Martin C CalderCalder Training and Consultancy

www.caldertrainingandconsultancy.co.uk

Focus of presentation

Findings from 2 evaluations

Messages for Managers

Next steps

Evaluation AInter-agency 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

Briefing

Awareness raising of DVRIM (threshold scales) and DVRAM

Variability of ownership of CAF completion and knowledge regarding DV although plans to address quickly followed

Challenged the practice of couple work and mediation in DV

Useful but not sufficiently bedded down to evaluate potential

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 systems

Doesn’t necessarily dovetail with other agency positions – such as in relation to contact with the perpetrator

TrainingStaff felt multi-agency audience would have

been better to promote greater clarity of roles and responsibilities

Manager training key to supporting staff in case application

Training clear & delivery encouraged motivation and reflection

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 solo

Felt stretched mentoring managers and colleagues in a new model if they hadn’t attended the training

DVRAMProvides great structure and focusProvides new information and confidence Captures and organises complexity into

accessible toolWorkload pressures may preclude such in-

depth assessments Greater clarity about fit with CAF and ICS

needed: little evidence of use to dateConfusion about relationship with MERLIN

MERLIN will use SPECCSVO

MARAC now measuring whether DVRAM has been completed and if so at what level

Very useful in working with adult victims – ‘you can see the penny dropping as you work through the materials…’

Shortened version (prompt card) suggested

Not seen as a stand-alone tool but as part of a pick ’n’ mix portfolio

Challenged practice immediately in relation to babies/younger children

Not yet tested in courts but advance notification of its status would help workers

DVRAM and safety planning – links with local resources allows work to be transferred

Threshold weighting correlated with professional experience and thus some evidence of differential interpretation

Little evidence of shifting practice toward greater engagement of perpetrators

Staff frustrated about limited time to work through the model with mothers

Messages from Evaluation 1

Rolling programme of training required and useful to embrace adult-orientated services such as mental health, substance misuse etc. and link into existing Safeguarding Board Training

Use application of DVRAM to identify deficits in resource provision

Re-emphasizing focus on safety work with children and young people

Link DVRAM explicitly with CAF, ICS and preventive strategy

Map possible portfolio of assessment tools to use in conjunction with DVRAM

Cross-pilot site contacts to share information and good practice and avoid duplication

Examine how ongoing mentoring can be achieved – mandate & focus

Consider case tracking & analysis to examine whether outcomes are better through assessment and intervention offered

Future workConceptual and practice refinement of

DVRAM / DVRIM

Development of supporting modules

Linkage with other assessment tools and processes

Clear positioning and adoption of DVRAM training and mentoring support package

Messages from Evaluation B

Low attendance at evaluation meetings

Reflecting non-engagement of senior social care managers in the process

Non-access to accompanying internal reports

Social workers

19/25 staff attended core assessment training

16 went on to complete the safety work with children training

50% felt confident about their current knowledge of DV and 50% did not feel confident

The training was described as high volume, fast and furious but manageable and engaging because of the passion and knowledge of Maddie Bell.

It had provided new information (principally through the supporting power and control wheels) and this had instilled a confidence in asking questions they would have previously either been afraid to ask or they would not have been on their radar of consideration.

Core assessment training objectives evaluation

Objectives None/very little improvement.

(1&2)

Some improvement

(3)

A lot of improvement

(4 & 5)

My knowledge of the risk factors/potential vulnerability of children & mothers has increased

-

5%

(1/19)

95%

(18/19)

My understanding of power & control dynamics within abusive relationships has increased

-

11%

(2/19)

89%

(17/19)

I feel confident about using the DV Core assessment Tool

- 16%

(3/19)

84%

(16/19)

My competency in doing DV risk assessment has improved

- 5%*

(1/19)

89%

(17/19)

My awareness of the risk factors associated to particular groups has increased. For e.g. BMER

-

5%

(1/19)

95%

(18/19)

I feel confident about using the Multi-Agency risk Identification scales to identify the level of risk

-

5%*

(1/19)

89%

(17/19)

Safety work outcome evaluation

Objectives None/very little improvement.

(1&2

Some improvement

(3)

A lot of improvement (4

& 5)

I feel confident in undertaking safety work with women

-

20%

(3/15)

80%

(12/15)

I feel confident in undertaking safety work with children

-

7%

(1/15)

93%

(14/15)

DVRAM commentsThis is a very in-depth tool. Individuals

expressed concerns around the practicalities of using the model particularly for RAT’s team.

