Agenda item

To consider submissions in relation to this scrutiny topic from:

 

·       Stockton-on-Tees Domestic Abuse Steering Group

·       Harbour

The second evidence-gathering session for the Committee’s review of Children affected by Domestic Abuse featured contributions from the Stockton-on-Tees Domestic Abuse Steering Group and the commissioned support service, Harbour.

 

STOCKTON-ON-TEES DOMESTIC ABUSE STEERING GROUP

 

The submission from the local Domestic Abuse Steering Group (DASG) was presented by the Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (SBC) Director of Public Health (who was also the Chair of the DASG) and involved the following in response to the Committee’s lines of enquiry:

 

·       DASG: Role & Remit: Mandated by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, the objectives of the DASG were to oversee the delivery of system outcomes for domestic abuse (as defined within the Stockton-on-Tees Domestic Abuse Strategy 2022-2028), facilitate the development and implementation of an Action Plan to deliver the strategy, and to adopt a whole system approach to domestic abuse (across partners).  Membership included representation of the interests of victims of domestic abuse, the interests of children of domestic abuse victims, police, health services, and voluntary sector specialist services.

 

·       DASG: Governance & Approach: The DASG was a sub-group of the local Health and Wellbeing Board, a Board which was currently undergoing development work in relation to terms of reference / revised governance which would reinforce links with / update reports to other strategic groups (e.g. Safer Stockton Partnership (SSP), Teeswide Safeguarding Adults Board (TSAB)) and ensure clear lines of delivery.

 

DASG meetings were themed to align with the Domestic Abuse Strategy (overview of progress against actions, problem-solving (including discussions held on children and young people), etc.), with resulting actions including the clarification of the Harbour education offer to schools (involving attendance at Head Teacher meetings), and awareness-raising of Harbour children and young people workers and their connection into SBC Children’s Services and wider colleagues.  The whole system and whole family approach focus had led to wider community awareness-raising work, as well as work with adult victims and perpetrators (which would impact upon children and young people) – a ‘no wrong door’ policy was also adopted to eliminate barriers associated with identifying / raising instances of domestic abuse.

 

·       Domestic Abuse Strategy 2022-2028: The strategy’s vision had three distinct elements – everyone experiencing domestic abuse was listened to, supported and protected to live their life free from abuse; all victims of domestic abuse had access to inclusive, quality, affordable and appropriate safe accommodation / support; perpetrators of domestic abuse were held to account and supported to change behaviour.  A recent progress review of the existing strategy had been undertaken – this had helped set priorities for the year ahead.

 

·       Early Years Children & Young People (EYCYP): Actions undertaken in relation to this demographic included the exploration of ways of working with childcare providers (including pre-school), workforce development planning for frontline professionals working in the system for EYCYP (373 people trained to date in year two (total of 788 across two years, including schools, nursery managers and childminders)), and healthy relationships training in schools / school community awareness and a ‘healthy schools’ approach (how schools sat within the community).

 

Further achievements had seen joint assessment / planning between social care and Harbour, the establishment of a CYP Team in Harbour and a GP Independent Domestic Violence Advocate (IDVA) working in primary care, and the piloting of a Domestic Abuse Protection Order (DAPO) (in conjunction with the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) for Cleveland) which now included a zone rather than a house, thus helping protect children going to school from ‘bumping’ into the abuser.  The OPCC and Catalyst ‘Bridging the Gap’ report was also referenced – this had helped to shape an understanding of the picture regarding domestic abuse within ethnically diverse communities across Cleveland (thus informing the support offer).

 

In terms of support from services / commissioned services, 0-19 health visiting and public health school nursing identified and responded to domestic abuse through several approaches, including routine enquiry and arranging meetings with families outside the home when appropriate.  Response was risk-based, with actions tailored to the level of risk disclosed, and referrals made to relevant partners (e.g. Children’s Hub (CHUB), Early Help, STEPS, Harbour, etc.).  There were strong partnerships with Harbour, ensuring all staff were trained to Level 3 in domestic abuse awareness and received regular supervision.  Individual cases were reviewed through deep dives to ensure effective support and safeguarding.

