Minutes:
The LSCB received a report providing an update on the Domestic Abuse Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) processes. The report provided an overview of both the national and local context with regard to domestic abuse, a summary of key activities, identified development areas and a summary of key challenges faced by the process. Arising from the LSCB’s questions and comments the following points were noted:
· Funding pressures meant that the current funds were being used to fund part-time PICADA support which was not sustainable. It was noted that PACT ran a similar programme to PICADA and this might provide a suitable alternative resource. (Action: Kellie Williams)
· Difficulties had been experienced by practitioners trying to submit information through the MODUS computer system. It was agreed that this would be followed up. (Action: Kellie Williams)
· The number of referrals into the MARAC process was still significantly lower than that of comparable areas. It had been suggested that this might be indicative of agencies not identifying repeat MARAC cases and the MARAC Task and Finish Group would be reviewing this area.
· Following work in schools to raise awareness of the effects of domestic abuse on young people, 88 children had disclosed problems, 60 of which were considered to be of concern and reported to the school’s child protection officer. Work with school staff had found that many lacked the confidence to deal with disclosures around domestic abuse because they felt unsure of the responses they ought to give the child making the disclosure. This issue required further exploration and would be raised with local designated leads. (Action: Kelly Williams/Debbie Smith)
· It was reported that the Youth Service ran sexual health and relationship workshops in secondary schools and the possibility of expanding this work into primary schools was being explored. The Board supported this approach and acknowledged feedback from young people it had previously consulted on in respect of Child Sexual Exploitation who felt issues should be addressed at an earlier point in their education. (Action: Karen Frost to update at the next meeting)
· Children’s Centres were continuing to work to improve their identification of domestic abuse in the earliest stages.
· Whilst School Safeguarding Leads were receiving reports of domestic abuse incidents they were not always clear about whether or not the children were present. This issue required further exploration and would be raised with local designated leads. (Action: Kellie Williams/Debbie Smith)
· PICADA and MARAC dealt with different cohorts so there would be no correlation between the two data sets.
· The Cambridge University study of domestic abuse interventions was currently working with its fourth cohort. A final report was expected at the end of the year. (Action: Kelly Williams to update at a future meeting)
· The Domestic Abuse Executive was considered to be the most appropriate place to hold discussions about how services might be reconfigured to address resource constraints. The LSCB was clear that services to support children affected by Domestic Abuse needed to be considered a priority for the commissioners.
The LSCB noted the report.
It was agreed that a fuller report on domestic abuse would be brought to the March LSCB meeting as per the LSCB forward planner.