Presentation on theme: "DVRAM: messages from Northern Ireland and Barnet pilot evaluations"— Presentation transcript:
1 DVRAM: messages from Northern Ireland and Barnet pilot evaluations Martin C CalderCalder Training and Consultancy
2 Focus of presentation Emergence of NI model and development Focus and content of NI evaluationParallel work in other local authoritiesStarting point of London workPilot issues in BarnetMessages for the future
3 DVRAM: origins and initial extension How do we assess the multiple impacts of domestic violence on women and children?When we have collected the information how do we use it to analyse what it means and what to do next?How are the outcomes of any continued harm or intervention measured?How can such information inform safety planning?
4 INPUTS TO OUTCOMES Achieving Success in Child Protection and Domestic Violence Local research in N.I. conducted by Patricia Nichol Programme Manager, UCHT in into how domestic violence referrals from police were managed by Social ServicesSHSSB had identified a need in their risk assessment processes for a specific risk assessment model for domestic violence to be incorporated into the Needs Assessment Framework
5 First stepsSteering Groups were established to manage pilot project within SHSSB & UCHT.Timeframe – six monthsSHSSB Oct 03 – Mar 04UCHT Nov 03 – Apr 04Barnardos provided 3 days training and 12 days mentoring to 3 social work teams within SHSSB and a similar package to 4 teams within UCHT (including SSWs and APSWs when available).Barnardos provided Children’s Services Manager, who had expertise in domestic violence and child protection work and a research officer to evaluate the projects.50 manuals on model were provided by Barnardos.
7 Outcome Measurement –the process of Risk Assessment Risk Assessment:-Collection of information on the situation and risk factors within a family situation using a consistent framework- Nine Assessment Areas in Domestic Violence model and a Pro-forma to collate information to support Core Assessment FrameworkRisk Analysis:- Use of specific threshold scales of risk factors and protective factors to measure outcomes of assessment processRisk Management:- Use of assessment and threshold scales in deciding how the case should be managed, specifically the interventions offered to family – a child protection or family support type of intervention.
8 How do we measure the outcomes from this assessment? Cardiff’s Women’s Safety Unit-15 high risk factors associated with domestic abuseResearch Home Office –Research paper 217- Domestic Violence Offenders: characteristics and offending related needs. 2003Evidence based practice of Barnardos Domestic Violence Outreach Project in N.I.Pilot Research on the application of the model with N.Ireland with social work assessment teams.
9 Domestic Violence Threshold Scales There are five scales which rate the domestic violence from Minimum to Moderate to Severe through a range of facts that refer to the:Evidence of domestic violence,Protective factors/strengths within situationPotential vulnerabilities.
10 Domestic Violence Threshold Scales Additional VulnerabilitiesAge of victimVictim’s personal vulnerabilities-isolated- locality.Age of perpetratorDisability Issues for Victim, children and/or perpetratorCultural Issues within familyThe above must all be considered in each caseSeverity of the incidencesPattern, frequency and duration of violence incidencesPerpetrator 's use of the children /children caught up in the abuseEscalation of violence and use of isolationSexual violence/abusePerpetrator’s attitude to the abuse
11 Additional FactorsVictim has recently separated from the abuser-risk of separation violenceVictim has autonomy ( taking control with support)Perpetrator wants to reconcile with womanWoman uses physical force in self-defenceChildren use violence-siblings/othersWoman has begun new relationship
12 Perpetrator has history of abuse in personal relationships/woman has experiences abuse in previous relationships/childhood abusePerpetrator will soon be released from prisonThe woman and children have moved to a more isolated community with or without the perpetratorPattern of inappropriate system response.An adult victim being unable to care for the child as a result of trauma from an assault
13 OUTCOMES - USE OF MODELSystematic format for the consistent recording of domestic violence in SW case files.Referral Screening, Initial, Comprehensive Assessment (Second stage assessment).Child Protection Case Conferences - information gathering, child protection planning, and intervention planning.Case planning meetings - Threshold regarding family support and child protection.Format for court reports for care orders and contact/ residence orders.In the SHSSB the model was an additional tool in the Assessment Framework
14 Outcomes For StaffTraining and mentoring increased staff awareness and understanding of the dynamics of domestic violence.Social Work staff increased knowledge base facilitated their information gathering and confidence when dealing with domestic violence.
15 Outcome: Identifying the risks presented to children from domestic violence Enabled staff to examine and gather information and assisted them in identifying the risks present to children.Assessment process aided staff in rating the severity of the risks presented by domestic violence.Safety work intervention training with women and children was highlighted as extremely useful and effective.
16 Decision making in Case Planning - Child Protection & Family Support Threshold scales provided a consistent framework to assess and rate the level of risk.Threshold scales enabled consistent decisions on case clarification - child protection or family support.Increased awareness of risks to children and informed decision making.
17 Decision Making – appropriate support & interventions for children Model emphasises risks presented to children and enables staff to focus on the needs of victim, children and direct response to perpetrator.Identifies different interventions required for children, victim and perpetrator – safety/educative work and recovery work for children/victim.Maintains focus of domestic violence as main concern within the Assessment Framework but did not exclude other significant concerns.
