Domestic violence and child protection

Report: 10
Date: 4 February 2010
By: Assistant Commissioner Specialist Crime on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

This report provides information on:

• Child protection cases where domestic violence is a factor
• MPS management of serious case review recommendations where domestic abuse is a factor
• An overview of joint working arrangements particularly between TP Violent Crime Directorate, SCD5 Child Abuse Investigation Command and SCD2 Rape and Serious Sexual Offences Command.

A. Recommendation

1. That members note the contents of this report and appendices, and make any comments.

B. Supporting information

Background

1. The Metropolitan Police Service’s (MPS) response to children caught up in or involved in domestic violence is managed by Violent Crime Directorate (VCD) and the Child Abuse Investigation Command (CAIC).

2. The VCD is charged with the responsibility of owning and developing the domestic violence (DV) policy and the accompanying standard operating procedures (SOP). Its Community Safety Unit (CSU) Service Delivery Team provides support and guidance to all MPS staff in respect of DV and assists compliance with the DV SOPs. The policy is cognisant of children who are either witnesses to or are from homes and families where DV occurs. In these circumstances children are regarded as potentially at risk and proactive action is taken regarding their safety and welfare.

3. SCD5 (Child Abuse Investigation Command) is accountable for the investigation [1] of all suspicions or allegations of crime, including homicide and rape, that come within the scope of the term ‘child abuse’. This is done in partnership with Social Care, Health, Education and other appropriate agencies. The SCD5 remit is as follows:

• Intra-familial abuse (as opposed to a stranger attack). Intra-familial means: within the family and extended family including aunts, uncles, cousins, siblings (including step, fostered, half brothers and sisters), grandparents, step-grandparents, step-mothers or fathers. It can include long-term partners but there must be an established relationship.
• Professional abuse - persons working in a child-focused environment who abuse their paid position e.g. teachers, sports coaches, youth workers, ministers, school caretakers, school cleaners, prison staff, etc.;
• Other carers – persons who act as carers with some responsibility for children at the time of the offence – e.g. babysitters, voluntary groups like scouting, unpaid sports coaches, close personal family friends;
• Where the victim is an adult and the abuse occurred whilst he or she was a child under circumstances described in the first three points above;
• Allegations categorised as parental abduction as per the Child Abduction Act 1984;
• The investigation of sudden and unexpected death in infancy of children under the age of 2 within the family.

4. The MPS works to the Association of Chief Police Officer (ACPO) Domestic Violence (DV) definition: 'Any incident of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional) between adults, aged 18 and over, who are or have been intimate partners or family members, regardless of gender and sexuality'. (Family members include husband, wife, mother, father, son, daughter, brother, sister and grandparent, whether directly related, in-laws or step-family).

5. This definition currently under review, is wide to ensure that all forms of domestic abuse including cases within an intimate relationship, a family context, cases of forced marriage and honour based violence are captured. However we know that many DV cases affect those under 18 years old or are perpetuated by extended family members. These victims are given an equally effective service in line with the MPS’ positive action policy.

6. There is clear evidence to support that children are often victims and/or witnesses of domestic violence. Whilst precise quantitative police and social care case data is currently patchy, the MPS recognise that academic research clearly identifies this link. For example;

• “Domestic Violence is a child protection issue. In over half of known domestic violence cases, children were also directly abused” (Farmer and Owen, 1995)
• “90% - the percentage of domestic violence incidents where children are in the same or the next room” (Hughes, 1992)
• “About 750,000 children witness domestic violence every year” (Dept. of Health, 2002)

7. The MPS also recognises that an abused child in a household is an additional risk factor for potential domestic violence and accordingly ‘child abuse’ has been incorporated into the MPS’ risk assessment and management processes for DV cases. In early 2010 the MPS will be adopting the National Domestic Abuse, Stalking, Harassment and Honour Based Violence (DASH 2009) risk identification, assessment and management tool for DV cases.

8. The MPS and its partners have been voluntarily conducting Domestic Violence Homicide Reviews since 2000. There is currently no statutory provision for the mandatory conduct of such reviews although provision has been made in Section 9 Domestic Violence Crime and Victims’ Act 2004, which is expected to be enacted soon. Currently a multi-agency DV Homicide Review will take place for all homicides in the Metropolitan Police Area which occur within the ACPO definition of domestic violence.

