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

Question 2: Multi-Agency Working Model

The second question in this consultation asked:

In your view, what is the best model of multi-agency working for ensuring effective and early interventions for victims of domestic abuse?

Responses to this question addressed 3 broad themes:

1. Key characteristics that the model should have

2. Key components that the model should have

3. Examples of named models

1. Key characteristics that the model should have

National

Support for a national framework and standards emerged again as a strong theme in responses to this question. This was seen as important to avoid a ‘postcode lottery’ and to ensure consistent support across Scotland. Some responses also noted that this is especially important in cases where someone experiencing domestic abuse moves from one area to another. It was noted that a national model should be effectively tailored to the Scottish context.

However, other responses disagreed that one model should be applied in all Local Authorities. For example, Dundee Violence Against Women Partnership suggested that:

‘There is no one model of multi-agency working which is the most effective, rather it is a combination of models and partnership approaches. There is also an argument to be made for local areas developing the best model for themselves as it all depends on the existing arrangements locally.’

– Dundee Violence Against Women Partnership

Flexibility

Several responses emphasised a need for the working model to be flexible, in particular so that it can adapt to both local context and the diversity of needs that victims may have.

Part of a coordinated community response

Comments argued that the model of multi-agency working should be seen as part of a coordinated community response to domestic abuse, and not as a stand-alone mechanism for reducing fatalities in high-risk cases. Prevention work and programmes to enable behaviour change in perpetrators were suggested as important related aspects of this work.

Specialist domestic abuse services at the forefront

Some responses indicated that specialist domestic abuse services should be at the centre or forefront of multi-agency working, to ensure that their expertise and approach direct the work. Women’s Aid were recommended, including by several Women’s Aid organisations themselves. Some responses also referenced Violence Against Women Partnerships, as potential coordinators or key partners.

Commitment and accountability

Responses advocated for commitment to the model from the organisations and staff involved and for them to be held accountable to the processes, values and responsibilities set out. These were presented as integral to success.

Children and young people

Responses highlighted the significant long-term impacts that experiencing or witnessing domestic abuse can have on children and young people, and they suggested that the needs of children and young people should be carefully considered and integrated into the model of multi-agency working.

It was proposed that dedicated advocacy workers be provided for children and young people, and that they should be fully consulted and informed about the process.

‘Children and Young People from the Edinburgh MARAC were consulted by Scottish Women’s Aid as part of their response to this consultation. They said that they should be:

• Informed about the purpose of the MARAC
• Informed about what information is being shared
• Spoken to in their own right before a MARAC to ensure such information is accurate

Many said that, if they are not directly involved, then incorrect information about them or their family might influence decision-making. They were concerned about their personal information being shared without their permission or contribution. As one said: ‘I feel it’s important to listen to children, to understand our feelings and thoughts and what we need.’’

– Edinburgh Women’s Aid

Integration with other public protection fora

Responses suggested that multi-agency work to respond to domestic abuse should be aligned and integrated with other public protection fora, such as Child Protection, Adult Support and Protection, and MAPPA.

Support for professionals

The need for support for professionals involved in this work was highlighted.

2. Key components that the model should have

Routine enquiry

There was support within responses for establishing a practice of routine enquiry in services, to promote early intervention. Some specified that health and social care services would be especially pertinent sites for this.

Early intervention

Responses suggested that early intervention should be a priority. This could be facilitated by routine enquiry, as set out above, as well as by the Named Person role for children experiencing domestic abuse.^[2] Resourcing, gaps between MARAC meetings and legal grounds for non-voluntary intervention were all mentioned as barriers to early intervention.

Referral pathways

Several responses highlighted a need for clarity on how to refer victims of domestic abuse to appropriate support. Some respondents felt that this should be standardised, whether at local or national level, while others emphasised flexibility. The use of data was suggested to identify referral gaps.

There was a concern among respondents that there should be a clear procedure for referring victims who may not be deemed ‘high risk’ enough for multi-agency interventions, to ensure that they nevertheless receive appropriate support. This was considered important to prevent ‘lower risk’ cases from escalating.