It provides a useful and comprehensive assessment tool for working with all levels of domestic violence

Excellent model which should be made available to all staff

This tool has provided us with the type of questions to ask.

The tool for DV is brilliant; it opened up a lot of good things for me to look for when completing a core assessment.

The assessment team does not have the capacity to implement model completely

The framework provides a clear focus for decision-making and could prove useful in challenging manager’s decisions – in circumstances where resources seem to prioritise the level of response as opposed to the identified risk/need.

Mentoring

Attendance variable overall Lacked a mandate of attendance Staff described the mentoring process as very

helpful in being able to take the knowledge gained from the training and apply it to practice.

It was also described as a platform for reflection.

The lack of any training for first line managers also meant that the mentoring assumed a critical monitoring and reflecting role for staff.

The mentoring sessions were flexible enough to allow cases where staff who struggled in applying the cases (such as young people who have been violent to their parents) to discuss how to make an informed appraisal of risk.

They described the mentoring as an extended training programme in that it not only allowed them to reflect on what they had learnt previously and apply it to cases it.

The focus had been on cases plus areas not covered in the model – same sex violence, female perpetrators, and engaging the perpetrator.

A worker was able to support a fellow worker in identifying levels of DV through use of the scales which they have now placed on the wall to assist staff.

Context comments Staff reported little evidence of CAF

referrals or use of the risk identification scales in making referrals where domestic violence was a concern, although there remain an unrelentingly-high number of MERLIN notifications from the Police

CAF is not fully embedded and therefore ownership of cases at the lower end by multi-agencies may be slow, this will have implications on Children Services.

Difficulties around engaging perpetrators

Sharing /restriction of information to perpetrators

Multi-agencies not working together- Health visitor had info but felt it was confidential & wasn’t willing to share concerns with social care.

Vast majority of individuals were not aware of MARAC and its role. Some cases being known to MARAC but social workers not being informed.

The complications regarding the new ICS and the operational challenges around recording.

Staff are aware that only a small number of the social care workforce has been trained and thus the application within the borough is problematic as there needs to be a rolling programme to ensure they have an understanding of the model and especially its links with CAF and ICS.

There is also a need to engage adult services in the training since many of the source or co-existing problems require other professional involvement and we need to try and unify frameworks or enhance awareness of respective tools.

Senior managers I had no attendees at a one and a half hour

scheduled meeting with Senior Management from Safeguarding and Rights in Children’s Services.

Staff reported that there is currently no expectation within the borough that the DVRAM is applied to cases.

The reality is that lip service has been paid to the model and there is a concern that it will fade after the pilot evaluation and training/mentoring programme disappears.

There were no first line managers on the training and three attempts to brief them on the model (additional to the original pilot agreement) failed and no-one attended the evaluation session with me to discuss the model.

There is no exploration of risk in conferences or reviews using the DVRAM and again the model becomes detached from the decision-making processes.

The perception that social workers receive sufficient domestic violence training on their courses is not supported by their own self-report and they have all been universally positive about what it brings to practice.

A fundamental re-think of the management of domestic violence and the model is critical since the borough is signed up to the All London Procedures where the DVRAM is at the heart.

Staff do not see the DVRAM as a stand-alone tool given the complexity of cases and the frequent co-existence of problems that impact on parenting capacity and child safety (such as alcohol or substance misuse)

Most staff remained a little confused between different systems processes and assessment tools and their comparative status.

Most staff felt it had changed social work practice immediately especially in relation to younger children/babies and the focus of sharing professional concerns with mothers.

Steering group Longer-term outcome expectations beyond remit of pilot

Adjustments to DVRIM made – terminology and links to CAF levels

Not resolved agency boundary disputes (such as between housing and social care)

But had identified service provision gaps such as the lack of a dedicated service for children and young people who have witnessed domestic violence.

It has been useful in facilitating discussion with mothers and risk measurement.

