Risk Scoring Methodology
NAISAR's evidence-based risk assessment framework evaluates domestic violence matters across six critical categories to determine protection tiers and intervention intensity.
How the Scoring Matrix Works
The NAISAR Risk Scoring Matrix provides a structured, transparent methodology for assessing domestic violence risk levels. Trained assessors evaluate matters across six categories, assigning scores based on established criteria. Category scores are combined to produce a total risk score, which maps to one of five protection tiers.
This methodology combines the strengths of actuarial risk assessment, which uses statistical relationships between risk factors and outcomes, with structured professional judgment, which allows trained assessors to account for case-specific factors that algorithms might miss. The result is a risk assessment that is both consistent and nuanced.
Assessors complete scoring through the NAISAR assessment interface, which guides them through each category with defined criteria, examples, and validation checks. The system flags inconsistencies, prompts for additional information where needed, and generates a comprehensive risk report upon completion.
Risk scores are not static. The framework requires reassessment at defined intervals and whenever significant changes occur. An offender's arrest, a victim's relocation, or new evidence of escalation can all trigger mandatory reassessment. This dynamic approach ensures that protection levels remain appropriate to current circumstances.
Six Assessment Categories
Category One: History of Violence
This category evaluates the offender's history of violent behaviour, including domestic violence, other interpersonal violence, and violence against animals or property. Patterns of escalation, frequency of incidents, and severity of past harm inform the scoring.
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 0 | No known history of violence |
| 1 | Single minor incident, no injuries |
| 2 | Multiple minor incidents or single moderate incident |
| 3 | Pattern of moderate incidents or single serious incident |
| 4 | History of serious violence, injuries, or escalating pattern |
| 5 | Extensive history of serious violence, hospitalisations, or lethal behaviour |
Category Two: Threats and Coercive Control
This category assesses current and recent threats made by the offender, including threats to kill, threats of self-harm, threats against children or family members, and patterns of coercive control such as isolation, financial control, and monitoring.
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 0 | No known threats or controlling behaviour |
| 1 | Minor controlling behaviour, no explicit threats |
| 2 | Moderate controlling behaviour or vague threats |
| 3 | Specific threats or significant coercive control pattern |
| 4 | Explicit threats to kill, threats against children, or severe isolation |
| 5 | Imminent lethal threats, detailed plans, or combined severe control and threats |
Category Three: Access and Opportunity
This category evaluates the offender's current ability to access the victim, including living arrangements, employment proximity, shared custody arrangements, knowledge of victim location, and transportation access.
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 0 | No known access; victim location is unknown to offender |
| 1 | Limited access; occasional incidental contact possible |
| 2 | Moderate access; shared social circles or proximity |
| 3 | Regular access; shared custody, workplace proximity, or known residence |
| 4 | Substantial access; cohabitation, daily contact, or persistent stalking |
| 5 | Unrestricted access; current cohabitation with violence or offender actively seeking victim |
Category Four: Mental Health and Substance Use
This category assesses factors that may reduce the offender's behavioural control, including untreated mental illness, substance use disorders, recent suicidal ideation, and psychotic symptoms. The focus is on conditions that elevate risk, not on stigmatising mental illness generally.
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 0 | No identified mental health or substance use concerns |
| 1 | History of mental health issues, currently managed; no substance concerns |
| 2 | Mild untreated symptoms or occasional substance use |
| 3 | Moderate untreated symptoms or regular substance use affecting behaviour |
| 4 | Severe untreated symptoms, active psychosis, or substance dependence with violence correlation |
| 5 | Acute psychotic episode, command hallucinations, severe intoxication during violence, or active suicidal-homicidal ideation |
Category Five: Victim Vulnerability
This category evaluates factors that may increase the victim's risk, including pregnancy, recent separation, presence of children, disability, cultural isolation, financial dependence, and lack of social support. The scoring recognises that vulnerability is contextual and intersects with multiple factors.
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 0 | No identified vulnerability factors; strong support network |
| 1 | Single mild vulnerability factor |
| 2 | Moderate vulnerability or multiple mild factors |
| 3 | Significant vulnerability; recent separation, pregnancy, or primary care of young children |
| 4 | High vulnerability; disability, cultural isolation, or severe financial dependence |
| 5 | Extreme vulnerability; multiple severe factors, no support network, or recent escape from captivity |
Category Six: Circumstantial Escalation Factors
This category captures recent events or circumstances that may trigger or escalate violence, including recent job loss, legal proceedings, new relationships, access to weapons, or recent release from custody.
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 0 | No identified escalation factors; stable circumstances |
| 1 | Minor stressor; manageable life change |
| 2 | Moderate stressor; financial pressure or interpersonal conflict |
| 3 | Significant stressor; job loss, eviction, or family court proceedings |
| 4 | Major stressor; recent release from prison, known weapon access, or victim entering new relationship |
| 5 | Critical stressor; imminent legal consequence, termination of parental rights, or explicit revenge planning |
Tier Assignment Logic
Total scores across the six categories determine the assigned protection tier according to the following matrix:
| Total Score | Tier Code | Protection Tier | Response Level |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 – 5 | N-0 | Tier One: Minimal Risk | Information and voluntary resources |
| 6 – 10 | N-1 | Tier Two: Low Risk | Standard protection with scheduled monitoring |
| 11 – 15 | N-2 | Tier Three: Moderate Risk | Enhanced protection with active monitoring |
| 16 – 20 | N-3 | Tier Four: High Risk | Intensive protection with real-time monitoring |
| 21 – 30 | N-4 | Tier Five: Critical Risk | Maximum protection with emergency response protocols |
Important Notes
- Overrides apply. Certain single factors may trigger automatic tier escalation regardless of total score. These include explicit threats to kill, recent strangulation, sexual assault, or possession of firearms.
- Professional judgment matters. Trained assessors may adjust tier assignments by one level in either direction based on case-specific factors not captured by the matrix.
- Reassessment is mandatory. All cases require reassessment at 30 days, 90 days, and 6 months, or sooner if circumstances change.
- Victim preference is respected. Victims may request tier upgrades regardless of assessed score, and these requests are granted unless operational constraints make them unfeasible.
- Cultural safety is required. Assessors must account for cultural context, and Indigenous assessors are involved in all matters affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
Risk Scoring Calculator
Use the calculator below to input scores for each category and determine the assigned protection tier. This tool is provided for training and demonstration purposes; formal assessments must be completed through the NAISAR assessment portal.