APPENDIX 4
Memorandum submitted by Standing Together
Against Domestic Violence
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Standing Together Against Domestic Violence
has been successfully leading on the successful introduction of
a coordinated community response (CCR) since the late 1990s. The
Home Office plans to move this concept forward is, we believe,
exactly the right policy.
B. This must be accompanied by an understanding
that domestic violence must be a priority for the statutory sector.
Additionally a focus on the safety of the victim and victim's
children's is an essential element of any response.
C. It is worth considering whether a CCR
can be achieved if the Government, in the form of the Inter-Ministerial
Group, sometimes shows signs of lacking such an approach, especially
from what may be considered the non-criminal justice focused departments.
The speed of the introduction of certain elements of the Domestic
Violence, Crime and Victims Act has also been a concern.
D. The crucial building blocks of a CCR
are independent domestic violence advisers (IDVAs) and the Multi-Agency
Risk Assessment Conferences (MARACs). The Specialist Domestic
Violence Court has successfully allowed the proliferation of these
examples of best practice. What is now required is a broader thrust
to the CCR ensuring a response beyond the criminal justice system.
Concentration on high risk victims is only acceptable when funding
is limited and this policy in itself will not solve the problems
at their earliest stages.
E. This can only be achieved if local government
takes on its responsibilities (plus other important partners such
as Health) and Local Authorities are held accountable for their
performance in relation to their response to domestic violence.
It is recommended that this be ensured through the use of the
Comprehensive Performance Assessment system.
1. INTRODUCTION
2. Standing Together Against Domestic Violence
has been delivering an operational and coordinated response to
domestic violence in Hammersmith and Fulham for 10 years. We are
nationally recognised for our success and believe our approach
should be the model of choice for all domestic violence partnerships
in the country. The Home Office are currently consulting on a
coordinated community response to domestic violence which mirrors
our approach. The main points we wish to make in this document
relate mainly to multi-agency or partnership working although
other aspects of the inquiry are touched on in places.
3. We fully support this inquiry into domestic
violence as we passionately believe three things:
— That domestic violence still suffers
from a lack of prioritisation at all levels of government and
within relevant agencies.
— That the complexity of the issue
necessitates a formally coordinated response in the localities
and this inquiry offers an opportunity to ensure this happens
— That central Government policy (particularly
in the Home Office) has led on very successful developments in
this area and that these must be built upon if real change is
to occur
4. We will not be charting the extent of
the damage domestic violence causes to the economy, society and
individuals as this will no doubt be emphasised by others.
5. Domestic violence is a complex problem
that simply cannot be resolved by "standard" interventions.
It is neither a straightforward crime that responds to the usual
criminal justice system approaches, nor does it generally resolve
itself if left to those suffering or perpetrating the violence.
In these circumstances it requires interventions that are:
— Effective—in the sense that
the interventions work with the complex dynamics of domestic violence
with an understanding of the problems and solutions to the issue.
— Coordinated—which means that
every relevant agency must work together to improve their internal
response and, as importantly, work with partners to ensure none
of those suffering fall between the gaps of the process as this
is when they will quit the process and return to more years of
abuse
— Focused on safety—every agency
responsible for dealing with the humans involved in domestic violence
have vested interests (eg targets, large workloads) which may
not match the needs of those humans. If the safety of the victims
and their children is the overriding concern and objective the
confusion of purpose rapidly diminishes
6. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
POLICY
7. Before discussing the specifics of successful
policies it may be worth considering the "joined up"
approach of Government. This achieves its apparent apogee in the
form of the Inter Ministerial Group on domestic violence. Strongly
led from within the Home Office it would be easy to admire this
approach but the suspicion exists that it actually mirrors the
dysfunction of local partnerships. As is discussed below the Home
Office have, with limited funding, delivered real change in this
area, supported by what is now the Ministry of Justice and HMCS.
It is difficult, however, to see similar advances from other Government
departments.
8. For example (a) The impressive document
produced by the Department for Health intended to introduce routine
questioning of those contacting the health service is for guidance
only and has been very partially implemented. (Responding to Domestic
Abuse: A Handbook for Health Professionals.) (b) The Department
for Communities and Local Government are responsible for overseeing
BVPI 225 yet this has significant failings (eg does not affect
counties, insists on production but not delivery of school based
domestic violence education) and BVPIs themselves do not institute
change in the way it was hoped.
