The Philpott Case – separating the exceptional from the ‘normal’

A friend emailed me yesterday saying: “Shouldn’t you be writing something about the Philpott case and domestic abuse?” In one sense it is understandable that the domestic abuse has not been central to the media coverage of this terrible tragedy – focusing rightly on the awful loss of six children’s lives. But, the domestic abuse was there of course – in terms of coercion and control, violence and abuse.

There is no question that the final outcome of the web of abusive relationships around Mick Philpott was extreme and hopefully exceptional but the information that has been made public about his behaviour is chillingly ‘normal’ in the context of high risk domestic abuse. Based just on what we know from the papers, his girlfriend would almost certainly have been deemed to meet the MARAC referral threshold. Thinking of the questions on the CAADA DASH risk checklist – separation, conflict around child contact, coercion, sexual abuse, financial abuse, history of violence to previous partners, attempted suicide, victim fear, escalation – the list goes on. Every single day, IDVAs all around the country receive referrals where women are living with all these risks, and for every one that is referred for help, there is another invisible woman who is not identified (in this case his wife?), tells no one and suffers alone.

There is much talk in the domestic abuse field about homicide prevention. Of course we want to prevent and reduce homicides. But let’s not fool ourselves that the ‘typical’ homicide looks so very different to the typical high risk case. It just doesn’t. There are 100,000 high risk families in this country. About half of those cases are heard at a MARAC each year. With the exception of the number of children involved – and the unusual cohabitation arrangements – many look very similar to this case. It is essential that we fund adequate services for these families and that we are clear that homicide reduction will only happen if we address high risk cases much more widely.

Similarly, we need to be clear about a few things if, as a society we want to protect our children. Social care professionals talk about domestic abuse ‘impairing parenting capacity’. It feels like a terrible understatement in this case but yes, domestic abuse does ‘impair parenting capacity’. This was a very extreme example, but if we don’t acknowledge this, and support women who suffer domestic abuse to parent and protect their children, then we are failing those children. This has to start with links being made between risks to children and risks to women and vice versa.

I go back to the last question on the CAADA DASH risk checklist, that list of questions that needs to be asked every time someone discloses domestic abuse. It reads: “Do you believe that there are risks facing the children in the family? If yes, please confirm if you have made a referral to safeguard the children?” Let’s make sure we never overlook this one.

Finally I would like to acknowledge the extraordinary work done by specialist DV practitioners, IDVAs and their MARAC partners every day – working to prevent tragedies like this. The tragedy avoided does not create headlines but it does save lives.

Farewell to Beryl

It was both a pleasure and a sadness to go to Beryl Foster’s retirement party this week.  A pleasure because it was a great reminder of just what a special person she is – leading the charity Standing Together Against Domestic Violence for many years, staying resolutely positive in the face of relentless challenges, and being a quiet and long suffering mentor to many newcomers to the world of DV (including me).  The air was thick with compliments to Beryl – all of them sincerely meant.  She epitomises integrity, wisdom and kindness – mention was made of a steely gaze at times but I think that this is just imagined!  Certainly CAADA probably wouldn’t exist if it hadn’t been for her encouragement and support to me personally and to the organisation in the early days.

But there was sadness too.  People like Beryl are pretty special and her approach (‘praise people a lot’ and ‘keep listening to women’) is not found very frequently. Her vision in the early days regarding specialist courts, support for women and children, partnership work and embedding good practice were so sensible but equally very brave at the time.  So, this blog is just to say a huge ‘thank you’ to Beryl, to acknowledge her contribution nationally and to make a resolution to try not to forget her wise advice.

What a day! #CAADAconf

Just winding down after the CAADA National Conference that we held in London today which I felt was a great success thanks to some terrific speakers, workshop leaders and a really engaged audience.  We focused in particular on young people experiencing different forms of abuse and were very pleased to be able to announce our new Young People’s Violence Advocacy Programme (yes, as usual we have managed to create an accurate albeit long winded name of one of our programmes!), which will be funded by the Dept for Education.   More on that in future posts!

