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

Question 5: Guidance

The fifth question in this consultation asked:

In your view, what guidance is required to support and embed effective multi-agency working for victims of domestic abuse?

Responses to this question addressed three main aspects of the guidance they felt was required: the characteristics that it should have, the format it should take, and in particular, what content they thought it should cover.

1. Characteristics

National

As with many other aspects of multi-agency working for victims of domestic abuse, responses showed strong support for any guidance to be produced at a national level, to promote consistency across Scotland, which is currently missing.

It was suggested that this could usefully take a similar tone to other national protection guidance:

‘…national domestic abuse guidance similar in tone to the National Child Protection Guidance or the Code of Practice for Adult Protection would help. Equally Safe is very helpful document, but does not seem to carry the weight that guidance about other protection issues does.’

– Shetland Domestic Abuse Partnership

It was also proposed that the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 could provide a useful foundation for national guidance, and that guidance should be endorsed by Scottish Government. Some responses underlined that it was important for guidance to be specific to the Scottish context.

Local

As in responses to other questions, the need for local flexibility in guidance was also highlighted. Some respondents thought that local guidance should complement national guidance, while others referred only to the need for guidance at a local level. It was suggested that guidance should be embedded in relevant local strategies.

Statutory

Some respondents suggested that guidance should be statutory. They mentioned other national, multi-agency guidance that is statutory, including that on forced marriage, MAPPA, child protection and adult support and protection, and it was suggested that this gives the guidance a greater weight and status which it would be helpful for multi-agency guidance for domestic abuse to also benefit from. (One respondent also felt that existing guidance for forced marriage and FGM could provide a useful template on which to model guidance for response to domestic abuse.)

Visible and accessible

Some respondents noted that it was important that guidance should be both visible and accessible for users. It was suggested that it could be promoted through training to ensure that those who need it are made aware of it.

Tailored

It was proposed that tailored guidance should be produced, appropriate to the different organisations who might use it as well as to the various roles that staff might have in relation to this multi-agency work.

Prescriptive

Some respondents felt that the guidance should be prescriptive about setting standards for multi-agency working for victims of domestic abuse, or in terms of quality assurance. This could include timescales, use of tools, safety planning and review.

Development

Some responses noted that guidance should be developed in partnership with relevant bodies and agencies, as well as with people with experience of domestic abuse.

Regularly reviewed

Responses suggested that is important for the guidance to be regularly reviewed and kept up-to-date. One respondent felt that a particularly important aspect of this should be assessing the intersectional multi-agency response, in terms of the support offered to minority ethnic, disabled and LGBTI victims, as well as to male victims.

2. Format

In terms of the format of the guidance, some respondents felt that a portal or website with online materials would be a helpful way to disseminate it.

The development of Scottish ‘toolkits’ was also proposed, reflecting that this is an approach that has been taken in England and Wales. SafeLives noted that they create guidance documents in response to requests from Scottish MARACs and practitioners and recently developed a Scottish MARAC toolkit, although also noted that:

‘To date we have not had capacity within the MDP [Marac Development Programme] to develop a range of Scottish Marac Toolkits similar to those which support professionals in England and Wales but this is something which we believe would be beneficial to Marac professionals across Scotland, ensuring they know the unique contribution which their agency can make in increasing the safety of victims at high risk of serious harm or murder.’

– SafeLives

3. Content

Expectations and governance

Clarity on Scottish Government expectations

Some respondents felt that it would be helpful for the guidance to set out Scottish Government’s views on the implementation and resourcing of multi-agency working for victims of domestic abuse, and its expectations in terms of Local Authorities and organisations involved. It was also suggested that the guidance could usefully clarify the commitment to MARAC within the Equally Safe Delivery Plan.

Governance and reporting requirements

It was suggested that further information on the responsibilities of MARAC steering groups, including any reporting and record keeping requirements, would be useful to cover in guidance.

Partnership working

General operation and Operating Protocols

Responses requested guidance on the overall operation of multi-agency working for victims of domestic abuse, including:

• Processes, including identification, referral, risk assessment, safety planning and ongoing support
• Contacts
• Resources

Some respondents recommended that all local areas produce a detailed and regularly updated Operating Protocol, based on national guidelines, to set out how multi-agency working will operate in that area, and to which all partners should be signatories.