9. The MPS Critical Incident Advisory Team (CIAT) within TP leads on the conduct of such reviews and models its approach on the child protection world’s internal management reviews (IMR) and serious case reviews (SCR). Reviews will identify organisational learning (good practice or areas for improvement) and make specific recommendations. A composite report is developed which is subsequently quality assured by the multi-agency pan-London DV Homicide Review Group.

SOPC points 1 and 2

“Provide the number of child protection cases investigated (between 01.08.08 and 31.07.09) in which domestic violence is identified as a factor, and provide a breakdown of the data into the crime type and sanction detection rate for these cases.

- and -

Provide an overview (for the purposes of establishing context) or a comparison to child protection cases and sanction detection rates for cases in which no domestic violence is identified and explore how standard operating procedures or other investigative systems work differently, if at all.”

10. The only MPS system that will contain the information requested is the MERLIN system. This was originally the MPS missing person database. It has a limited management information (MI) search facility and does not measure this area. The data to fully answer the question cannot at this time be abstracted from it. This is recognised as a MI development need and the recently reformed MERLIN Strategic Group is exploring the opportunity and cost of such an enhancement with DoI. Initial assessment is that this could be at a relatively minor cost of about £15,000. CRIS records for DV will only show children who are classed as ‘victim, witness or informant’ and are thus inadequate for abstracting the information sought.

11. In seeking to provide a meaningful response however, the SCD5 Intelligence Unit was tasked to conduct a representative dip sample of SCD5 CRIS records. The report on the analysis of the sample is attached (Appendix 1). The report’s key points plus current relevant performance rates are given below:

• 200 crimes were randomly selected and examined for the period from four CAITs (50 per CAIT, one CAIT per region).
• 28% indicated domestic violence as a factor.
• On the assumption that the 28% figure is representative of London, approximately 2,500 - 3,000 child abuse offences per year probably include a domestic violence factor.
• The sample showed no discernible difference between sanction detection (SD) rates for domestic violence and non-domestic violence cases.
• The current detection rate for all SCD5 ‘child abuse’ offences year to date is 27% (target 22%).
• The current detection rate for DV is 46.5% (target 45.7%)
• The current TP overall arrest rate for DV is 75.7% (target 70%)

12. All cases of reported child abuse are dealt with in the same rigorous way. The Child Risk Assessment Matrix (CRAM) introduced across all CAITs since April 2009, treats domestic violence as a significant risk factor and, as described below, officers from SCD5 and the borough CSU will collaborate on investigations and case conferences, providing mutual support and expertise.

SOPC points 3 and 4

“Provide the number of internal management reviews, serious case reviews or child homicide reviews in the same period in which domestic violence was identified as a factor.

- and -

Explore what, if any, recommendations for MPS improvements came from these reviews, and identify how they are being implemented, by whom and what timeframes are in place for implementation.”

13. For the period 01.08.08 - 31.07.09 there were 9 serious case reviews (SCR) and 18 internal management reviews (IMR) across London. From a scrutiny of the summary information maintained by SCD5, four cases have been identified where domestic violence was a factor. These case summaries are anonymised and tabulated in Appendix 2. Of the four, there were no recommendations in relation to DV issues. An examination of all the recommendations emanating from these and the other cases for the period does not reveal any additional recommendations that specifically address issues in relation to domestic violence factors. It is however acknowledged that: a) terms of reference for IMRs and SCRs are set by LSCBs and do not routinely request an examination of domestic violence factors and b) that a full examination of all SCR oversight reports and IMRs would be necessary to determine the full picture asked for and this has not been possible in the time allowed. Chapter 8 of ‘Working Together’, that sets the standards and requirements for SCRs, has recently been revised and a new version published and adopted. Para 8.10 of the new chapter 8 provides guidance on deciding when a case should be the subject of a SCR and now makes specific mention to perpetrators of DV.

14. The MPS IMRs (that provide the MPS contribution to SCRs) are conducted by the Specialist Crime Review Group (SCD20), a specialist department independent of the Child Abuse Command and of boroughs. This independence has been identified in the recent Laming 2 report as best practice. A routine aspect in compiling an IMR is to consider any relevant issues raised in previous SCRs in the LSCB area to identify recurring themes. This would include DV related factors where relevant.