The morning featured our key note speaker, Prof Jenny Pearce from the University of Bedfordshire who spoke with extraordinary insight and compassion about the experiences of young people – particularly in relation to sexual abuse, but also more widely in relation to gang violence, domestic abuse and wider forms of violence.  She really brought alive the reality for many young people and the extent to which they are often failed by statutory services today.  She invited us all to think through how we can try and change this and urged us to ensure that we listen to young people as we do this.  You can find out more about her work and her publications at http://www.beds.ac.uk/howtoapply/departments/appliedsocialstudies/staff/jenny-pearce 

Jenny was followed by the courageous parents of Carly Fairhurst who was murdered by her boyfriend when she was just 19.  I can’t begin to capture the power of their words – suffice to say that there was not a dry eye in the room.  As one of the members of the audience said, their words re-energised us all and reminded us why we do this work.

In the afternoon we had real insights from Robert McCulloch-Graham, seconded from his role as Director of Children’s Services in Barnet to the Troubled Families Unit.  He focused on the value of partnership working, MARAC and the need for dedicated lead workers for families – with the clear impact this has on outcomes.  No surprise perhaps to the audience – but he confirmed that almost all the families who are getting support via the Troubled Families programme have had domestic abuse as a feature at some point.

As if we had not had enough to get us all thinking, the terrific Certain Curtain theatre company did a production of their beautiful play, Mocking Bird High.  Tracing the impact of domestic abuse on two teenage children and their mother, they really touched the audience.  Everyone was transfixed.

We had great workshops on homicide reviews, perpetrator work, substance use, HBV, stalking and working with children living with domestic abuse.  I hope all who attended enjoyed it as much as I did.  It almost feels like we should get going on the next one….

More thoughts on the proposed ACPO domestic abuse risk assessment pilots

Diana Barran talks about CAADA’s concerns at the proposed ACPO pilot to give frontline officers discretion about the use of the risk assessment tool when attending domestic abuse incidents.

The Slippery Slope (and I don’t mean the snow)

ACPO’s announcement this week about a pilot to reduce police bureaucracy through discretionary use of risk assessment at domestic incidents’ feels like a very slippery slope in terms of the safety of victims and children.  It sends a very different message than those coming from other experts about the importance of addressing domestic abuse.  

Let’s start with Chief Superintendent John Sutherland of the Met Police.  At a recent conference on Tackling Britain’s Gang Culture he said: “I think we’ve barely begun to understand the secondary impact that violence has on these people whose homes it’s happening in.  I promise you, it’s having a devastating effect. I regard domestic violence is the single greatest cause of harm in society.”  We would agree with that – all those working with children, women or young people constantly see domestic abuse at the centre of the suffering and dysfunction that they are dealing with.  

Similarly, the Home Office has just extended the definition of domestic abuse to include 16 and 17-year-olds and also patterns of coercive and controlling behaviour.  This recognises the risks not just in physical and sexual violence, but also in coercion, stalking and control –  as well as specifically highlighting the typical characteristics of an abusive relationship which includes a pattern of behaviour and escalation in severity.

Finally, the IPCC ( Independent Police Complaints Commission) has highlighted in a number of domestic homicides, the need for consistent and high quality risk assessment even in cases where the victim is minimising what has happened to her. For those who want to read more see the reports on the murders of Casey Brittle and Christine and Shania Chambers.  In the case of Casey Brittle, the Commissioner wrote about the response of the police, saying that it ”was borne of a lack of knowledge and a willingness to accept the word of a woman who had suffered years of abuse when she said she did not want or need their help.” 

