Transcript Document
Initial findings from Domestic Homicide Reviews Who is STADV and why did we start in the late 1990’s? 1996 Figures Standing Together Against Domestic Violence Local approach: focus on Strategic Coordination Operational focus: •MARAC Coordination •Children and Health Coordination •Specialist Court Coordination •Housing Coordination •Specialist Services Coordination •Maternity and A&E Projects National work related to consultancy, training, Domestic Homicide Reviews, Domestic Abuse Housing Alliance (DAHA), In Search of Excellence: A Guide to Local Partnerships The five truisms* of any response to domestic and sexual violence 1. Despite the evidence DV/SV is not sufficiently prioritised 2. The increase in investment during the 2000’s never reached the level that satisfied the need 3. Investment is now reducing from a level of insufficiency 4. The 3rd sector will never be able to satisfy the need, regardless of investment 5. The statutory sector must take more responsibility for the response The Coordinated Community Response (CCR) and partnership The CCR is just a highly developed partnership: It acknowledges the need to keep victims safe and hold perpetrators to account It requires all agencies that see victims to do a good job. It requires agencies to work collaboratively with others. It requires specialist service provision DHR -Statutory context • Implemented through section 9 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 • Following a homicide, local authorities should conduct a ‘Domestic Homicide Review’ (DHR) into what happened • In some circumstances, local authorities may decided to conduct a ‘Near Miss Review’ (NMR) • Into those cases that did not result in a homicide but are of particular concern, e.g. because of a life changing incident and/or extensive contact with local services • Not a statutory requirement Purpose of DHRs • Identify what lessons can be learned about the way in which local professionals and organisations work individually and together to safeguard victims • Identify how these lessons will be acted on, and what is expected to change as a result • Apply these lessons to service responses including changes to policies and procedures as appropriate • Prevent domestic violence and abuse homicide and improve service responses through improved intra and inter-agency working. Brief overview of the Process Chair appointed Panel meeting IMRs and Chronologies over several meetings Findings agreed and Overview Report Action plan done by CSP QA process at Home Office Involvement of friends and family – highly valued! 30 deaths 74% Intimate Partner Homicide- 22 Intimate partner 14 Murder-suicide 4 Partner also carer 4 26% Family-Related Homicide-8 Matricide 5 Patricide 2 Fraticide 1 30 deaths 22 Intimate Partner Homicide 82% occurred in the home of the victim •3 at the home of the perpetrator •1 on the street/stalking 8 Stabbing Strangulation Head Injury Family-Related Homicide All in the home of the victim Children and young people • 36% cases had children under 18 in the household • 13 children and young people directly affected • Ages ranged from a few months to 16 years • 3 cases included a current or recent pregnancy About the IPH victims • Aged 20 – 81, with a mean age of 41, 50.5% under 35 • 18% were disabled- killed by partners / carers • 46% had medically diagnosed mental health condition with a further 37% self reported mental health concerns (totalling 83%) • 14% victims had known alcohol /drug dependency issues About Family Related Victims • 5 females and 3 male victims: 5 mothers 2 fathers 1 brother • Mean age of 64 years • 5 from minority ethnic groups • 3 diagnosed or self reported mental health issues IPH Perpetrator Characteristics •27% white British/ 68% minority ethnic groups •Mean age of 40 years (19 to 80 years) •59% mental health issues •10 of 22 history of substance abuse Family Related Perpetrator Characteristics •5 of 8 from minority ethnic groups •Mean age of 37 (one 16 yrs) •7 of 8 had diagnosed or self reported mental health issues- ½ had mental health diagnosis (1 depression, 2 psychosis, 1 schizophrenia) and 3 self reported mental health issues •5 of 8 had substance misuse Family Related Perpetrator Characteristics •Middle aged •Unemployed •Criminal histories (3/4) •Mental Health •Living at home •Violence toward other female family members (1/2) •Violence towards previous/current intimate partners (1/3) Risk Factors Separation not a single event – 2/3 of victims and perpetrators were in a current relationship at the time of killing and 27% of perpetrators were ex-partners Most common risk factors identified through the DHR process: Separation Previously experienced injury Mental health of perpetrator Controlling behaviour* Jealous surveillance* Suicide and attempts of perpetrator Abuse to previous partners Wider offending history- to family members and other offenses “high risk” not identified resulting in lack of specialist response • Domestic abuse known in 12 cases despite all victims being well known to services in general • Risk assessments done with 5 victims – all by the police (1 woman 3 times) • None assessed as high risk • Two resulted in a MARAC referral due to professional judgement • One victim was helped by specialist services Who Knew? Both victims and perpetrators well known to a variety of services 54% or 12 of 22- Domestic abuse was known by . Missed Opportunities 75% cases missed opportunities identified • Majority in heath settings- GPs • Adult social care • Children's services • Housing • Probation • Workplace Areas for development Adult safeguarding Mental Health Work with wider social networks and community