15. On completion, IMRs are circulated internally to relevant SCD and TP OCU commanders and where appropriate recommendations are actioned straight away, prior to completion of the SCR. On receipt of SCRs from LSCBs the recommendations are also circulated to relevant OCU/BOCU commanders for action. In determining what is to be done, a designated SCD5 superintendent will consider whether the recommendation is borough/CAIT specific or is an MPS-wide issue. The superintendent will determine the level of response accordingly, giving consideration to previous recommendations and whether an issue is, or appears to be, a recurring theme. Action will sometimes include additional review and inspection activity in seeking the best solution.

16. All recommendations and actions are recorded electronically on a spreadsheet utilised by SCD20 and SCD5. Commander SCD5 chairs a quarterly meeting of SCD20, SCD5 and TP VCD to review each recommendation and authorize sign off on completion. TP are currently establishing a similar oversight process for all boroughs, headed by a superintendent, and this will also centrally record, monitor and review all borough relevant recommendations.

17. Joint agency actions and issues are matters led locally by LSCBs. The mechanism for supporting joint agency action beyond LSCBs and, if necessary, for individual agencies to escalate any concerns over progress, is provided by the London SCB structure. The London Board has a Serious Case Review Sub-Group and this provides links to the Training Sub-Group and Executive Group. The groups meet quarterly and the MPS is represented on all three. In addition, the LSCB chairs meet quarterly. SCD5 and SCD20 are represented on the SCR Sub-Group. Government Office of London (GOL) are compiling a ‘best practice’ document to share the learning from all SCRs conducted in London for the last 3 years.

SOPC points 5 and 6

“Provide the organisational strengths and weaknesses in relation to joint working in these areas, and how the MPS is working to strengthen its response to child protection cases in which domestic violence is identified as a factor

- and -

How SCD5 works with TP Violent Crime Directorate, SCD2 and other relevant MPS units to ensure close working practices at a borough level, and what performance management systems are in place to ensure close working at a senior level."

18. The Children’s Act 2004 (The Government’s response to Lord Laming’s Public Inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbie) provided the legal framework for the national change programme ‘Every Child Matters (ECM) – Change for Children’. The MPS has provided training to all officers in ECM.

19. In the domestic violence context a MERLIN pre-assessment checklist (PAC) must be completed by the primary investigating officer or other nominated officer where children are present or known to be present in the household, regardless of whether or not they saw (or were present at) the incident. This will include DV cases where children are asleep in adjoining rooms, or away from the location at the time of incident. It will also include where there are child contact issues and where the victim is pregnant.

20. The MERLIN entry will be cross-referenced with the DV CRIS report. This action is imperative to ensure that appropriate information is shared with Children’s Social Care. The MERLIN entry must provide sufficient information to inform an effective risk assessment and the need for subsequent investigation into possible offences against the children or consideration for safeguarding measures. There is a requirement that the children will be visually checked to ensure their well-being.

21. When first responders (or primary investigating officers) attend DV scenes they must visually check children. If it is not immediately obvious that there is a child or children present then there is a requirement that police officers are proactive in asking questions, looking for toys, clothing, etc to ascertain the existence of children. In cases where there is a likelihood of significant risk of harm to children if they are left at the scene, officers must consider their power to take children into police protection (Section 46 Children Act 1989).

22. The new DV SOP requires that where children are present at the incident, in the same or an adjoining room they will be shown as witnesses on the CRIS report. Where it is identified that a MERLIN PAC has not been completed then the supervising officer will direct the reporting officer or other nominated officer to do so. Supervisors within Crime Management Units (CMU) or CSUs cannot put away a DV CRIS report unless a MERLIN PAC has been completed where appropriate.

23. Each Merlin ‘coming to notice’ entry will also be reviewed and risk assessed by the borough PPD decision maker who will refer any cases that indicate offences of child abuse directly to the area CAIT.

24. The DV SOP reminds officers of legislation under s.120 of the Adoption and Children’s Act, 2002 which amends s.31 of the Children’s Act 1989 definition of harm to include: "impairment suffered from seeing or hearing ill-treatment of another". (NB: s.1 of the CA 89 refers to the welfare principle which is taken into account when the court decides to make an order under the Act).