9. At this point disappointment must also
be expressed at the speed in which the Domestic Violence, Crime
and Victims Act 2004 has been implemented. The fact that domestic
homicide reviews have still to be formally introduced is a worrying
sign of the relationship between central and local Government
and how politics can be a barrier to changing practice in this
crucial area. We believe that such reviews are a duty of local
authorities and their partners and avoidance on the basis of a
"new burden" is immoral.
10. What did begin to create change in relation
to domestic violence has been more practical approaches. In the
earlier part of this century it was recognised that coordination
was an essential element of an effective response to domestic
violence, due in part to our model at Standing Together. The Home
Office took the courageous step of funding coordinator posts,
where none existed, in the hope that true coordination would then
occur. Due to a lack of influence invested in these post holders
and a lack of true prioritisation the impact of the coordinator
has been less than was attainable. Despite these problems there
are many coordinators doing their very best to provide an excellent
service for partnerships and the victims of domestic violence.
11. This approach to coordinating domestic
violence within a local authority setting, without the funding
and prioritisation necessary, led to an increasingly focussed
approach by the Home Office on the best practice which was known
to work and could be assessed for outcomes. CAADA (Coordinated
Action Against Domestic Abuse) has been the most impressive organisation
developing and establishing these examples of best practice and
it was Standing Together, amongst others, being part of the process
that led to these approaches being recognised and developed.
12. These examples of best practice are
of course the Independent Domestic Violence Advisers (IDVAs) and
Multi-agency Risk Assessment Conferences (MARACs). We fully support
both approaches and they operate effectively within our Borough.
13. However to ensure that IDVAs and MARACs
were introduced the Specialist Domestic Violence Court (SDVC)
was used as a "Trojan horse" to expand their development.
SDVCs have undoubtedly improved the outcomes of domestic violence
cases travelling through the criminal justice system and those
that work effectively (such as the one we coordinate at West London
Magistrates Court) do deliver more offenders to justice and related
targets. What of course they cannot do is deal with the massive
majority of domestic violence incidents and crimes that never
reach the stage of a prosecution.
14. Thus the central thrust of Government
domestic violence policy has been proven to be successful in its
focus on high risk and those that have worked so hard to ensure
this has happened are to be commended, particularly the Home Office
Domestic Violence Unit.
15. The concerns we have with this approach
are described below but we accept that with the funding available
this has been a sensible approach, ensuring the primary response
is directed at those most at high risk of domestic violence.
16. We say that:
— The funding made available for domestic
violence is derisory when compared to that devoted to drugs, anti-social
behaviour or other specific crime types, such as burglary or robbery.
— That domestic violence is a fundamental
causal factor in the wellbeing of society and that increased funding
must be devoted here rather than to the symptoms of an unhealthy
society. Levels of healthiness, educational attainment, anti-social
behaviour, crime, child protection are just a few examples of
the effects of domestic violence which is a thread always present
when an analysis of these problems is conducted.
— That IDVAs and MARACs are some of
the tools of a coordinated response and not a coordinated response
in itself. The Home Office are gradually developing a model of
a coordinated response but they will not have the capacity or
influence to ensure it is introduced in the localities where it
must be based.
— A concentration on high risk cases
will mean that less funding will be directed at those suffering
domestic violence in the early stages. This lack of earlier intervention
reduces the ability to halt the escalation of violence, resulting
in an increase in those suffering more serious abuse.
17. LOCAL GOVERNMENT
POLICY
18. Our submission so far has intended to
demonstrate a support for the policies pursued by Government,
with reservations. What prevents those policies being more successful
is the response from locally based partnerships and, in particular,
local authorities. Local authorities have gradually taken on an
increasing profile in this area but the funding they devote to
it is dwarfed by their other statutory responsibilities and their
response is to secure initiative funding. Mainstream funding within
local authorities is rarely devoted to crime issues, with reliance
being placed on other sources of funding such as Safer and Stronger
Communities funds or Local Area Agreements.
