Risk assessment and interventions for victims of domestic abuse: consultation response analysis

Question 7: Statutory Footing

The seventh and final question in this consultation asked:

Do you think that multi-agency arrangements for protecting victims of domestic abuse should be placed on a statutory footing?

In total, 46 of the 69 responses to this consultation were in favour of placing multi-agency arrangements for protecting victims of domestic abuse on a statutory footing (67%). 12 of the 69 responses were against this proposal (17%), and 11 declined to respond either way (16%).

All the responses that declined to answer came from organisations. Organisations represented 83% of those that were against the proposal, and 65% of those who were in favour. 9 of the 10 organisations which opposed the proposal were either a Women’s Aid or a Violence Against Women Partnership. However, there were also several of each of these types of organisation who were in favour of the proposal.

Comments in response to this question outlined a number of reasons for both supporting and opposing the proposal to place these arrangements on a statutory footing. Some respondents also gave reasons for which they felt unable to answer definitively. These various points are discussed below.

Finally, some respondents also gave comments on which particular aspects of multi-agency arrangements for protecting victims of domestic abuse they thought should be placed on a statutory footing. These comments are summarised at the end of this section.

1. Reasons given in opposition to placing arrangements on a statutory footing

Lack of evidence

Some respondents felt that there was insufficient evidence to support placing these arrangements on a statutory footing. For example, it was suggested that the evidence on the effectiveness of risk assessment tools is quite new and inconclusive. One respondent also highlighted UK research which has found that specialist domestic abuse services and IDAAs rather than MARACs tend to have the most impact in promoting victims’ safety. It was also argued that there is no evidence that placing these arrangements on a statutory footing would address existing problems with the process.

Wrong time

It was also suggested that it is not currently the right time to place these arrangements on a statutory footing, since new legislation around domestic abuse is still being put into practice and agencies are responding to these changes.

May jeopardise collaborative working

A number of Women’s Aid organisations raised concerns that placing these arrangements on a statutory footing may result in statutory agencies taking the lead in this work, therefore side-lining the contributions of third sector organisations (including those specialising in support for victims of domestic abuse) and jeopardising current collaborative partnership working.

Increased pressure on resources

There was some concern that placing these arrangements on a statutory footing might be challenging without allocation of sufficient additional resources.

Two-tier response

Some respondents were concerned that placing these arrangements on a statutory footing would lead to an increase in referrals and, subsequently, resources being focused on those deemed to be at highest risk to the detriment of those who fall below this threshold. It was suggested that training on violence against women issues and appropriate intervention should also be made statutory, and that resources should be committed to early intervention and support for all victims of domestic abuse as well as for those at highest risk.

May be too prescriptive

Some respondents felt that a statutory approach may be too prescriptive, hampering the use of professional judgement, local knowledge and a case-by-case approach, and potentially leading to increased risk for some victims. There was concern that a statutory footing could lead to victims having less say in the support they are given and potential ‘overprotection’, such as for those with learning disabilities. It was argued that often women self-refer to services such as health services and specialist domestic abuse services because they know that this will be confidential, and that a statutory footing might jeopardise this. Some responses also highlighted a need for these arrangements to be able to adapt to new evidence and understanding that emerges about what works.

Better alternatives

Several respondents suggested that there are better alternatives which could improve multi-agency working for victims of domestic abuse, such as:

• Additional authority
• Additional resources, including funded training and a national funding model to ensure consistent funding across local authorities
• A duty for statutory services to participate and contribute in this multi-agency working
• Systems to monitor the work happening in local areas, and its effectiveness
• Placing Violence Against Women Partnerships on a statutory footing
• Promote national consistency and strategic integration
• Production of guidance, protocols and good practice examples.

2. Reasons given in support of placing arrangements on a statutory footing

Proven model

In contrast to responses which suggested that there is insufficient evidence to support placing these arrangements on a statutory footing, others said that research has proven this form of multi-agency working to be effective in improving outcomes for victims of domestic abuse.

