcing of the agencies to whom the police refer, many of whom operate on a shoestring and are themselves limited in the support they can offer.

It’s good that there is now a debate about this, and a review of the use of DASH – but I don’t think there is an obvious quick fix to issues which are probably systemic.