This is a short guide to support practitioners to recognise and respond to economic abuse within domestic abuse risk assessment and multi-agency risk management. 

Who this resource is for 

This guide is for frontline practitioners across domestic abuse services, social work, housing, health, education, police, probation, children’s services and community services, as well as those responsible for coordinating multi-agency risk management, including MARAC Chairs, Coordinators and local authority leads. 

It is designed to help you understand how economic abuse shapes risk within different roles and is complemented by practical guidance on applying this within tools such as DASH (Domestic Abuse, Stalking and Honour Based Violence) and DARA (Domestic Abuse Risk Assessment). 

Why economic abuse matters in risk assessment 

Economic abuse can significantly increase risk and limit a victim-survivor’s ability to flee and reach safety. It is often used alongside other forms of coercive control and may continue or escalate after separation. 

Economic abuse can create conditions of entrapment that make separation difficult or unsafe. It may also contribute to feelings of hopelessness, isolation and a perceived lack of options. 

Analysis of Domestic Homicide Reviews in England and Wales found that economic abuse was present in over half of intimate partner violence cases where the victim died either by homicide or suicide. When it is not recognised, risk can be underestimated and opportunities to prevent serious harm can be missed. 

What economic abuse adds to the risk picture 

Experienced practitioners are often already identifying coercive and controlling behaviour. An economic abuse lens strengthens risk assessment by focusing attention on: 

• Entrapment: Economic abuse can limit a victim-survivor’s ability to leave, remain safely separated or rebuild after abuse. Risks may persist even when there is no history of physical violence or physical proximity to the perpetrator  
• Post-separation abuse: Economic abuse often starts, continues or escalates after separation through housing arrangements, shared finances, debt, child maintenance, family court proceedings and other systems. 
• Escalation and retaliation: Changes to financial arrangements, attempts to regain independence, or efforts to resolve debt and housing issues can trigger further abuse or retaliation. 
• Cumulative harm: The impact of economic abuse is often cumulative. Individual incidents may appear low-level in isolation but can create significant long-term harm when viewed as a pattern of behaviour. 
• System-based abuse: Perpetrators may exploit institutions, processes and services to maintain control. Understanding how systems are being used as part of abuse can be crucial to understanding risk. 

Key principles for practice 

1. Integrate economic abuse into risk identification and framing 

Economic abuse should be identified by recognising patterns of restriction, exploitation and sabotage of economic resources.  

Assessment should move beyond individual financial problems and consider how economic control operates within the wider dynamics of coercive control. 

Particular attention should be paid to: 

• Expressions of entrapment or hopelessness  
• Ongoing or escalating post-separation abuse 
• Financial barriers to leaving or maintaining separation 

2. Build a fuller risk picture through information sharing 

Economic abuse may be visible across multiple agencies, with each organisation holding only part of the picture. 

Effective risk management requires sharing information in multi-agency forums about economically abusive behaviours and their impact, including where perpetrators are using systems such as: 

• Housing 
• Debt enforcement 
• Employment  
• Benefits  
• Child maintenance  
• Courts 
• Banking  

Economic abuse should be communicated as a pattern of behaviour over time, not isolated events. 

3. Integrate economic safety into risk management 

Risk management should include actions that strengthen a victim-survivor’s economic safety and independence alongside physical safety. 

Potential considerations include: 

• Securing income and benefits 
• Addressing economic barriers to leaving or remaining separated 
• Closing down opportunities for abusers to use ongoing economic ties to continue their control 
• Identifying safe and appropriate specialist support 

Economic safety planning should be safety-led, survivor-controlled and undertaken with awareness of potential perpetrator retaliation. 

4. Centre survivor expertise and recognise inequality 

Victim-survivors are best placed to explain how economic abuse operates within their lives and how it affects their safety. 

Responses should recognise how structural inequalities may shape both risk and access to support, including: 

• Poverty 
• Disability 
• Immigration status 
• Racism and discrimination 
• Motherhood 

Independent advocacy can play a critical role in ensuring economic abuse is understood and represented accurately within risk management processes. 

5. Maintain continuity across services and areas 

The risks associated with economic abuse do not end when a victim-survivor changes services or moves location. 

Information about economic abuse, and related key risks should be carried across systems to support continuity of safeguarding and reduce repeated harm. 

Applying this in practice 

Economic abuse should not be treated as a standalone financial issue or identified solely through a single question. 

DASH and DARA support consistency in risk assessment but include limited direct prompts on economic abuse. As a result, it may be missed unless practitioners actively apply an economic abuse and coercive control lens.  

Practitioners should treat economic abuse as a cross-cutting risk issue and clearly record its impact on safety. 

When using DASH, DARA or other assessment frameworks: 

Consider: 

• What role economic control plays within the wider pattern of coercive behaviour. 
• Whether economic abuse is creating entrapment or limiting options for safety. 
• How economic abuse has changed since separation. 
• Whether systems or institutions are being used to continue abuse. 
• Whether economic abuse appears to be escalating. 

Record clearly: 

• The nature and pattern of the economic abuse. 
• Its impact on safety and decision making. 
• Links to coercive control and other abuse tactics. 
• Any identified risks relating to separation, escalation or retaliation. 

Communicate explicitly: 

• Name economic abuse within referrals, case discussions and MARAC documentation. 
• Explain why the behaviour is relevant to risk. 
• Describe the impact on the victim-survivor’s ability to establish or maintain safety. 

Beyond identification 

Effective responses to economic abuse require both practitioner-level identification and system-level recognition and coordination.  

For practitioners, this means recognising, assessing and communicating the role of economic abuse within risk assessments and referrals. 

For those leading and overseeing local arrangements, this includes ensuring that economic abuse is recognised within risk thresholds, multi-agency discussion and action planning, and reflected in local practice and training.  

Recognising economic abuse is not an additional task alongside risk assessment. It is an essential part of understanding risk, coercive control and victim-survivor safety. 

Using DASH and DARA   

E-learning  

This quick practice guide highlights what to look for but applying this in practice requires deeper understanding and confidence.  

Where economic abuse is missed or misunderstood, risk can be underestimated and safeguarding responses may fall short.  

Our e-learning will support you to:  

• Recognise economic abuse in complex and high-risk cases   
• Assess severity, escalation and post-separation risk   
• Apply professional judgement with confidence   
• Take effective action within risk assessment and multi-agency processes  

To find out more about our e-learning, please email [email protected]