25. A recent HMIC report into the MPS on ‘Protecting Vulnerable People’ highlighted the importance of effective liaison between CSUs and CAITs. On occasions where there is both DV and child abuse a joint investigation will be conducted by the CSU and the CAIT. For example where a child is injured whilst an adult is carrying a child when attacked, the CSU will take primacy for the investigation with the assistance and advice of a CAIT investigator. The CAIT will assist in respect of information sharing and child interviews. The CAIT Police Conference Liaison Officer (PCLO) will also support borough officers and CSUs by attending and/or reporting to all child case conferences arising from ‘exposure’ to DV, and will provide the police expertise to child protection plans. In cases where a child is the primary victim (the one attacked) and a partner is assaulted due to their intervention the CAIT will take investigative primacy assisted by a DV specialist.

26. SCD2 is the new MPS rape command. SCD2 deal with all reports of rape, including child victims, except for those that come within the remit of SCD5 (see above). Collaboration between SCD2 and SCD5 occurs in training of investigators and Sexual Offence Investigation Techniques (SOIT) officers, SCD5 have expertise in interviewing children and SCD2 have expertise in investigating ‘acute’ serious sexual assaults (i.e. recently occurred). SCD2 investigate large numbers of serious sexual offences committed against and by children where there is no familial connection. In the first 3 months of operating, Sept-Dec 2009, SCD2 investigated serious sexual crimes involving 296 child victims compared to 205 victims of all sexual offences investigated by SCD5.

27. 27. A key facility in supporting all of these investigations are the ‘Havens’ and operate as follows:

• The Havens Sexual Assault Referral Centres (SARCs) provide a service for the examination of victims of “acute” serious sexual assault against children of all ages. An “acute” case is one where the incident is recent and in the opinion of the examiner there is potential to obtain forensic evidence. Medical care and forensic examination is provided jointly by Haven doctors and trained paediatricians. The Havens run a training course for paediatric examinations, this is recognised nationally.
• The provision of services for under-18 year olds and schools work are strategic priorities for Havens and are key elements in the three-year business plan for the service. There is an established Haven Paediatric Group; this group addresses operational policy, procedures, service provision and training. The group is chaired by the Pan-London Paediatric Lead and SCD5 are represented on the group. The group report to the Haven Strategic Board.
• Each Haven has a worker dedicated to advocacy, support and crisis intervention for all 13 to 18 year olds attending The Havens. The posts have secured Home Office funding to perform the role of Independent Sexual Violence Advisors (ISVAs), supporting victims through medical care, follow up and the criminal justice process. Work with individuals will involve identifying healthy and unhealthy behaviours. Issues such as safety, housing, asylum, schooling, bullying, self-harm and mental health may be discussed. Any identified needs are addressed. The work involves established links and referrals to statutory and non-statutory partners including; Social Services, Child and Adolescent Mental Health (CAMHS), paediatricians, Child Exploitation Services, NSPCC and Barnardos.
• The young persons’ workers at the Whitechapel and Paddington Havens have developed a schools-based violence prevention programme that is used in secondary schools and youth groups across London. This programme works to specifically dispel common myths around sexual violence and the law. So far, this has been delivered to over 6000 young people. This programme is being delivered across London, but requires the support of schools to engage in the project.
• The programme seeks not only to alert teenagers to Havens’ services, but also to raise their awareness and understanding on the law and have a chance to dispel rape myths. The Havens also acknowledge that these teenagers are our next generation of jurors.

28. The CAIT CRAM process identifies any connected current or previous DV as a key risk factor and triggers an early consideration of liaison with the borough CSU. PCLOs have for some time held responsibility for providing research and police input to child case conferences held for children at risk of harm due to DV in the household.

29. The borough Multi Agency Risk Assessment Committee (MARAC) deal with managing the high risk DV cases. Police representation is predominantly led by CSU with CAIT engagement ranging from sharing of case profiles to routine attendance with CSU colleagues. SCD5 are developing a new SOP to provide clear guidance to CAITs on ensuring risks to children in MARAC cases are identified and addressed by SCD5 in tandem with CSU and other agencies (completion February 2010).

