Mapping  Child  to  Parent  Violence  and  Abuse  Support  Services  in  England  and  Wales,  2015    Executive  Summary      http://Community21.org/partners/cpv/      

       Helen  Bonnick,  Paula  Wilcox  and  Michelle  Pooley      In  partnership  with:      

   

Mapping  Child  to  Parent  Violence  and  Abuse  Support  Services  in  England  and  Wales    Executive  Summary    Introduction    In  January  2014  a  small  working  group  began  meeting  to  explore  the  feasibility  of  mapping  specialist  services  across  the  country  for  families  experiencing  violence  and  abuse  from  their  children.    

The  Responding  to  Child  to  Parent  Violence  (RCPV)  study  describes  children’s  violence  and  abuse  to  parents  (CPVA)  as  “the  most  hidden,  misunderstood  and  stigmatised  form  of  family  violence.  It  involves  teenage  and  younger  girls  and  boys  who  use  physical,  psychological,  emotional  and  financial  abuse  over  time  to  the  extent  that  parents/carers  live  in  fear  of  their  child”  (RCPV  Executive  Summary  2015).  It  is  an  issue  about  which  little  was  known  in  the  UK  until  the  last  five  years.    

As  knowledge  and  understanding  of  the  issue  has  grown,  a  small  number  of  specialist  services  have  also  developed,  but  these  are  few,  scattered  unevenly  across  the  country,  and  not  widely  publicised.  It  was  hoped  that  mapping  such  services  might  benefit  both  families  and  practitioners  alike,  facilitate  further  research  and  enable  commissioning  and  funding  of  future  services.    Methodology    In  May  2015,  with  funding  secured  for  a  six-­‐month  period,  a  Steering  Group  established,  and  a  website  identified,  the  process  began  of  collecting  information  about  services  around  the  country.  A  data  capture  template  was  designed  to  enable  self-­‐completion  by  services,  recognising  that  this  would  not  necessarily  ensure  the  best  return,  but  was  the  most  efficient  in  the  circumstances.  Agencies  were  contacted  by  email,  firstly  those  known  to  offer  a  specialist  services,  followed  by  those  that  had  shown  interest  or  been  recommended.  An  initial  plan  to  contact  all  Youth  Offending  Teams,  Children’s  Services,  Domestic  Abuse  organisations  and  CAMHS  services  was  only  partially  completed  because  of  time  constraints.      A  total  of  180  agencies  received  emails  and  proformas,  of  which  40  returned  complete  data.  A  further  15  services  are  known  to  exist,  but  have  not  yet  returned  forms.  Agency  and  service  details  were  entered  on  the  website  as  they  were  received,  and  the  map  has  been  made  available  for  public  access  through  ongoing  publicity.      Findings    Agencies  There  is  no  “natural  home”  for  this  specialist  support,  which  has  tended  to  be  developed  on  an  ad  hoc  basis  when  a  need  has  been  identified  and  training  provided.  Domestic  violence  and  abuse  agencies  are  a  significant  provider  of  

services  for  CPVA  (n  =  16),  followed  closely  by  the  Youth  Offending  Service  (n  =  13).  Some  multi-­‐agency  work  takes  place  across  the  country  (n  =  5),  whether  under  the  auspices  of  the  Troubled  Families  agenda,  or  through  local  arrangements.    There  are  a  small  number  of  independent  agencies  and  groups  which  have  developed  (n  =  5),  some  of  which  offer  this  support  as  their  only  objective.    The  data  which  were  returned  showed  a  significant  clustering  of  services  in  a  number  of  geographical  areas.  This  seems  to  have  come  about  through  local  training  programmes,  through  research  projects,  and  peer  support  systems.      Criteria  All  services  are  restricted  in  the  catchment  area  they  serve.  Those  working  with  young  people  (n  =  34)  adopt  age  criteria,  but  while  the  vast  majority  (n  =  29)  work  with  secondary  aged  children,  the  band-­‐width  is  highly  variable,  even  across  national  agencies.    Table  1:  Age  Range  spread  by  type  of  agency     Any 5 -

18 8 - 18

9 - 18

Under 16

From teenage years

10 - 15

10 - 16

10 -17

10 - 18

11 - 16

11 - 17

11 - 18

13 - 16

13 - 17

14 - 17

Youth Offending Service

1 1 3 4 1 2 1

Domestic Abuse Agency

3 1 1 1 3 7

Multi-agency service

1 2 1 1

Children’s Services

1

Independent agency

2 1 1 1

 There  is  some  debate  around  work  with  mixed  gender  groups,  but  currently  most  agencies  are  adopting  this  practice.  The  most  common  other  criteria  are  with  regard  to  the  absence  of  ongoing  intimate  partner  violence  or  parent  to  child  violence.  One  agency  works  only  with  birth  families.      Referral  and  Assessment  Thirty  of  the  programmes  mapped  accept  referrals  from  either  agencies  or  families;  three  only  from  other  professionals  and  seven  (all  Youth  Offending  Teams)  accept  only  internal  referrals.  In  these  last  cases,  young  people  will  already  be  engaged  in  the  YOS  and  work  may  continue  until  the  statutory  order  is  completed.      Agencies  generally  make  assessments  for  suitability,  commitment  and  risk.  A  range  of  assessment  tools  are  used,  including  those  specifically  developed  by  Break4Change  and  Respect.  There  is  some  debate  about  the  suitability  of  tools  designed  for  use  with  adults  being  used  in  work  with  young  people,  where  the  issues  for  consideration  may  be  different.    

 Waiting  lists  With  funding  constraints,  few  programmes  are  able  to  accept  referrals  immediately,  though  some  of  the  independent  specialist  agencies  do  so.  Where  there  are  rolling  groups,  there  will  be  a  requirement  to  wait  for  the  next  one  to  start,  which  may  be  up  to  six  months.  Agencies  may  offer  a  “holding  process”  in  this  time,  but  there  would  also  be  an  expectation  that  a  referring  body  would  remain  involved.      Programmes  Recent  nationwide  training  in  a  number  of  programmes:  RYPP,  Break4Change  and  Who’s  in  Charge?  as  well  as  the  availability  of  the  Step  Up  manual  via  the  internet,  has  meant  that  these  models  together  make  up  the  most  frequent  choice  of  programme.  Nevertheless,  43%  of  agencies  have  developed  their  own  model  of  work,  to  meet  local  need,  skills  and  preferences.  These  programmes  draw  heavily  from  the  other  main  schemes,  with  some  adaptation  (see  Figure  1).  Systemic  work,  restorative  justice,  strength  based  work,  solution-­‐focused  work,  motivational  interviewing,  narrative  work  and  anger  management  all  feature  strongly  as  elements  of  these  programmes.      Most  work  takes  place  with  both  parents  and  young  people,  sometimes  in  parallel  groups.  The  Who’s  in  Charge?  groups  are  the  exception  to  this  rule  (working  only  with  mothers),  as  is  a  parent  support  group  in  the  north.  Even  where  the  model  is  built  on  group  participation,  one  to  one  work  may  be  offered  for  additional  support,  or  in  recognition  of  difficulties  in  travelling,  or  the  severity  of  the  abuse.      Figure  1:    Programme  model  offered    

     Length  of  involvement    The  period  of  involvement  varies  from  6  weeks  to  “as  long  as  needed”,  though  it  should  be  noted  that  even  with  the  shortest  programme  there  will  be  a  number  of  introductory  assessments  or  pre-­‐programme  meetings.  The  vast  majority  of  

programmes  run  for  up  to  3  months  (see  Figure  2).  With  manualised  programmes,  there  is  an  expectation  of  strict  adherence  and  fidelity,  including  time  scales.        Figure  2:  Length  of  involvement    

   Evaluation    Formal  external  evaluation  is  a  costly  business,  though  necessary  in  the  long  run  to  demonstrate  efficacy;  and  many  services  are  still  in  the  early  stages  of  development.  Nevertheless,  3  already  have  a  full  independent  evaluation,  9  are  in  the  midst  and  5  hope  to  complete  within  the  next  year.  All  services  have  internal  feedback  and  evaluation  processes  for  funders.      Discussion  and  Conclusions    Caution  should  be  exercised  in  the  interpretation  of  this  data,  which  is  acknowledged  not  to  be  representative  in  a  wider  sense.  It  is  understood  that  there  were  many  factors  which  might  have  made  it  difficult  to  engage  in  the  study;  and  it  is  hoped  that  these  might  be  overcome  if  the  work  of  mapping  is  continued.    The  mapping  of  40  distinct  specialist  services  demonstrated  that  there  are  more  services  in  existence  than  are  widely  known,  and  that  they  are  developing  at  a  remarkable  rate.  It  was  noted  however  that  practitioners  reported  difficulty  in  finding  models  to  emulate,  reflecting  the  problems  experienced  by  families  themselves  in  accessing  help.      The  offer  of  support  to  families  is  not  consistent  across  the  country,  within  or  across  agencies,  particularly  with  regard  to  age.  Whether  a  particular  family  is  able  to  access  the  help  they  need  is  thus  in  part  determined  by  where  they  live.  It  will  inevitably  be  the  case  for  some  families,  that  by  the  time  the  eligibility  criteria  are  met,  their  situation  might  have  worsened  considerably.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  recognised  that  agencies  generally  adopt  these  criteria  for  good  reasons  –  whether  their  own  funding  restrictions  or  legal  mandate.  These  considerations  feed  in  to  the  debate  about  the  most  appropriate  siting  of  specialist  services.    

 While  there  would  appear  to  be  no  one  theory  of  work  in  the  ascendancy,  and  most  groups  draw  on  a  range  of  approaches  according  to  their  agency  roots  and  preference,  individual  skills  and  experience,  there  is  on  the  whole  an  emphasis  on  understanding  the  issue  as  family  based,  not  as  located  within  one  member  in  particular,  and  on  restoring  healthy  family  relationships;  and  as  such  it  ideally  demands  a  whole  family  response.    Other  support  services  and  programmes  exist  which  are  not  yet  represented  on  the  map  at  all.  The  use  of  Non  Violent  Resistance  has  not  been  captured,  though  this  is  known  to  be  in  use  around  the  country,  particularly  within  CAMHS  agencies.  Also  excluded  are  those  services  offered  by  specialist  adoption  agencies,  or  the  alcohol  and  substance  misuse  organisation  Adfam;  as  well  as  disability  organisations  and  individual  practitioners  who  might  be  offering  child  to  parent  support  as  part  of  a  broader  counseling  service.        Specialist  services  are  developing  at  a  pleasing  rate,  but  at  the  same  time  are  faced  with  cuts  to  local  and  national  funding  which  sometimes  puts  their  existence  in  jeopardy.  For  the  map  to  maintain  usefulness  and  credibility,  it  will  be  necessary  to  review  and  update  the  entries  on  a  regular  basis.  Finding  the  funding  to  continue  this  work,  and  an  appropriate  platform  in  order  to  make  it  more  widely  accessible,  are  the  next  steps.      Helen  Bonnick,  Paula  Wilcox  and  Michelle  Pooley  February  2016