So why are we so worried about ACPO’s announcement?  Some parts are perfectly sensible – the risk identification checklist which we developed together with ACPO was not designed to be used in cases of ‘two brothers fighting over a remote control’.  Indeed, we didn’t think that anyone would call the police in such a situation but obviously we were wrong!  But the other areas such as ‘one off incidents reported by a neighbour’, no previous history or no record of violence in the relationship simply go against everything we know about domestic abuse.  We estimate that in the highest risk cases only about 50% of people tell the police.  Where the risk is lower, the level of reporting to the police falls sharply.  Our research shows that about 10% of MARAC cases have never told the police about their abuse despite they, and their children, being at risk of murder or serious harm.  A significant number of women who are killed have never called the police.  How are we going to spot which ones those are, if they do decide to seek help that way?

Secondly, the focus on bureaucracy misses two crucial points.  The checklist was developed in the first place because it was clear that the police did not feel competent to judge and assess risk without it.  It just isn’t bureaucracy – it is a practical tool that allows officers to do their job better in a world where resources for training and supervision are shrinking. Every question on the list relates to a risk factor for domestic homicide.  The real issue is how well the checklist is completed, how the information is used and what other services are brought in to support the family.  The quality of risk assessments has been variable and in some cases left much to be desired – see the Christine and Shania Chambers IPCC report for more on this.  But describing the process as bureaucratic is missing the point – paper only gets shuffled when the information on it is of poor quality.  We see risk assessments forming a central role in safety planning in many areas – in others people whisper that they are ‘filled out in the back of the car’  This is a supervision issue, not bureaucracy.

So back to the slippery slope…Hampshire police is now moving on to allow officers complete discretion in when they judge it worth asking the risk questions and we are really concerned that other forces might follow.  This is a big step backwards and goes against everything that we are striving to achieve in terms of helping families in sooner and using a multi agency approach to ensure that public resources are put to best effect.  

To quote the IPCC once more: “Victims of domestic violence are frequently most at risk from a coercive and controlling partner when they seek external help or try to end the relationship.”

Safety or bureaucracy?  You choose.

A Place of Greater Safety – Insights 1

It was a proud moment today when we published our first major policy report ‘A Place of Greater Safety’, using data collected by domestic abuse practitioners all around the country.  It is important because:

1. It includes data from about 2500 victims and their children – highlighting the type of abuse they suffer and putting the real experience of victims at the heart of our recommendations, of practice and of policy.
2. It makes the case for mainstreaming funding for IDVAs and MARACs
3. It shows how putting IDVAs in hospital settings could help identify 10,000 high risk victims and their children who are getting no support today
4. It includes the first substantial information on the abuse suffered by teenagers – a group who will become more visible with the change in the definition of domestic abuse to include 16 and 17 year olds.
5. It highlights the impact of domestic abuse on children and gives commissioners simple actions to address this.
6. It is aimed at local commissioners – those with the responsibility and the funding to address the problems.
7. It gives clear objective evidence which we hope will underpin local and national policy.
8. And it is part of a body of data that is growing every year so there is CAADA Insights 2, 2013 to look forward to!

I would really like to thank those practitioners who use the CAADA Insights service and our early funders who had the vision to back this approach before its benefits and value were really visible.  And also the fantastic team at CAADA who have worked day (and all too often at night) to put this together.

Please make sure your local commissioners know that this is now available – it could make all the difference.  You can download the report from our website at http://bit.ly/XkJXy6

Despite my best efforts #aPOGS may not be trending yet on Twitter…but there is still time….

Measurement – what, why and for whom?

The latest NPC newsletter highlighted comments from Francis Maude about the importance of impact measurement (you can read the original here: Minister urges embedding of impact at NPC conference http://bit.ly/QOphf7 ) by charities hoping to compete for local authority contracts.  The article goes on to point out that about half of charities have increased their measurement in order to meet the needs of their funders, and only 5% with the aim of improving their services – although 25% said it did improve their services.