Corroboration

It was suggested that allegations of domestic abuse should be corroborated as part of this process.

Independent Domestic Abuse Advocacy

Some responses said that IDAA should be a key element of the working model, ensuring that all victims have access to an Advocate to ensure that their voice is heard in the process.

Adequate time

Responses noted a need to ensure adequate time is dedicated to each case, both at multi-agency meetings and in terms of the period of support. Respondents advocated long-term support, which is not focused only on periods of particularly high risk, and suggested that this can help avoid repeat referrals and victims having to re-explain their experience to multiple different sources of support.

Engagement with all family members

There was support among respondents for a model which promoted safe engagement with all family members, including perpetrators and children. It was suggested that this could include providing support to children and other affected family members, and linking to services to promote behaviour change among perpetrators.

ViSOR

Extending the use of the Violent and Sex Offender Register to assist in this work was proposed as a way of improving information sharing.

Champions in key services

Some responses suggested that domestic abuse ‘champions’ in key services would help promote awareness and support multi-agency working.

Relationships education

Relationships and respect being taught throughout education was suggested as a component of this work.

Regular assessment

Responses suggested that regular review of the model would support improvement and evidence of impact.

3. Examples of named models

Most responses, especially those from organisations, offered suggestions of existing models which they felt should be implemented or adapted. A number of responses referenced more than one existing model. The models which were mentioned by respondents were:

MARAC

The MARAC model was held up in responses as an effective model for responding to cases of domestic abuse where the victim is deemed to be at serious risk of harm. The SafeLives MARAC model was specifically referred to. Aspects of the model which were cited as beneficial in responses include:

• Evidence-based
• Early intervention
• Information sharing
• Access to IDAA support for victims, so that victims’ views are central
• Identifies, manages and reduces risk
• Coordinates interventions and support
• Engages with all family members
• Holds perpetrators to account
• Complements Child Protection, Adult Support and Protection, MATAC and MAPPA.

‘The MARAC process, developed by SafeLives, is recognised nationally as best practice for addressing cases of domestic abuse that are categorised as visible high risk of serious harm or homicide … The SafeLives MARAC model has been extensively evaluated and has a proven track record in reducing risk and increasing safety.’

– Glasgow Violence Against Women Partnership

Many responses supported MARACs as an effective model but one which still requires further development and improvement, both to the model but especially to ensure that it is implemented as designed. Several comments mentioned that currently, intervention is often not at an early stage.

Reference was made to the model’s effectiveness being dependent on adequate funding, commitment from organisations involved and a wider system of multi-agency collaboration.

Safe and Together

Several responses recommended the Safe and Together approach to promote the safety of children and young people living with domestic abuse in partnership with the non-perpetrating parent. This was often proposed as a useful model to use in conjunction with MARAC.

Team Around You

The Team Around You model was recommended in some responses for its inclusion of the victim (and their children) in meetings, and because the longer meetings enable fuller assessment of a case.

Lead Professional

The Lead Professional model was recommended as useful for making one person responsible for coordination, information collection and risk assessment.

Domestic Abuse Local Action Groups

Domestic Abuse Local Action Groups, which have been tried out in Edinburgh.

Getting It Right For Every Child

This was recommended as an approach which should be integrated with MARAC.

HARK

This was recommended as an approach for GP services.

Caledonian Programme

The Caledonian Programme was recommended for use alongside MARAC.

MATAC

Some responses felt that Multi-Agency Tasking and Coordinating would be useful.

CEDAR

The Children Experiencing Domestic Abuse Recovery programme was recommended in some responses.

IRD

Interagency Referral Discussion was suggested as a model for conducting initial information sharing, risk assessment and planning ahead of a MARAC.

Respect

The Respect Programme was also recommended.

Claire’s Law

The use of Claire’s Law was proposed to inform individuals whose partner has a history of being abusive.