Positively a document on restricting information flow to perpetrators produced

Inter-agency briefing and DVRIMA breakdown of the completed evaluation forms:

Objectives None/very little Improvement 1&2

Some Improve

ment (3)

A lot of Improvemen

t 4 & 5

My knowledge of the risk factors/potential vulnerability of children and mothers has increased

2

2%

22

27%

57

70%

My knowledge & understanding about the importance of early identification &responsible information sharing has increased

8

10%

24

29%

49

60%

My knowledge and understanding about my role and responsibility if I have concerns about domestic violence has increase

7

9%

22

27%

52

63%

My awareness of the risk factors associated to particular groups has increased. For e.g. BMER

2

2%

15

18%

64

78%

What messages they went away with The importance of early intervention Increased knowledge re. forced marriages and

BMER issues It relates to CAF which supported my understanding

of recently attended CAF training How to respond to an adult victim of DV and her

children How to handle cases with more confidence Question to ask when carrying out screening The scales to rate the situation and the best way

forward To challenge decisions about referrals if I am not

happy Don’t make assumptions but if there is a lack of

information better to be safe than sorry

Good course not too long if it was longer it may not have had as good an impact

A very good training session with facilitators who were well versed on the subject of domestic violence and knowledgeable on the facts surrounding DV. Excellent handouts

I have attended DV training in the past but I feel today has been the most positive in the way it has provided a tool in order to put a process in place

Attendance at evaluation

82 staff attended the briefings

3 staff attended the evaluation sessions

Evaluation extractsThe training was very enlightening in relation

to the subtleties of domestic violence although subsequent application of the Scales hasn’t always captured the emotional aspects in a way that they would like.

As a follow-up to this further inputs have been provided in relation to MARAC and there are now excellent links with the domestic violence advocates.

One observation in relation to the Risk Identification Scales was its failure to sufficiently capture the vulnerability factors of women.

The application has identified insufficient local resources and there is a reluctance to route mothers through mental health services (that may not be accepted because of their eligibility criteria) as this maintains the responsibility inappropriately with her.

Some comments ‘Although I haven't used the risk identification tool, the

messages from the training have remained in my mind when seeing families, perhaps especially at the assessment phase. ’

‘I have used the risk identification too: we sign post and use to support practitioners to make a multi-agency referral – I am not aware of outcomes. ‘

‘We have used the tool during our MARF CAF Pilot to determine whether the referrals we looked at meet the threshold for level 2 or 3. It was useful for us to determine the level of domestic violence, and to work out exactly where the families sit in the thresholds.  I haven’t got a lot of experience in this field, so it was good to look at all the criteria that made up the levels, for example protective factors etc.’ 

Sub-pilot work There was a sub-pilot period where the CAF

coordinators received a weekly report from social care reporting all the domestic violence referrals that had not been actioned.

Of 260 cases only two were challenged by CAF and this initiated a specific analysis of these cases which was presented to the PPP sub-group of the Safeguarding Board.

I requested but was denied access to the report – to elicit whether it was to do with the DVRIM or bad professional practice

Case tracking Information had been collected from 20 cases brought

to mentoring to examine how the model and learning was being applied to cases. The findings were:

25% of cases were taken to MARAC and 7% went to MAPPA meetings

The Threshold scales of DVRAM were not presented to or considered by these meetings. The average scale score across the sample using DVRAM was 3.4 and 35% cases presented with BMER issues.

The presenting concerns for the parents included mental health problems (15%), substance misuse (50%), neglect (5%) and learning difficulties (10%)

The perpetrator cooperated in 15% of cases Children living with domestic violence were

experiencing harm in the following areas: physical abuse (10%), emotional abuse (85%) and neglect (25%).

Messages for ManagersEnsure you are familiar with the model and the

links with other tools in the system – DV as well as CAF and ICS

Ensure there is a necessary mandate for adoption – staff experience the consequences when it is lacking

Ensure there is common knowledge of DVRIM and DVRAM across professional groups

Expect challenges to current practice – there is a healthy need between identified need and available service provision

Expect staff to want greater guidance and support post baby-P and locate the DVRIM and DVRAM as part of a broader portfolio of practice guidance

Build links to ensure that you gain access to evolving supporting tools such as

Pre-and post-birth assessment guidanceInitial Assessment TriggersKinship Care Triggers

Next steps Rolling programmes of training on DVRIM

and DVRAM Formalise links between DVRIM/ CAF and

DVRAM/ICS and make tools available electronically to support electronic systems

Revision of safety work programme Have an eye on measuring longer-term

outcomes of assessment and intervention Develop supporting guidance in relation to

BMER, same-sex violence, young people to parent violence, dating violence, etc