 

Other notable developments included the CGL Hidden Harm Team working with children and young people (recognising that domestic abuse and substance misuse can co-exist, this team also linked to Harbour as needed), the OPCC-funded Hospital IDVA which linked with maternity and midwifery (a key risk point with regard to domestic abuse), and SBC Children’s Services work on ‘Families First Partnership’ system reforms.

 

·       Community Awareness: In terms of awareness-raising across Stockton-on-Tees, 100% of libraries and 10% of primary schools had received training on domestic abuse (the DASG was seeking to increase take-up from the latter).  Briefing sessions had also been held with nursery managers and childminders.

 

Since 2019-2020, there had also been a steady (and, aside from in 2023-2024, continuing) rise in the number of applications for Clare’s Law (a scheme that allowed the police to disclose previous abusive behaviour about a current or previous partner).  In 2019-2020, there were around 250 applications – this had increased to around 750 in 2024-2025.

 

·       Outcome Monitoring Framework: Developed by the DASG, this framework monitored progress of strategic priorities which themselves were aligned to the Council’s Stockton-on-Tees Plan, Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy, and other key strategies (e.g. Community Safety Strategy).  The priorities within the accompanying graphic were all relevant to children and young people (including early years), and whilst the DASG was still finalising the indicators that would be used to establish progress, much had already been achieved in relation to the existing strategy.

 

·       Next Steps: Whilst acknowledging that there was more to do in relation to this demographic, the DASG did already have children and young people as a focus area, linking with the ‘Families First Partnership’ agenda (working group) – this would ensure joined-up strategic outcomes regarding domestic abuse and children and young people, including joint strategic outcomes with other key strategies (via the Health and Wellbeing Board), ‘Families First Partnership’ (children’s system reforms) considerations involving work with communities, safeguarding, family support, early help and front door to services, and the ongoing SBC Powering Our Future – Early Intervention and Prevention: Complex Lives (severe multiple disadvantage) work.

 

Several other children and young people-related developments were also envisaged, including the exploration of opportunities to maximise the identification of domestic abuse in maternity services (Hospital IDVA already in place, but want to do more), the continued strengthening of relationships with childcare providers and safeguarding partnerships (including exploring joint training opportunities), a whole school approach to domestic abuse (which was building, but could still be enhanced), a community awareness plan (expanding to include a bystander programme for children and young people), and continued wider work on empowering the workforce, repeat perpetrators, and repeat victims.

 

Welcoming the DASG submission, the Committee expressed disappointment at only 10% of local schools receiving training on domestic abuse and asked where the problem lay in terms of this low take-up.  SBC officers stated that there had been some past confusion around the offer available to schools (some thought there was a cost attached) and its promotion – this had now changed and an improvement in take-up was anticipated.

 

The Committee sought further details on the role of the GP IDVA and whether this was one individual.  Members were informed that this was indeed a singular role (though was supported by another staff member) which provided support at certain times and across multiple sites (not all local practices were signed up to this, though).  The Committee was interested to know how successful this arrangement was and how this was determined – SBC officers stated that analysis could be shared, though noted previous difficulties in engaging with general practices around the issue of domestic abuse.

 

Third-party referrals (i.e. those raising domestic abuse-related concerns from outside the environment that these were / allegedly were occurring) were discussed, with the Committee questioning how these were handled.  SBC officers gave assurance that anyone was able to make a referral through the Children’s Hub (CHUB) and that these could be done anonymously – this would then be screened for any other information regarding those involved before a decision was made on how to proceed.

 

The Committee asked whether any interaction took place with housing associations and heard that links already existed, with Thirteen Housing Group represented in DASG planning workshops.  In addition, Thirteen had a safeguarding team which linked with Harbour, and also worked closely with SBC Community Safety colleagues who dealt with housing services.

 

HARBOUR

 

Led by its Children and Young People (CYP) Team Manager and supported by its Tees Valley IDVA Team Leader, a presentation on behalf of Harbour was given which responded to several Committee lines of enquiry.  Key details covered the following:

 

·       Background: Harbour had been working with families affected by domestic abuse across the region for over 50 years.  Commissioned in several North East Local Authority areas (including Stockton-on-Tees), its services supported the whole family, including children and young people who were previously the forgotten victims, with their views often downplayed or dismissed.  Despite positive change over the years, there remained much work to be done around educating professionals and the public on this issue (particularly schools).