19. When addressing domestic violence the
picture remains the same. Despite some outstanding examples around
the country domestic violence is an adjunct to the daily business
and very rare is it to find the support that our organisation
has received from our local authority and its partners, particularly
the police. This is a bizarre fact when the scale of the impact
of domestic violence on local authority services is examined.
In terms of the cost to housing agencies, children and adult services
and education the costs are immense. Walby's figures (which will
no doubt form part of your inquiry) clearly indicate this cost
yet the response is muted at the local level, apart from the standard
role of the domestic violence coordinator mentioned above.
20. Beyond local authorities the costs to
health agencies are similarly high, as they are with the police.
In the latter case changes are slowly occurring but there still
remains a concentration on targets which attract positive career
progression, such as robbery and burglary.
21. In the case of health it would be easy
to suspect that the pressure to reduce waiting times leads to
a focus on the presenting symptoms rather than the causes of that
injury or illness.
22. The explanation for this failure to
treat domestic violence as a core responsibility and as a causal
factor in many of the problems these agencies face is complicated.
Some of the reasons are:
— A lingering culture which accepts
that this is a "private matter" and "why doesn't
she just leave?"
— A sense that these issues are too
difficult to resolve.
— The gendered nature of domestic violence.
— There is no core funding as there
is for statutory responsibilities.
— It is not prioritised or recognised
as a key issue for society.
— A belief that refuges are the answer,
or at least that they swallow what funds are available, despite
this requiring the victim to leave the home rather than the perpetrator.
23. Standing Together have battled against
some of this reasoning for all its life. Everyone in the domestic
violence sector knows that the comparison between a victim of
an assault outside a pub where the assailant is not known to the
victim and a woman who has suffered years of violence and abuse
at the hands of her partner is absolutely false. In the latter
case the courage required to ensure the violence stops is one
of the most difficult things imaginable for any member of our
society. And of course the statutory sector should be taking action
not relying on the victim to resolve the violence. The fact that
one in four women still often have to make this choice is an appalling
indictment on the world in which we live.
24. Alternatively of course the suspect
in a domestic violence case is always known and yet the rate of
arrest for a domestic assault according to the Police Performance
Assessment Framework for 2005-06 is only 27.7%. In cases of domestic
homicide the perpetrator is invariably convicted despite the lack
of witnesses. So when a victim is dead and cannot give evidence
we can convict but in simple assault cases our reliance on the
witness is such that we arrest just over one quarter of abusers.
Estimations vary about how many of these arrests result in conviction
but it is certainly under 10% of those crimes and is more likely
to be about 4%.
25. Such statistics do not however do any
more than highlight the problems and they largely concentrate
on the criminal justice system which is a small part of the whole
picture. The solutions below are based around the Government policies
described above and remain the central tenets of the work done
by Standing Together. These are known to work if properly implemented
and the failure to introduce them nationally is simply a failure
of political will.
26. SOLUTIONS
I. Implement a broad (ie beyond the criminal
justice system) coordinated community response in every local
authority area including every relevant agency
II. Ensure IDVA support is available for
victims and a MARAC is in place
III. Support coordination through a system
of accountability reinforced by protocols and information sharing
agreements
IV. Place the responsibility for action
in the hands of the statutory sector not the victim
V. Concentrate on the safety of the victim
and their children, and perpetrator accountability
27. These five steps will transform the
negative outcomes of domestic violence but the question remains
how this can be achieved at the local level. There can be no doubt
that the majority of relevant agencies are connected to or are
part of the local authority and this is where effort must be directed.
The other universal truth that Chief Executives of local authorities
accept is that the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA)
dominates their strategic thinking. In a pragmatic and target
focussed world these Chief Executives need to know what they are
going to be tested on and how to get the best results.
28. RECOMMENDATION
29. Standing Together therefore recommend
that domestic violence is introduced as a core section in the
CPA. The test must be simple and ask the question "Does your
local authority have a fully coordinated community response to
domestic violence in line with the Home Office model, supported
by the necessary elements?" Examination of the data will
then indicate if this exists and if the partners are delivering
the performance possible when committed to this approach.
30. As the Audit Commission says "CPA
is regarded by both central and local government as a major driver
of improvement in councils".
31. Why not use it?
17 September 2007
| 