18 Provides detailed information on which to base decision making. Enabled clarity regarding the level and type of intervention needed.Evidence–based practice of Barnardos Domestic Violence Outreach Project-safety work for women and children.
19 Compatibility with current practice and policies Initial assessment teams used the safety and domestic violence education during their work and found this extremely useful.Once model used a detailed case record can be maintained in file - this will be significant if case later entered the child protection or/and court arena.
20 Adjustments to Threshold Scales Data collected during the pilot confirmed that the threshold scales were accurate in rating cases into family support and/or child protection.Additional risk factors were added to threshold scales during the pilot which expands the risk factors.Work was undertaken to adapt the scales so they could be used directly with service users to discuss risk factors to children.
21 Mentoring SessionsSessions provided support to implement model and without the focus and support of sessions, staff would have struggled to implement this into their practice.Mentoring facilitated practice, consultation, learning, reflection on practice, provided research information.Use of team approach: SSW attendance at sessions was crucial as they are responsible for decision-making for case management and support to their SW staff.
22 Usefulness of the model to different social work teams Initial Response/Assessment Teams – Model useful for structuring initial information.Model readily identified gaps in information.Provided tangible record of all instances of domestic violence.In new cases not all information readily available.Children & Families Teams - Initial assessment using the framework at IRT assisted in longer term case planning.Provided consistent clear record of decision making.
23 Future Use of ModelConsideration to be given to multi-agency use of threshold scales in determining risk and appropriate referral to Social Services.Consideration of piloting the threshold scales with Police Service NIConsideration to be given to aligning training in domestic violence risk factors and threshold scales with existing child protection training.
24 Calder Comments Consistent thinking with RASSAMM Model allows for information collection and analysis and helps measure outcomesIt is an initial assessment and core assessment tool and could be a screening toolIt informs the Needs Led Assessment FrameworkNeed to balance risk and assets in threshold scalesModel is actuarially informed-based on research and professional knowledgeIt considers stable, static and dynamic risk factors
25 Recommendations of Martin Calder It is an holistic assessment model which could benefit from a re-ordering of the threshold scales-this has been completed.Users perspective on the impact of the assessment tool would be beneficial.Threshold scales of risk factors provides an accurate analysis of risk - this could be improved with gravity scoring used in the Graded Care Profile and AIM.
26 Step 2In June 2005 the NI Regional Steering Group agreed to fund the mentoring component of the implementation of the model.The training component would be paid for by individual Trusts and the mentoring component by the Regional Steering GroupEvaluation of mentoring by me
27 Mid point evaluation January 2008 MentoringTrainingDVRAM
28 MentoringPredominantly for social care although parallel processes for health and occasionally multi-agencyProvided support and practical guidance on applying model to cases (excused supervisors from familiarity with the model) thus consolidating the trainingAttendance often precluded by caseload pressures so should be mandatory and linked to professional development hours
29 Also provided input on engaging with perpetrator, children’s resilience and female perpetrators etc. Staff found themselves mentoring colleagues and managersUnrealistic for one person, no matter how committedShift mentoring within newly developed Principal Practitioner Posts
30 Training Well received and competently delivered Should be mandatory Needs to be compulsory to first line managersRefresher training needs to be considered as many staff didn’t apply immediately and lacked confidence down the road
31 DVRAM Extremely accessible and easy to use Provided roadmap of complicated territoryLegitimises questioning of ‘gut feelings’Confusion about linkage with UNOCINIAnxiety that it will identify more workVariable use if case not initially referred as DVDVRAM as core assessment tool or one of a number? It is not an end in itself…
34 Refinement of vocabulary Greater guidance on differentiation between severity levelsOne threshold scale per child?Requires clear mandate of adoption and applicationInstils confidence in staff: offering structure, clarifies roles and responsibilities and is usable with families
36 Integrated risk assessment tools and focus: child care Strengths-loadedRisk adverseSafeguarding predominatesExpansion of harmGeneral not specificTime-limitedEvidence-based practiceUse of professional judgement