30. There are inherent challenges in the way the MPS is structured to ensure effective cross-OCU and business group working. These are managed by a number of means:

• Whilst TP operates through a structure of 32 separate OCUs, the TPHQ Public Protection Unit contains various delivery teams that monitor compliance with policy and SOPs, i.e. PPD, CSU, Jigsaw (potentially violent offenders) and Compass (missing persons). This also provides central interfaces with SCD5, SCD2 and MIB. SCD2, like SCD5, is now building an intelligence unit and this will enable quicker identification of gaps and overlaps in sexual intelligence and dedicated intelligence support to SCD2 investigations of offences against and those committed by, children. The unit should be fully functioning by April 2010
• The sharing of information between specialist commands, MIB, Public Protection Groups (PPG) and TP Borough Intelligence Units, is a continually evolving and improving process. The Public Protection Steering Group (PPSG) has recently commissioned a small working group to seek improvements across all public protection intelligence issues, similar to those now being achieved on sexual intelligence.
• Cross-command information sharing is achieved at the strategic level through the PPSG and at an operational level by the fortnightly Public Protection Operations and Intelligence Meeting, chaired by MIB. This provides a forum to share cross-command intelligence.
• Bi-weekly tasking meetings are held by TP and SCD and these feed into the bi-weekly corporate tasking meeting chaired by DAC SC. This enables linked series, cross-border or high-risk child cases to be prioritised or additionally resourced where necessary.
• Performance indicators (PIs) are still largely quantitative and SD/OBTJ based which can detract from risk reduction and early intervention. The MPS is one of six forces currently piloting new child abuse PIs that focus more on qualitative measures of prompt and timely intervention, supervision and outcomes.

31. To ensure that standards are maintained, compliance is assessed by local/team inspection programmes within both TP and SCD. These are complemented by central review processes managed by TP Violent Crime Directorate and SCD5. VCD Daily Management Meetings assess all high and very high-risk DV cases. VCD knowledge subject specialists quality assure investigations and an escalation process exists for notable risks. Once escalated, central tracking continues until the matter has been robustly managed. Inspections include compliance checks regarding identifying and referring children at risk in domestic violence situations.

32. Each Borough PPD is now accredited, and has been provided with two intelligence researcher posts. Additional researchers have also been recruited for each CAIT referral desk. The CRAM will provide an improved structure for intelligence research and reporting, with its new supervision, review and escalation process. This process will be aided within the next 12 months by the recently approved enhancement to CRIS of the creation of a specific SCD5 page.

C. Race and equality impact

33. The MPS is mindful of any adverse or disproportionate impact that may occur as a result of the delivery of its services. The MPS fully embraces the need to engage with and consult wisely with all communities and their informed representatives.

34. An equality impact assessment is incorporated into an informed risk assessment, identification and management of each policy and SOP.

35. The work being progressed under the Children and Vulnerable Young People strand of the MPS Youth Strategy, now supported by the HMIC report on the need to improve supervision of high risk cases, has identified key risk factors which when combined, have a predictably negative impact on children and are strongly associated with physical offences against children. These factors include mental health, drugs, domestic violence, repeat victimisation, deprivation and BME background of the victim.

36. In order to impact on these factors, multi-agency work is progressing through the London Safeguarding Board to influence the provision of and access to services to improve the fate of children in these circumstances. Additional effort will be required to impact upon new communities and BME communities.

D. Financial implications

37. There will be a cost to scoping and enhancing the management information capacity of MERLIN of approximately £15,000 which would be absorbed within TP and SCD budgets. If work is approved this will likely be in financial year 2010/11.

E. Legal implications

38. This is a performance monitoring report, therefore there are no direct legal implications arising.

39. Section 46 (1) of the Children Act 1989 provides: “where a constable has reasonable cause to believe that a child would otherwise be likely to suffer significant harm, he may (a) remove the child to suitable accommodation and keep him there; or (b) take such steps as are reasonable to ensure that the child’s removal from any hospital or other place in which he is then being accommodated is prevented”. S46 of the Act also sets out various other duties upon the police following the making of a Police Protection Order, including notification to the appropriate local authority.

F. Environmental implications

None given.

G. Background papers

• None.