Would improve commitment from partners

Many respondents felt that placing these arrangements on a statutory footing would lead to improved commitment from partners, including in terms of training, conducting research, sharing information, providing IDAA support, attending meetings and committing resources. It was also felt that this would improve victims’ trust and confidence that ongoing support will be delivered. It was suggested that this improved commitment would largely stem from a sense that arrangements would have a higher status with a statutory footing.

Would improve effectiveness

Responses suggested that a statutory footing would improve the effectiveness of multi-agency arrangements for victims of domestic abuse, including in terms of earlier intervention, clearer processes, more coordinated responses (which address not only the full range of needs of the victim, but link in to those of their wider family), and reduced opportunities for abusers to ‘work the system’ to regain contact.

Would improve consistency

There was also a strong sense among responses that a statutory footing would improve the consistency of responses to domestic abuse across Scotland. It was suggested that this consistency is unlikely to be realised without legislation.

Greater accountability

It was suggested that placing these multi-agency arrangements on a statutory footing would provide a more transparent governance structure, clarify agencies’ responsibilities and increase accountability among partners. It may also assure victims that their voices and needs are taken seriously.

Funding and sustainability

Several respondents thought that a statutory footing would help ensure sustained and nationally consistent funding and resourcing for this work, especially in a ‘climate of reducing resources’. One response voiced concerns that without a statutory footing, MARACs may cease in some areas. Some responses referenced SafeLives’ cost-benefit analysis which indicated that every £1 spent on MARAC saves £6 of public money.

Would address information sharing concerns

Some respondents felt that placing these arrangements on a statutory footing would provide better legal grounding for sharing information, and address concerns in this respect. Section 36(4) of the Data Protection Act 2018 was again highlighted: ‘Personal data collected for any of the law enforcement purposes may not be processed for a purpose that is not a law enforcement purpose unless the processing is authorised by law.’

Support ratification of the Istanbul Convention

It was noted that placing these arrangements on a statutory footing would support ratification of the Istanbul Convention.

Alignment with other multi-agency public protection & risk management models

Many responses suggested that placing multi-agency arrangements for protecting victims of domestic abuse on a statutory footing would bring them in line with other multi-agency public protection and risk management models, such as Child Protection, Adult Support and Protection, and MAPPA. It was felt that this would lead to support for victims of domestic abuse being seen as of equal importance, and that it would also promote integration of the different arrangements. It was specifically suggested that a similar approach as that taken for MAPPA could be used for domestic abuse arrangements.

3. Reasons for which respondents felt unable to answer

In some cases, respondents appeared not to answer the closed question here because they had gathered input from a variety of other individuals or organisations to feed into their response, and those that they had consulted were split on this question.

A number of other specific reasons for which some respondents felt it was difficult to answer this question were given. These included:

More information needed

Some respondents felt that they could not answer this question without a clearer definition of ‘statutory’ and more detail on what a statutory footing would entail.

More research and discussion required

It was suggested that further research is required into the effectiveness (including the cost effectiveness) of multi-agency arrangements for protecting victims of domestic abuse, and how victims can best be supported in the long term. Further discussion was also proposed on the intended purpose of any legislation, and whether those aims would best be met through legislative or community approaches (or both).

Some respondents also suggested alternative ways forward. The ICO reiterated the Scottish Government’s duty to consult with them before any legislation is taken forwards, while another respondent felt that the proposals in the consultation, including this one, should only be taken forward after a national referendum in which the majority of the Scottish population approved the proposals.

4. Which aspects of multi-agency arrangements should be statutory

Respondents variously indicated that the following 5 areas of multi-agency arrangements for protecting victims of domestic abuse should be placed on a statutory footing:

1. Training

2. Guidance

3. Information sharing

It was suggested that a statutory obligation to share information related to domestic abuse cases is applied to both public and third sector partner organisations.

4. MARACs

There were proposals for a duty for each local authority to hold multi-agency risk assessment conferences, and for partners to participate.

5. A national body

One individual suggested a single body with ‘statutory remit for training, policy development and national implementation’ is either created, or that this remit is taken on by an existing organisation.