Jess Phillips is Right - If Domestic Abuse Screening Tools Don’t Work, What Does?
The BBC recently reported on Safeguarding Minister Jess Phillips' acknowledgement that the DASH (Domestic Abuse, Stalking, Harassment and Honour-Based Violence) risk assessment tool “doesn’t work” in reliably identifying high-risk cases.
Since 2009, the DASH has been the most widely used screening tool across police, healthcare, social workers and victims services. Yet research has repeatedly shown that many victims who later experienced repeat abuse or homicide were initially categorised as ‘standard’ or ‘medium’ risk.
Phillips is right to stress that no tool will ever perfectly predict outcomes. As she noted, “risk is dynamic” and can change quickly. Risk assessments offer only a snapshot, while abuse itself is constantly evolving. Today, this evolution increasingly involves technology, which is now embedded in almost every aspect of abuse.
Where Risk Tools Fall Short
The BBC’s reporting underscores longstanding concerns about the DASH, and similar considerations apply to the DARA (Domestic Abuse Risk Assessment), the College of Policing’s newer framework. While structured tools provide consistency, they can miss key elements of domestic abuse.
One major gap we see at The Cyber Helpline is technology-facilitated domestic abuse. Victim-survivors may be impacted by spyware, digital harassment, device and account monitoring and misuse of smart home devices. These harms may not leave physical evidence but can be central to how perpetrators exert power and control. Research shows that cyberstalking can cause fear and disruption comparable to physical stalking - 96.3% of individuals experiencing stalking enabled by technology who have used our service say that they feel less physically safe as a result of the cyber behaviours - and yet both the DASH and DARA include limited references to technology-facilitated abuse. This narrow focus means that many of the risks victim-survivors experience may face are not fully recognised.
"I can't go out anymore, I'm constantly in fear of what they will do next."
"I feel extremely vulnerable."
"I don't trust anything or anyone anymore."
"I feel I have no freedom at all to live or speak to people in confidence when I am on the floor emotionally."
The Importance of Signs and Symptoms
When used carefully, risk assessments can support good practice. They offer structure, enable clearer information-sharing between agencies, and promote consistency. Yet evidence shows they work best when paired with professional curiosity and contextual judgement.
For technological harms, signs and symptoms are often more telling than scores. Practitioners should be alert to indicators such as:
Victim-survivors reporting that their abuser “knows too much” about their private life.
Frequent compromise of accounts or the need to repeatedly change devices.
Persistent unwanted contact to their devices or accounts from known or fake profiles.
Concerns about monitoring through apps, trackers or smart technologies.
While a questionnaire result provides one part of the picture, these signs and symptoms can offer important additional insight. Building awareness of and responding to them helps create a more complete understanding of the risk to a victim-survivor in the digital age.
Opportunities for Change
The BBC article also noted the importance of training. Phillips observed that “any risk assessment tool is only as good as the person using it.” This makes it especially concerning that, in the context of technology-facilitated abuse, many frontline workers report lacking confidence in identifying or addressing digital harms. If digital abuse is often overlooked, the effectiveness of risk assessments, which are already limited by design, is reduced further.
Improving responses requires a shift in emphasis:
Risk tools to professional awareness. Shift the focus, structured assessments still have value, but the priority should be on recognising real-world signs and symptoms.
Static forms to dynamic training. Practitioners across policing, health, social care and victims services can connect with The Cyber Helpline to develop and grow their confidence in responding to cyberstalking and digital harms.
Scores to context. Decisions about safety should always be informed by lived experiences, not just numerical thresholds.
Change is possible. We know from our own work at The Cyber Helpline that when professionals are supported to understand technology-facilitated harms, their confidence grows and their ability to safeguard victim-survivors improves. Building digital literacy into domestic abuse responses is therefore not an optional extra but a vital step in making safeguarding systems more effective.
Looking Ahead
The BBC’s reporting shows how high the stakes are when risk is underestimated. Families affected by these tragedies are right to demand better. While risk assessments have provided structure and consistency, they cannot by themselves reflect the full complexity of abuse today.
The Home Office’s review of domestic abuse safeguarding offers an important opportunity to strengthen responses. A more balanced approach would place greater emphasis on recognising signs and symptoms, using professional judgement, and ensuring practitioners are trained to understand technology-facilitated harms.
At The Cyber Helpline, we see everyday that cyberstalking, online harassment, and other forms of digital abuse are not secondary concerns but central to how victim-survivors experience abuse. By adapting safeguarding practices to reflect this reality, agencies can move towards a system that is more responsive, more informed, and better equipped to protect those most at risk.