Roles and responsibilities of partners

There was a strong demand within responses for guidance on how agencies should work together and what they should be responsible for achieving, both individually and as a whole. It was specifically requested that guidance cover the respective roles and responsibilities of statutory and non-statutory bodies. One respondent suggested induction and information packs be provided for representatives.

Coordination

Some responses requested specific guidance on the role of MARAC coordinators. This included a suggestion that they should be responsible for data collection and the submission of this data for evaluation purposes. There was also mention of the roles of chairs and ‘care coordinators’ – it was not clear if these are distinct from the role of MARAC coordinator.

Management within partner organisations

It was suggested that specific guidance should be provided for decision makers within partner organisations, as well as the line managers of the staff directly participating in the multi-agency work, to ensure that their own responsibilities are clear.

Partnership working in rural and remote areas

It was noted that face-to-face partnership working can have additional challenges in rural and remote areas, such as the additional distances, time and costs involved, and that guidance could usefully help address this.

Language

Terms of reference

Respondents suggested that it would be helpful for the guidance to set out clear, Scottish-specific terms of reference, including definitions of domestic abuse, ‘high risk’ and what constitutes advocacy work. It was noted that these should be consistent with both Equally Safe and the Safe and Together approach.

Communication

Communication with victims and their children

Respondents proposed that the guidance should cover effective communication with victims and their children. It was noted that the objective should be to ensure that information about multi-agency interventions is presented in a way that is easy to understand and retain, even in periods of stress. Respondents suggested that this could help reduce risk, increase engagement, reduce attrition and empower victims, children and young people.

Improving visibility and understanding of MARACs

Some responses suggested that it would be helpful to offer guidance on increasing the visibility of MARACs in order to improve referral rates, as well as to promote information on what to expect when attending one.

Further discussion of areas addressed in other questions

Training

It was suggested that training be covered in the guidance, including minimum standards and regularity of training. One respondent proposed reviving and updating the National Training Strategy.

Risk assessment

Several responses supported the guidance addressing risk assessment, including the effective use of any risk assessment tools for all victims and any evidence requirements.

Information sharing

Responses suggested that it would be useful for guidance to cover information sharing in the context of multi-agency working for victims of domestic abuse. This could include information on how and when to share information appropriately, Information Sharing Protocols, and specific guidance on complying with GDPR. One response suggested that it would be useful for each agency to produce guidance on their role in information sharing. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) suggested that guidance needed to address who the controllers of personal data collected as part of this work should be:

‘The Scottish Government should consider whether the agencies involved in the sharing and processing of personal data as part of a multi-agency assessment and intervention are joint controllers under the GDPR. This would be the case where the partners have joint responsibility for determining the purpose of and means of personal data processing as part of the multi-agency assessment or intervention.’

– Information Commissioner’s Office

They highlighted the importance of transparent arrangements, agreeing responsibility and following codes of practice, and recommended nominating one partner to take the lead in the case of joint control.

Other areas

Other areas that respondents suggested could usefully be covered in guidance included:

Data collection, auditing and evaluation

Guidance was requested on monitoring, auditing and evaluation of multi-agency working, including the collection of necessary data, to ensure that resources are being used effectively. It was proposed that consistent local data should be collected to monitor outcomes and that local coordinators should produce annual reports. One respondent wanted to ensure that geographical comparison was possible. SafeLives noted that they currently receive data from 22 Scottish MARACs every quarter, and that this can be used to highlight where improvements might be needed. For example, data currently shows that referral rates are lower than for the rest of the UK and that victims with certain minority characteristics appear to be underrepresented (a trend also seen at UK level).

Safety/action plans

It was also suggested that guidance be offered on action planning, to promote creative, specific and time-bound actions which address the risks identified. It was further proposed that this should also cover online safety.

Person-centred and intersectional approaches

Some responses requested guidance on taking a person-centred and intersectional approach to multi-agency working.

Public health education

One response suggested that public health education be covered in the guidance.

Links to other Public Protection arrangements

Some respondents suggested that guidance should promote links between multi-agency working for victims of domestic abuse, and other public protection arrangements such as Child Protection and Adult Support and Protection. One comment proposed taking advantage of current revision of the Child Protection guidance to promote a joined-up approach. Another raised concern about comparisons being drawn between MARAC and MAPPA.

Legislation

A request was made for guidance to cover new legislation.

Good practice

Some respondents requested examples of good practice within the guidance.