The multi-agency response to children living with domestic abuse
| Author | Erin McBride |
| Date | 01 March 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0264550517752751a |
| Published date | 01 March 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Research & reports |
The multi-agency response to children living with
domestic abuse
This report summarizes the observations of the second joint area inspection pro-
gramme, examining ‘the multi-agency response to children living with domestic
abuse’. It considers the extent to which six local authorities worked together to
effectively manage domestic abuse cases and the impact it has on children.
The volume of work domestic abuse creates for agencies is enormous, requiring
sophisticated systems and well-coordinated processes. At year-end 2016, 1.03
million domestic abuse related incidents were reported to the police, making up
40%of all criminal offences. It was the most commonly assessed risk factor by
Children Social Care (CSC), and it was estimated that 32%of victims sought
medical attention. Furthermore, 77 women and 28 men were killed by current or
previous partners.
Services have overcome the initial struggle of managing the high volume; how-
ever, a societal change is required to progress towards a longer-term approach,
promoting prevention and reduction. Accepted practice in tackling domestic abuse
is prevent, protect and repair. It was considered that victims and children were
being adequately protected after a domestic abuse incident. However, little is being
done to repair the damage this creates or, foremost, attempts to prevent it. The
suggestion of a new approach is ‘not because the system is failing, but because it is
ready to move on’ (p. 7).
The system currently relies on crisis intervention to high-risk incidents. In the most
serious cases, the victim and children are removed from the family home or area.
Although this reduces the short-term visible risks, it is ineffective in managing the
long-term issues of domestic abuse and neglects to hold the perpetrator responsible
for their behaviour. Instead of asking, ‘Why doesn’t the victim leave them?’, a
widespread public service message creating a large-scale shift to ‘Why doesn’t the
perpetrator stop?’ is needed. Pushing the victim to end the relationship increases the
risk to the victim and children, but also falls short in tackling the root problem of the
perpetrator’s behaviour, allowing them to move onto the next victim or family. From
a public funds perspective, this makes little sense.
It was recorded that victims were labelled as manipulative, secretive and contra-
dictory. Attempts to mislead or distract professionals are not being identified as
coping strategies. The Serious Crime Act 2015 added coercive and controlling
behaviour as an offence. This type of abuse is not being recognized when working
with victims. Anexample of this is CSC creating written working agreements, placing
the responsibility on the victim to protect the children (e.g. not allowing the perpe-
trator into the house/to see the children). Why is the focus not on the perpetrator, the
source of the abuse and therefore the risk? Holding the victim to an agreement when
they are potentially under the control of a perpetrator is a contradiction within itself.
Unsurprisingly, written agreements have been found to be ineffective.
Further research is required to establish an evidence base of effective interven-
tions to change perpetrator behaviour. Probation services can only implement
Research & reports 99
To continue reading
Request your trial