H. Contact details

Report author: Detective Superintendent Hooke, SCD5, MPS

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Abbreviations

ACPO

Association of Chief Police Officers

BME

Black and Minority Ethnic

BOCU

Borough Operational Command Unit

CAF

Common Assessment Framework

CAIC

Child Abuse Investigation Command

CAIT

Child Abuse Investigation Team #

CAMHS

Child and Adult Mental health Scheme

CMU

Crime Management Unit

CRIS

Crime Reporting Information System

CSU

Community Safety Unit

DAC

Deputy Assistant Commissioner

DASH

Domestic Abuse, Stalking, Harassment and Honour Based Violence risk assessment tool

DCI

Detective Chief Inspector

DI

Detective Inspector

DV

Domestic Violence

DoI

Directorate of Information

ECM

Every Child Matters

FGM

Female Genital Mutilation

FM

Forced Marriage

GOL

Government Office of London

HBV

Honour Based Violence

HMIC

Her Majesty’s inspectorate of Constabulary

IMR

Internal Management review

ISVA

Independent Sexual Violence Advisor

LSCB

Local Safeguarding Children’s Board

MARAC

Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference

MERLIN

Missing Person Linked Indices database

MI

Management Information

MIB

Met Intelligence Bureau

MPA

Metropolitan Police Authority

MPS

Metropolitan Police Service

NSPCC

National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children

OBTJ

Offenders Brought to Justice

OCU

Operational Command Unit

PCLO

Police Conference Liaison Officer

PI

Performance Indicator

PAC

Pre-assessment checklist

PP

Public Protection

PPD

Public Protection Desk

PPG

Public Protection Group

PPSG

Public Protection Steering Group

SARC

Sexual Offence Referral Centre

SCB

Safeguarding Children’s Board

SCD

Specialist Crime Directorate

SCR

Serious Case Review

SD

Sanctioned Detection

SMT

Senior Management Team

SOIT

Sexual Offence Investigation Techniques

SOP

Standard Operating Procedure

TP

Territorial Policing

VCD

Violent Crime Directorate

Appendix 1

 SCD5 Analysis of Child Abuse & DV: Briefing Note

• Protective Marking: Not Protected
• FOIA Exemption No
• Suitable for Publication Scheme? Yes
• Summary: Dip sample of 4 CAIT areas: abuse with previous DV instances
• Relevant to: MPA
• Authorising Officer warrant/pay number Detective Superintendent Hooke
• Authors and warrant / pay numbers Higher Intelligence Analyst Anthony Joy; Intelligence Analyst Charlotte Llombard-Vigouroux
• Creating B/OCU or Branch and Code: Intelligence Unit – SCD5 (10)
• Date created: December 2009
• Handling Instructions: This report (and all its contents) remains the content of the Metropolitan Police Service Child Abuse Investigation Command at all times.

Requirement:

Provide the number of child protection cases investigated (between 01.08.08 and 31.07.09) in which domestic violence is identified as a factor, and provide a breakdown of the data into the crime type and Sanction Detection rate for these cases.

-and-

Provide an overview (for the purposes of establishing context) or a comparison to child protection cases and Sanction Detection rates for cases in which no domestic violence is identified and explore how Standard Operating Procedures or other investigative systems work differently, if at all.

Executive Summary

1. Previous strategic analysis within SCD5 has shown a positive correlation between child abuse, domestic violence and deprivation within individual wards.
2. Academic studies have shown a strong overlap between abuse of children and domestic violence.
3. The DV flag is not a reliable method to identify abuse cases with previous domestic violence instances.
4. Across four CAIT areas sampled there was an average of 28% of cases, which had links to previous domestic violence.
5. These are mostly comprised of lesser physical offences, rather than any sexual abuse.
6. There was no discernible difference between sanction detection rates for DV related and non DV related child abuse cases.
7. Even where there is previous domestic violence within the household, these cases are likely to have additional factors such as substance abuse, mental health issues and repeat victimisation/MISPER as issues of equal significance.
8. Male children are more likely to be victims of abuse, in violent domestic environments, with younger children frequently represented when compared to teenagers.