At CAADA we care a lot about information, evidence and measurement – indeed our Insights service works with about 100 practitioners across 20 service providers to collect information directly from service users.  Of course we see a value in ‘meeting the needs of funders’ but we see a MUCH bigger value in understanding how the profile of different service users differs, what interventions are effective, how this learning can be shared across multiple small service providers, and how it can be used to shape commissioning and policy.  It is in the ALIGNMENT of all these actors that we achieve real change for beneficiaries – ensuring that all use exactly the same data to inform their decisions and ensuring that the service user’s experience drives the whole process and encourages the improvements in practice and innovation that we all wish to see.  For more about Insights, see the Commissioners page on our website. (CAADA: domestic abuse service commissioners – domestic violence service commissioning – outcomes measurement http://bit.ly/XkJXy6 )

So the WHAT we measure, is information that is useful to practitioners or it won’t be collected consistently.  The WHY we measure is to help us understand better what works, how to shape our response and what good commissioning looks like.  The FOR WHOM we measure is for beneficiaries – to be sure that we spend our resources in the way that achieves the best outcomes for them.  And if we do all these things we will have aligned the interests of practitioners, service managers, funders, commissioners and policy makers to focus on what is good for the beneficiary.  End of lecture.

Domestic violence: the limits of Strasbourg's intervention

Reblogged from UK Human Rights Blog:

Irene Wilson v. The United Kingdom (Application no. 10601/09) - read admissibility decision

Sadly barely a month seems to go by without a report in the media about the police and the justice system failing to protect the victims of domestic violence.

The Strasbourg Court  has been required on a number of occasions to assess whether the response of domestic authorities to domestic violence has been compatible with their positive obligations under…

Read more… 1,158 more words

This case raises some interesting issues and questions. You do need to read it all below but my questions included: 1. Why is counselling preferable to a probation order that would focus on the specific behaviours associated with domestic abuse? 2. Was the 'root cause' of the violence Mr Wilson's drinking? Was this the only incident? 3. Was it correct that Mrs Wilson had not reported any other incidents because there weren't any? Or for any other reason.....

Risk Assessment in Domestic Violence – Bringing the focus onto perpetrators

There was a helpful article in Community Care last month, written by Thangam Debonnaire (who is a real expert in this area) about the use of risk assessments in domestic abuse.  It highlights the role of MARAC, the importance of not holding the victim responsible for the abuse and the need for multi-agency training on risk.  We have always talked about a ‘common language of risk’, meaning that all front line professionals would recognise all risk factors – not just those linked to their profession.  Thus, midwives would see not just pregnancy but also separation as a risk, and police officers would see not just weapons but also extreme levels of control.

It also raises the following important point: “It is also important that practitioners focus less on the victim’s agency and behaviour and more on those of the perpetrator, and for risk management and multi-agency work to include engaging with perpetrators through programmes and other interventions that support both victims and perpetrators in change.”

Lack of engagement with perpetrators is a constant feature in all our work and one that organisations such as Respect have worked hard to get us all to focus on.  It would be really interesting to hear of any local examples – either single agency or multi-agency – that you have used to improve engagement and what you feel the results have been – particularly within the MARAC context.  Thanks in advance for your help!

If you want to read the full article, go to http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/03/10/2012/118483/what-research-says-about-domestic-violence-risk-assessments.htm 

Missing Voices: How Can We Get More ‘Doers’ to the Social Innovation Table? : Center for Social Innovation CSI

I thought that this was a thought provoking post from the blog of Kriss Deiglmeier, Executive Director of the Centre for Social Innovation at the Stanford Graduate School of Business.  She writes:

“A number of reports have crossed my desk recently about how to accelerate and advance social innovation. There are reports on collective impact, convenings on impact investing, and conferences about measuring outcomes to name just a few.  

These gatherings and reports come from credible sources, and so their recommendations influence the agendas of leaders, funders, and investors. Their data and findings help to define what people think is important. They drive strategies, dollars and operations, and in doing so shape the direction of social innovation.  

