Here is a link to the pdf of Danger Assessment instrument.
Today, I review, link to, and excerpt from New York Times article “The 20 Questions That Can Prevent Domestic Violence Homicide“. [The 20 questions in the title refer to the questions of the Danger Assessment instrument.]
All that follows is from the above resource.
The 20 Questions That Can Prevent Domestic Violence Homicide
April 24, 2026, 11:10 a.m. ETOn April 16th, Dr. Cerina Fairfax was shot and killed by her husband, the former lieutenant governor of Virginia, Justin Fairfax, who then fatally shot himself, according to the police. Three days later, the police say, a man in Louisiana named Shamar Elkins shot and killed eight children — seven of them his own — and critically injured his wife and a second woman, with whom he shared three children. At least one of these men had threatened suicide before the killings and both obtained access to guns; both wives wanted to end their marriages and separation was imminent. Sadly, both tragedies may well have been prevented.
For domestic violence experts, all of these details would have been flashing warning signs. The domestic-violence field has developed a 20-question survey called a Danger Assessment that can help predict and ultimately prevent domestic violence homicide. Included among the markers are former acts of domestic violence; threats of suicide, homicide or harm to children; access to a gun; strangulation or choking; forced sex; stalking; and habitual use of drugs and alcoholism. The survey also prompts respondents to create a timeline of abuse to assess escalation. Though training is required to determine scores since the questions are weighted, the Danger Assessment would at least offer the nonexpert an immediate snapshot of potential lethality.
The Danger Assessment was created in 1986 by a nurse and graduate student, Jacquelyn Campbell, who is now a nursing professor at Johns Hopkins University and a leading researcher on domestic violence. Early on, it was used in emergency rooms and doctors’ offices. But around 2005, a Massachusetts-based domestic violence agency called the Geiger Institute (on whose board I serve) adapted the Danger Assessment for what it named “high-risk teams.” The institute collaborated with Professor Campbell to rework the Danger Assessment for a variety of contexts, creating a model to bring together teams of advocates for victims of domestic violence, law enforcement and other community stakeholders.
In addition to doing safety planning with victims, a high-risk team may ask the police for extra drive-bys, change door locks, install camera systems or help survivors get temporary protection orders that limit gun purchases by perpetrators or require them to wear ankle bracelets for monitoring. Today, there are nearly a hundred confirmed high-risk teams operating across the United States (and probably many more) and they have likely prevented countless homicides.
The problem isn’t that the Danger Assessment isn’t known or used; it’s that it’s not known or used nearly enough. Many lawyers who work on civil divorce cases don’t know about it. Even in criminal cases, courts generally don’t allow it as evidence. And law enforcement may use truncated versions of it — asking domestic-violence victims just a few of the questions, often because of limited time on a call.
But many jurisdictions don’t use it at all. Domestic violence agencies are its primary users. Unfortunately, many victims of domestic violence will never interact with an agency; many, in fact, never interact with the police either.
But they will interact with clergy members. With therapists. With school guidance counselors and friends and family members. They will interact with divorce lawyers. This is why the Danger Assessment should be used widely, with as many professionals as possible being trained in how to administer it. Law schools should include it in their curriculum. Judges should allow it as evidence of dangerousness. And public marketing campaigns should raise community awareness.
Neither the Danger Assessment nor red flag laws are foolproof, of course. Nothing ever is. But what matters, particularly at that extremely dangerous moment of separation, is disrupting a moment of violence. Take the guns. Communicate to victims the potential danger of their situations. And keep more people, especially children, alive.
What we do know is that the Council on Criminal Justice reports that domestic violence was the only offense that increased in the first half of 2025 compared with the first half of the previous year. According to Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates, nearly five women a day on average were killed in the United States by an intimate partner in 2021. And guns are the leading cause of death for children and teenagers in America.