Introduction

Section 1.1: Aims & Purpose

The aim of this briefing note is to inform the response to the MPA paper into child protection and domestic abuse, with particular focus on points 1 & 2. The analysis performed by the Intelligence Unit provides a dip sample of abuse cases in order to identify a consistent percentage of abuse cases, where there has been previous domestic violence within the family or household.

Section 1.2: Geographical Area Covered

This briefing note focuses on four CAIT areas randomly selected, representing each of the four regions - Newham, Haringey, Ealing/Hillingdon and Bexley/Greenwich.

Section 1.3: Report Sensitivity

The audience for this report is intended to be SCD5 senior management, with edited versions sent to the MPA. Authority should be made with Detective Superintendent Hooke prior to any further dissemination.

Section 1.4: Report Constraints

There are several report constraints that should be considered.

During the last policing year (PY08/09), SCD5 recorded over 8,500 offences. To provide a detailed analysis of this volume, to determine the definite number linked to domestic violence within the family, is not possible. This report is in no way a comprehensive analysis of all child abuse and is a dip sample only of those CAIT areas stated above. These have been selected from each of the four regions to take into account demographic and regional differences. The dip sampling has focused on the date range 01/08/2008 - 31/07/2009 requested by the MPA.

The SCD5 Analytical team is currently heavily tasked in support of operations both on CAIT & the Paedophile Unit. In view of time limitations, a representative sample set was agreed upon. This analysis draws on a data set of 50 offences in each of the four CAIT areas.

Any conclusions drawn are hampered by poor data standards. The identification of previous domestic violence within a family, and any resulting link to Child Abuse is problematic. As per MPS standard operating procedure, if a crime report is flagged as having a DV element it does not usually fall within the remit of SCD5 and instead would be investigated by Territorial Policing. Data is limited by the lack of easily identifiable & retrievable markers for domestic violence. For each of the 50 offences within each CAIT sample, the family name was searched via CRIS and MERLIN to identify previous domestic violence issues within the home.

Analysis

Section 2.1: Strategic Analysis/Academic findings

Previous academic research has evidenced that the one of the best predictive factors of violent behaviour, is prior violent behaviour.[2]

The 2007 Strategic Assessment shows that there was a proven ward level correlation (0.62[3]) with child abuse to domestic violence. However, development of the data showed that, the correlation is more likely to be linked to social demographic factors; such as deprivation (0.81), nationality and attitudes to violence etc. There are many references in academic literature to the link between being a part of a chaotic home environment, to becoming a victim of child abuse and resultantly the victim committing crime or abuse themselves. Parental violence in childhood as a strong predictor of violent tendancies in adulthood. Other reports suggest that abused children are at increased risk of juvenile and adult criminality and/or more likely to be victims of crime. Child abuse can be an enabler to crime and abuse can desensitise victims to society’s norms.

Further academic studies are available via the N.S.P.C.C, which demonstrate a strong correlation between domestic violence and child maltreatment. A study by Cawson in 2002, found that there is "a strong overlap between abuse of children and domestic violence, and high proportions of those experiencing abuse from parents also experienced (and witnessed) frequent violence between their carers. The findings demonstrate the importance of identifying and addressing domestic violence as a predictor of child maltreatment." [4]

In terms of specific types of abuse, the study further identified that

• For those subject to neglect, 59% said they lived with some level of constant or frequent domestic violence.
• For those subject to physical abuse, 48% said they lived with some level of constant or frequent domestic violence.
• For those subject to sexual abuse, 20% said they lived with some level of constant or frequent domestic violence.

Strategic analysis into Child Death and Homicide (2008), recognised several suspicious factors including parental mental health problems, previous domestic violence or violence to children, amongst others. In 19% of child deaths/homicides, the family was known for domestic violence. Many of the families who had come to notice for domestic violence were also known for drugs, neglect, housing problems, chaotic lifestyles or violence towards children. It is factors such as these that are the real underlying causes that drive offending in terms of both domestic violence and child abuse.

Section 2.1: Review of Dip Sampling

During the review period (August ’08 to July ’09), there were just 265 offences investigated by SCD5, that were marked with the ‘DV flag’. This equates to 3% of the volume during this period. This shows that reliance on the flag is not appropriate.

The four sample CAIT areas, totalled over 2000 offences during the review period.