In many of these reports I notice a big imbalance in representation between those I’ll call the “doers” and those who consult, advise and fund the action. For example, on a back of the envelope analysis of four reports by leading social impact experts and consulting firms, just 24% of those surveyed/convened were doers who directly provide programs, services and interventions. The remaining 76% were assorted funders, consultants, intermediaries, advisors, and donors.  In one report the doers accounted for a mere 3%. These percentages resonate with my observations at a variety of gatherings over recent years, and they raise concern.   

There will be consequences if our dialogue about social impact becomes insular and too far removed from the front lines. We need to hear from the doers who intimately understand the demanding reality of working to create positive change, and are closer to the people and causes we care about. Doing so will only lead to better outcomes.   

We will get better solutions. 

The doers are more connected to the clients and customers that are critical to understand, and whose needs must be met. They generally have a more nuanced understanding of the cultural context, behavioral patterns, and peer networks that impact the effectiveness of a proposed solution. So, by including more doers in the conversation, our findings, strategies, and plans will be better anchored in reality and empathetic to the end user/customer, which will likely increase the success of proposed solutions.  

Plans will have more traction with the people responsible for implementing them.

When doers are not at the table they can’t help to define hot topics and set priorities. The proposals and plans developed are then several layers removed from the people most crucial to their implementation. I hear a lot of talk about the need for more intermediaries and consultants, and in a cycle without input from the doers we can end up with funders, intermediaries, and academics talking to each other in circles. It risks becoming a self-aggrandizing loop that doesn’t resonate with the front-line action.

The reasons why doer voices are missing from the conversation are varied and complex. It’s possible that they are less networked to the conveners and report authors than their intermediary colleagues. It’s also possible, unfortunately, that their perspectives are undervalued or overshadowed by the power dynamic that exists between funders and doers. However, one reason seems clear: The field of social impact is underinvesting in doer organizational capacity and professional development. This underinvestment limits their ability to both be at the table when new solutions are proposed and also implement changes.  

I was recently talking with a colleague who shared the following illustration. A Stanford graduate who elected to work for a nonprofit organization wanted to attend a two-day professional conference. The woman asked her manager if she could go, she offered to pay her conference fee and travel out of her own pocket, and just needed approval for paid time away from the office. The answer was no; the organization couldn’t spare her for even two days. Unfortunately, this reality of lack of resources and bandwidth is all too common.  

To solve the world’s complex problems we need to continue to innovate. Asking tough questions and pushing the boundaries of what is possible is a must. To get the best answers the field also needs to better engage the voices of front-line actors in high-level discussions about social innovation, and in defining priorities and developing plans. The doers need enough bandwidth to occasionally step out of their day-to-day leadership, management, and program delivery obligations to contribute meaningfully to this dialogue.  

Equally important to getting doers to the social innovation table is equipping them to share their topical expertise more effectively across sectors, supporting them to grow professionally, and engaging them as co-creators of social innovation’s future sweet spots. Isn’t it as important, if not more so, to invest in their organizational capacities, leadership skills, and knowledge than to pour money into intermediaries, backbone organizations, and consultants? I appreciate the role of those who offer a broad perspective, facilitate connections, and oversee complex multi-stakeholder processes, but we need to remember not to cannibalize the individuals and projects directly working with communities as we follow new trends in the field.

For each dollar invested in an intermediary, we should carefully consider the trade-off and make sure that it wouldn’t be better spent to build the organizational capacity of a key NGO, fund leadership training for a promising leader, or pay to document and disseminate lessons learned from the doers who directly drive results in the field.

Everyone – the doers in their diverse areas of expertise as well as those that fund, inform and guide the field more broadly – have insights that can shape our sense of what’s possible. From the ivory tower to foundation board rooms to where the rubber meets the road, all contingents deserve support to build the skills they need to create positive change in the 21st century.“

Missing Voices: How Can We Get More ‘Doers’ to the Social Innovation Table? : Center for Social Innovation CSI.