Agenda item

Deborah Fellowes, Scrutiny Manager, introduced this item by outlining the history of the Scrutiny Review into Domestic Abuse.  The scrutiny review had most recently been considered by the Improving Lives Select Commission on 5^th November, 2014 (Improving Lives Select Commission's Scrutiny Review of Domestic Abuse - Update to Response Presented in November, 2013, Minute Number 33). 

It was important to consider the length of time since the fieldwork was undertaken, and since that time there had been austerity measures and changes within Rotherham’s social care and the overall Domestic Abuse sector. 

Domestic Abuse had been a key priority within the Improving Lives Select Commission’s work programmes in the 2013/2014 and 2014/2015 municipal years.   

The Scrutiny Review into Domestic Abuse had been very thorough and considered a lot of evidence. Following completion of the review it had been subject to a six month monitoring report and then an annual review.  By the eighteen month mark, most reviews were signed-off.

Submitted to the Improving Lives Select Commission was the recommendations made by the Scrutiny Review, the Cabinet decisions on each recommendation, and the updates on progress at November, 2014, and August, 2015. 

Councillor Clark explained that she was on the review group; the work on the review had been long and complex, but very good.  Also on the group were Councillors Russell, Ahmed, Burton and Lelliott, supported by Caroline Webb.  Councillor Clark felt that it would be more effective to send the update to original Members for their feedback, given their greater knowledge of the process the review had taken. 

Councillor Clark asked for an update on recommendation one.  She felt that this was a key recommendation as it related to the Independent Domestic Violence Advocates (IDVAs) being funded through mainstream budgets, rather than twelve monthly fixed-term contracts. 

Jan Bean, Domestic Abuse Manager, confirmed that this recommendation had been achieved in November, 2014, through the retention of current service capacity.  Two permanent IDVAs had been secured.  She thanked the Improving Lives Select Commission on behalf of her team; it was much appreciated that the review had identified this as an issue.  Additional temporary funding had been received from the Police and Crime Commissioner for a further two IDVAs for one year. 

Councillor Clark referred to recommendation 5 that related to the creation of a golden number and/or a one stop shop for domestic abuse support, as in neighbouring authorities.  She was aware of issues preventing this, including different risk assessments being used by different agencies.  The review group felt strongly about the importance of this recommendation.  

Councillor Clark also referred to the importance of dentists being engaged and understanding how and when they should refer patients as the review group heard that patients presenting with tooth loss and jaw problems could be due to domestic violence.  It was found that dentists were not regularly referring in the same way that GPs did. 

Councillor Clark was happy that the two IDVAs were not worried about losing their jobs every twelve months.  This was a coup for the process of scrutiny reviews.  She had attended training and open day sessions with the Domestic Abuse service and would recommend the experience. 

Jan thanked the review group and said how appreciated it was.  She also confirmed that GPs continued to be involved and refer, and Dentists had processes in place to refer their concerns about potential domestic violence. 

Councillor Hoddinott was also pleased about the additional security for the IDVAs.  She was concerned that the commentary to recommendation five stated that it had been completed whereas there was no golden number or one stop shop for domestic abuse support.  This was misleading. 

Jan explained that the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) would act as the golden number. 

Richard Liversage, Detective Inspector in the Reputation Unit, explained about the restructure that had taken place in the Public Protection Unit.  It included a Safeguarding Adult Team that responded to allegations of rape, care homes issues, neglect, so called ‘Honour-Based’ violence and so on.  In high risk cases Domestic Violence Officers worked with IDVAs.  The Officers in the Unit were all detectives and experienced investigators.  In addition to responding to reports of domestic violence incidents, the Unit sought to reduce the risk as a whole by working with perpetrators. 

Jan explained how co-location within the MASH meant improved information sharing at meetings and the ability to respond and refer quickly.  Being co-located with the Police meant that they could be cited immediately.   

Councillor Hamilton asked whether individuals and families at risk of/experiencing CSE could be identified easily by the Domestic Abuse team. 

Jan explained that the focus of the Domestic Abuse team was Adult Safeguarding, however, risks were always assessed and the voice of the victim was always represented. 

Councillor Hamilton asked for more information in relation to recommendation 17 where it stated that a pilot in perpetrator management had reduced domestic abuse reports to the police by 75%.  Richard and Jan both confirmed that they had struggled to quantify the figure or identify where it had come from.  It is possible that it related to a transcription error.   

Richard explained funding bids that had been made and were unsuccessful.  These decisions were appealed and rejected.  Management of cases were now assigned wholly to one officer, rather than splintered to a number as in the past.  Integrated Offender Management included working with offenders to address their behaviour and reduce the risks to victims and children. 

As one document providing the MASH storyboard had not been included in the information that was sent to members, it was agreed that consideration of the sign-off of this report should be deferred to a future meeting of the Improving Lives Select Commission.  This would also allow the members of the original review group to see the updates and make any comments or ask any questions.  Deborah Fellowes confirmed this information had been received from the Domestic Abuse Team but due to administration issues this information had not been sent out with the update.

Councillor Beaumont referred to so called ‘honour-based’ violence and asked whether this should remain a focus of the Select Commission.  Deborah Fellowes confirmed that it remained on the list of priorities and she would programme consideration of a report on the issue. 

Councillor Hamilton thanked the officers for attending the meeting and for contributing to the discussion and answering questions.  She felt that a deferral for further information and wider comment would be beneficial for all stakeholders. 

Resolved: - (1)  That the information shared be noted. 

(2)  That consideration of signing off the scrutiny review be deferred to allow the original review group members to comment and the MASH story board attachment to be forwarded.