41 Differential risk focus Risk of actual or likely significant harm?Risk of re-offending?Risk of relapse?
42 Common language and focus? Criminal JusticeProbation, police and prison inc MAPPARisk of re-offending (no timeframe indicated and restricted to index offence)Criminal Justice (MARAC)High risk victims in need of protectionSocial careRisk of actual or likely significant harm
43 Case file analysis – highlighted areas The displacement of responsibility on to the motherLittle evidence of perpetrator work to reduce the risk and hold him accountable for his behaviourEvidence of a high level of co-existence of physical abuse, neglect and emotional abuse of childrenEvidence of high levels of maternal mental health problems yet not in the perpetratorScores of 4 did not always initiate a core assessmentStaff changes and lack of continuity/ training linked to above
44 Some evidence of downplaying of threshold scale scores Huge coexistence of alcohol and drug issues and challenge of assessment and intervention focus/priority
45 Coventry CommissionHow to develop specific DVRAM factors for their growing ethnic populationPrincipally South Asian, Portuguese, Arabic and Refugee/Asylum seekers‘The Silent minority’ literature review (Calder, 2007)
46 London pilotsBenefited from prior evaluations and parallel commissionsAdopted and testing ethnic threshold scalesThreshold scales refined to match CAF levels and brought forward within identification and intervention processUpdating of model with emerging evidence-base
47 Production of an accessible flowchart for staff Greater guidance on Understanding the dynamics of an abusive relationshipWomen’s processes of help-seeking in domestic violenceOffering case examples to help staff differentiate between the severity levels
48 Broader suggested usage e.g. education and prevention Revised DVRAM for core assessmentMore detailed and identified evidence-based materialsHow domestic violence affects the parenting of perpetratorsGreater details relating to the risks to children from contact with the perpetrator
49 Areas not resolvedDifferentiation of static, stable and dynamic risk factorsSupporting modules for female perpetrators, same sex, domestic violence from young peopleInclusion of risk profile for adult victims of domestic violence
50 Areas for debateBoundaries of the model e.g. when is a specialist assessment indicated and what format should that take?DVRAM as integrative model to unify social care and criminal justice models and processesUse when victims are not mothers
51 4-pronged model Multi-agency DV threshold scale Social Care Initial AssessmentSocial Care Core AssessmentSafety intervention with children and mothers
52 Barnet evaluation Briefing (half-day to 200 staff) Training (2 days on initial and core assessments and 1 day on safety planning interventions)Mentoring (3/4 sessions on monthly basis for 5/6 staff)DVRAM
53 Briefing Awareness raising of DVRAM and threshold scales Variability of ownership of CAF completion and knowledge regarding DVChallenges the practice of couple work and mediation in DVUseful but not sufficiently bedded down to evaluate potential
54 Threshold scales clear and accessible – providing a useful compass and map Supports more informed referral (using CAF)Can help bring CAF alive and populate social care systemsDoesn’t necessarily dovetail with other agency positions – in relation to contact with the perpetrator
55 TrainingStaff felt multi-agency audience would have been better to promote greater clarity of roles and responsibilitiesManager training key to supporting staff in case applicationTraining clear and delivery encouraged motivation and reflection
56 MentoringPositive when able to attend: able to elicit direction and apply to cases immediatelyFocus on case application as well as areas not well served by the model – same sex violence etc.Need it to continue for some time until model embedded and they feel safe flying soloFelt stretched mentoring managers and colleagues in a new model if they hadn’t attended the training
57 DVRAM Provides great structure and focus Provides new information and confidenceCaptures and organises complexity into accessible toolWorkload pressures may preclude such in-depth assessmentsGreater clarity about fit with CAF and ICS needed: little evidence of use to dateConfusion about relationship with MERLIN
58 MERLIN will use SPECCSVO MARAC now measuring whether DVRAM has been completed and if so at what level
59 Very useful in working with adult victims – ‘you can see the penny dropping as you work through the materials…’Shortened version (prompt card) suggestedNot seen as a stand-alone tool but as part of a pick ’n’ mix portfolioChallenged practice immediately in relation to babies/younger childrenNot yet tested in courts but advance notification of its status would help workersDVRAM and safety planning – links with local resources allows work to be transferred
60 Threshold weighting correlated with professional experience and thus some evidence of differential interpretationLittle evidence of shifting practice toward greater engagement of perpetratorsStaff frustrated about limited time to work through the model with mothers
61 Messages from BarnetRolling programme of training required and useful to embrace adult-orientated services such as mental health, substance misuse etc. and link into existing Safeguarding Board TrainingUse application of DVRAM to identify deficits in resource provisionRe-emphasizing focus on safety work with children and young peopleLink DVRAM explicitly with CAF, ICS and preventive strategy ‘Building resilience, supporting independence’Map possible portfolio of assessment tools to use in conjunction with DVRAM
62 Cross-pilot site contacts to share information and good practice and avoid duplication Examine how ongoing mentoring can be achievedConsider case analysis to examine whether outcomes are more focused attained
63 Future work Conceptual and practice refinement of DVRAM Development of supporting modulesLinkage with other assessment tools and processesClear positioning and adoption of DVRAM Training and mentoring support package
64 ReferencesCalder MC (2007) The silent minority: domestic abuse perpetrated within ethnic communities: A review of the literature with recommendations for risk assessment. Leigh: Calder Training and ConsultancyCalder MC (2007b) Domestic violence and child protection: challenges for professional practice. Context 84: 11-14Calder MC (2008) Evaluation of domestic violence training and mentoring programme in Northern Ireland: Mid-point summary analysis. Leigh: Calder Training and ConsultancyCalder MC with Harold G and Howarth E (2004) Children living with domestic violence: Toward a framework for assessment and intervention. Dorset: Russell House Publishing.WOMAN ABUSE: Increasing Safety for Abused Women and Their Children (CAS/VAW JOINT TRAINING - FACILITATOR MANUAL Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services Ontario, CANADA, JULY 2001