Selecting 50 offences at random (including Physical & Sexual abuse, and Neglect) from each area, on average 28% of offences had previous or current (at the time) instances of domestic violence. The table below illustrates the number of reports in each CAIT area within the sample set featuring previous domestic violence issues.

When broken down by abuse type, there is a significant volume of physical abuse offences. Where there is violence between parents, it is perhaps obvious that there is an overlap with a range of physical abuse (67% of those identified as having evidence of previous domestic violence issues). The total sample from the four CAIT regions, demonstrates that approximately a third of offences with previous evidence of domestic violence between parents or carers, were variations of physical abuse.

These instances of physical abuse were supplemented by additional factors that are known and accepted to be signals or generators of child abuse. These include substance abuse (both drugs & alcohol), learning difficulties in either victim or suspect, while MISPERs were also present. While it is possible to identify that approximately 30% of cases sampled, have evidence of previous domestic violence, there is no cause and effect relationship. Factors as those listed, fuelled by social issues such as deprivation, can be of equal importance.

Demographic Data

From the sample set of those abuse cases with previous domestic violence, it is natural that either parent was the identified suspect.

Some of the 56 offences from the sample feature multiple victims, comprised of siblings both of whom were subject to abuse. The tables below illustrate the demographic breakdown of victims. Male children were most frequently represented, with IC3 male children accounting for 31%. In terms of ages of victim, there is a clear concentration of victims aged 1 to 6 years of age. Conversely, as children age into teenage years, there was less representation across the sample set. It can be inferred that as children age, they are more able to absent themselves from violent situations, or may be more likely to report abuse.

Section 3.1: Summary

This analysis has identified an average of 28% of offences sampled across 4 CAIT areas, had previous evidence of domestic violence within the same family. If this is a representative trend, it would largely be in-keeping with the findings of Cowan,P (2002) which identified that for victims of physical or sexual abuse, 34% had lived with some level of domestic violence.

Limitations with data, makes the identification of child abuse cases, with previous domestic violence within the family, a difficult task. The sample used in this analysis, provides a useful indication as to the strength of the link between child abuse and violence in the household, however given the data set is relatively small, it would be dangerous to draw any wide reaching conclusions from this.

Previous domestic violence has been included as a predictive risk factor for Child Abuse, as part of the SCD5 Child Risk Assessment Matrix (C.R.A.M). Although designed to identify opportunities for intervention at an earlier stage by assessing risk, it will also serve to collect further data that will answer many of the Commands Intelligence gaps.

The link to domestic violence is accepted as a signal for abuse; however the frequency and strength of this link cannot be determined to any level of significance. There is no straightforward method to identify underlying factors. Therefore it is necessary that support and funding be given to the SCD5 CRIS page, which will allow for more straightforward extraction of this data.

Appendix 2

Case 1: CAIT - Hammersmith & Fulham

Date: 05.08.08

Incident Details

This IMR was initiated by SCD5 to review ‘child abuse’ issues following a DV Homicide review and concerns raised by the murder trial judge. A Peruvian family emigrated to the UK several years ago. The youngest daughter was put into the care of the social services and allowed to live with an uncle. 3rd party allegations were made alleging USI by the uncle. This was denied by the girl but re alleged 4 years later. A familial dispute continued for 7 years about this relationship until 2007 when the alleged victim, now an adult, her father and another brother murdered the uncle by stabbing him multiple times.

Issues raised by the trial judge related to Hammersmith Borough and Adult Services.

Review Type

IMR

Recommendations

No recommendations from the IMR as issues dealt with from the DV Homicide review. These issues were not specific to DV.

Case 2: CAIT - Ealing

Date: 27.10.08

Incident Details

This was a DV murder where there are three children – all under a care plan.

Review Type

IMR

Recommendations

No recommendations

Case 3: CAIT - Haringey

Date: 10.10.08

Incident Details

Mum and dad currently on bail for assault/neglect allegations. Children at Family court. Children’s guardian has raised concerns that DV issues were a factor.

Review Type

IMR/SCR

Recommendations

No recommendations

Case 4: CAIT - Haringey

Date: 17.12.08

Incident Details

Child was the victim of GBH. Mother had a teenage pregnancy, violent father (DV) and known to MAPPA

Review Type

SCR

Recommendations

No recommendations

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback