Multi-agency work in the UK is often led by the local authority it is important to consider
alternative partnerships that have arisen, why they have developed and their role in
tackling domestic abuse. Whilst there is no formal requirement for local authority areas
to form a specific domestic abuse forum or partnership in their areas, many have been
established and operate as a stand-alone forum or as part of a sub group of the
Community Safety Partnerships (CSP).
Hague (1997) argues that the multi or inter-agency response to domestic abuse
became one of the principle planks in domestic abuse policy and practice. In relation
to the police response to domestic abuse multi-agency working was also encouraged
(Matczak et al., 2011). A point borne out by Davies and Biddle (2017) who argue that
since the late 1980s partnership approaches were identified as an appropriate way to
tackle domestic violence (see also Barton and Valero-Silva, 2012; Whetstone, 2001).
Multi-agency work is widely accepted as the way forward in the UK with an
acknowledgement that no single agency can provide a total response, given that
domestic violence crosses the remits of many different services (Hague, 2001). This
104
with a range of stakeholders and interests can be particularly challenging. Davies and
Biddle (2017) go further noting that the particular brand of localism promoted since
2010 is problematic in relation to domestic abuse and women’s safety (see also Vanchelli, 2015).
Hague (2005) comments that whilst combating domestic abuse has moved from the
margins to the mainstream, it is often accompanied by patchy service responses and
precarious or inadequate resourcing. One of the issues of multi-agency working has
been how various stakeholders measure the success of an intervention in domestic
violence in different ways (Westmarland et al., 2010). Schucan-Bird, et al. (2011)
suggest that ‘multiple outcomes, including different levels and patterns of abuse, are the ideal’ (Gondolf, 2004, p.608). This patchy service and often singular outcome measurement means that victims and perpetrators fall through gaps and ultimately
results in an inadequate response.
Hague (2005) outlines the research undertaken to map out multi-agency approaches
to domestic abuse covering in the UK, noting it was found the most important factor in
determining how an initiative would develop was the nature of local conditions and
circumstances. Whilst the forums were useful in terms of networking very often they
could not always develop much into something more impactful. Hague found there was
often a complex situation in grass roots organisations attempting to gain influence with
statutory agencies at management and policy-making. Participants were not mandated
to attend meaning that attendance was ad hoc, and housing departments were less
active participants. Participants felt power dynamics came in to play pointing to the
105
when raising the interests of women and children experiencing domestic violence in a
woman-centred way (Hague, 2005 p.191-203). It was suggested that domestic
violence services involvement provided a kind of ‘moral’ power and gave the partnership a sense of credibility as opposed to the services having any real decision
making power. Arguably one of the most problematic issues identified was the difficulty
in forums being able to reach agreement without resorting to a ‘lowest common denominator’ effect and consequently diluting ideas and innovations. It can be suggested this produced what Hague (2005) termed the smoke screen of forums that
became little more than talking shops.
This study illustrated that multi-agency working is very different to a coordinated
community response. In effect the multi-agency approach was operating against a
backdrop where everything else remained the same. Harvey and Manzi (2005, p.87)
highlight this point in their research.
‘I went to a meeting yesterday with housing, they had written their policy on homelessness but didn’t consult us at the multi-agency forum…still they have the culture that they do not want to consult with other agencies’.
In many cases the ambition of whole system change was not in view; as Pence and
Paymar (1993) maintained a CCR requires participants to not just think differently but
to act differently.
In an attempt to promote best practice in the area of domestic abuse the Home Office
106
support local areas via Domestic Violence Partnerships (DVP) in developing a CCR
with practical sessions to guide them. Despite this work and the best practice for
partnership working, local authorities were not mandated to introduce a formal
coordinated community response to domestic abuse. Rather, the focus was on
highlighting best practice.
A Home Office survey into CSPs (2003) revealed that 59% of CSPs had access to a
domestic violence co-ordinator with 70% of them working exclusively on domestic
violence. The survey also found when asking participants to state which statutory
sector and voluntary agencies were highly engaged with the work of the Partnership
on domestic violence, 81% stated police and between 61% and 65% stating that local
Women’s Aid groups and refuges were highly engaged. In contrast, only 6% stated Local Criminal Justice Boards were highly engaged, illustrating the lack of multi-
agency buy in from all agencies required to constitute a coordinated community
response.
More recently, Standing Together Against Domestic Violence (STADV), in their work
in developing good partnerships (A Guide to Developing Effective Partnerships – In Search of Excellence, 2013) reflect this view and see that buy-in from those missing
partners as essential along with the right representation at the right level being critical
to success. They state that housing must be part of the response, given the impact it
has on women’s safety and recovery and that the community is often the part that is missing in UK in effective domestic violence partnerships.
107
Unfortunately, despite the rhetoric, the role of Domestic Abuse Coordinator is now
frequently subsumed into generic roles community safety within local authorities which
have made staffing cuts under the current Government’s austerity measures. Increasingly, those with some responsibility for domestic abuse coordination for their
area do not necessarily have a background in domestic abuse or any specific
knowledge and cover it in conjunction with other non-related areas of work.
‘In the past, the Domestic Violence Forum (DVF) was too often the only body focused on the issue. When populated by front-line practitioners who lacked the
means to create and deliver a strategy, change was slow to arrive. The
effectiveness increased in those areas where a structure developed from the
DVF to include strategic influence.’ (STADV, 2013, p.9).