Agenda item

(A presentation by Alison Gilmour, Kent and Medway Domestic Violence Co-ordinator)

(1)               Ms Gilmour introduced the papers which outlined various initiatives and work to address domestic violence issues, and, with Mr Arthur and Mrs Weiss, answered questions from Members.  Arising from the discussion, and in response to Members’ questions, the following points were highlighted:-

(a)               work on domestic violence covered two strands – help and support for present cases and preventative work to avoid future cases;

(b)               preventative work in the Domestic Violence Safer Schools Project had shown that young people were more tolerant of domestic violence, highlighting the need for early intervention to help young people understand what a good healthy relationship looked like.  Therefore, much effort was put into working with schools, and primary schools were a particular key target area for preventative work to introduce children to a positive message as early as possible and try to reduce the domestic violence issue in the next generation;

(c)               various networks existed which could be used to identify problems and promulgate domestic violence protocols/initiatives, but sufficient project workers and resources were also needed to take work forward once a link had been made.  There was much interest in taking forward domestic violence work but very limited resources;

(d)               The Kent and Medway Domestic Violence Strategy (KMDVSG) Group included representatives from all statutory and voluntary organisations, so was a solid link between organisations.  One representative of the KMDVSG served on the Safer and Stronger Communities Group, and the KMDVSG also used local forums, Community Safety Partnerships and School Improvement Partnerships in their work;

(e)               Several of the projects which helped address the issue of domestic violence had their own methods of evaluating success and there was no one central evaluation method;

(f)                 Health visitors had a key role in linking to families and could help identify families with potential domestic violence issues.  However, the health visitor service was not evenly resourced across the county. NHS Eastern and Coastal Kent had appointed six domestic violence health visitors in December 2008 but NHS West Kent had none.

(g)               Patterns of domestic violence tended to pass from generation to generation and were therefore perpetuated and could almost come to be accepted as ‘normal’;

(h)               Witnesses and victims of domestic violence needed specialist support, and courts were now starting to provide this support (for example, in Maidstone) This support would make it easier to pursue prosecutions;

(i)                 Some work was also targeted at helping perpetrators to avoid re-offending, via volunteer programmes;

(j)                  KCC and several other employers had protocols for dealing with domestic violence issues being experienced by employees, whether they be victims or perpetrators;

(k)               A new initiative currently being piloted was Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conferences (MARACs) which dealt with the highest risk cases with the aim of lowering the risk.  MARACs involved the participation of all agencies and were being rolled out with the aim of introducing them to all areas of Kent by April 2009.  This was another way of bringing together agencies and allowing information sharing which could show up repeated patterns and possibly highlight cases which might be missed by one agency looking at behaviour in isolation;

(l)                  Different cultures had different attitudes to family relationships and what was and wasn’t acceptable.  This is called “honour-based violence” and was linked to forced marriages.  Much work had been done on honour-based violence, and all schools in Kent had been issued with guidance on this issue.  A policy on honour-based violence was presently being prepared by Kent Police.  Services to deal with it were available in North and Mid Kent but not in other areas of the county;

(m)             Funding for domestic violence work was accepted from wherever it was offered, but had to be bid for year by year, and   there was currently no comprehensive funding stream.  The Chairman suggested that the Children’s Champions Board could try to help to identify potential funding sources;

(n)               Although much work on domestic violence related to the effects on children and hence was addressed via schools and children’s services, domestic violence was also experienced by many couples who did not have children.  These people could not benefit from the links and connections which existed between the various children’s services;

(o)               Where it was present, domestic violence was known to be part of a range of troubles experienced by families.  For example, 70% families experiencing child abuse were known also to experience domestic violence, and 30% of domestic violence cases start during pregnancy.  Domestic violence was also a factor in family break up, and children entering care and becoming adopted.

(2)               RESOLVED that the content of the report, and the information given in response to questions, be noted, with thanks.