 

·       Support available for families and children in Stockton: There were several strands of support available to those children and families within the Borough who were experiencing / had experienced domestic abuse – safe accommodation (including dispersed properties), outreach support, the Independent Domestic Violence Advocate (IDVA) service, assertive outreach (intensive support for those with additional needs), counselling, recovery, health IDVAs (the Hospital IDVA based at the University Hospital of North Tees also helped raise awareness of domestic abuse to health professionals, whilst the GP IDVA worked across 16 practices within the Stockton-on-Tees), the Children and Young People (CYP) Team, and the Domestic Abuse Prevention Service (DAPS).  In terms of safe accommodation, whilst there were no specialist refuges situated within the Borough, there was ongoing dialogue about these being introduced locally.

 

·       Data in relation to children affected by domestic abuse: For January 2024 – July 2025, 867 individual children and young people were referred into Harbour’s CYP Team (equating to around 45 per month).  During this period, Harbour had completed support with 690 of those children and young people (the remaining individuals were still currently accessing the service).

 

·       CYP model of support: A flowchart demonstrated the key stages of referral, triage, assessment, and subsequent levels of support (either group, 1:1, or a mix of both, depending on need) which was always undertaken within safe places where the individual felt comfortable.  Family assistance and guidance was provided throughout (recognising that siblings could also be affected), encompassing direct support for parents / carers as appropriate.

 

It was explained that anyone could refer into Harbour (including self-referrals) and recognised that, in terms of assessment, a child’s interpretation of a situation may well be different to their parents’ view.  Referred individuals were not merely placed on a waiting list – fortnightly ‘check-in’ calls took place with families, and cases could be triaged to manage risk.  This approach helped build relationships and eliminate any lack of trust.

 

·       First level support: Children / young people aged 3-18 joined therapeutic support groups which ran outside of school times and were delivered in age groupings.  The focus was on prevention, safety, risk management and healthy relationships, offering a space for individuals to express feelings about their experiences and have these acknowledged.  Each group runs weekly for four weeks, and the individual will attend those beneficial to their needs.

 

·       Moderate level support: Where an individual’s needs were assessed as moderate (i.e. those experiencing acute circumstances whose harms could escalate without intervention), they would be offered an intensive version of first level support – this targets any problematic behaviours / presenting issues and involves 1:1 support or smaller groups.  As well as covering the themes for groups in first level support, these children and young people may also explore self-worth / identity, emotional regulation, anger management, family history of domestic abuse, and self-care.

 

·       Specialist level support: The decision about specialist level support would depend upon the circumstances of the individual, as well as the level of need.  In line with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, if a child’s physiological and safety needs were not met, they were unable to engage with psychological therapy (if they were still experiencing domestic abuse, specialist therapy may not be appropriate).  In such cases, they would be allocated a caseworker to work intensively as above to prevent escalation.  If appropriate, the child / young person would receive support from Harbour’s specialist-trained counsellor.

 

·       Adolescent support: Harbour had a specialist adolescent worker role which supported children and young people aged 12+ who may be using harm, and worked closely with YP IDVA (see next paragraph) to support with teenage relationship abuse.

 

·       YP IDVA – Commissioned by PCC: The overall purpose of the YP IDVAs was to provide a trauma-informed, client-led support service to young people aged 12-17 who were experiencing harm from domestic abuse (interpersonal abuse) – this would enable them to address issues resulting from experiences of domestic abuse, be empowered to aspire to a positive future, and prevent future abuse by promoting healthy attitudes to relationships.  There had been a noticeable increase in those coming into the service as victims within their own relationships.

 

·       Support provided to families and children in our safe accommodation: Family work involving 1:1 and group sessions with mothers and children (for those in both refuges and dispersed properties), EYP support for pregnant mothers and 0-3 year-olds (for those in refuges), weekly wellbeing sessions for mothers and children (funded separately from national charity, Kids in Mind), and Holidays Are Fun (HAF) involvement (additional funding from SBC in school holidays) were all highlighted.

 

·       Voice of the child: Paramount to everything Harbour did, this was about making the child or young person central to the story being told.  No child was too young to have a voice, and it was vital to think creatively about how to involve them so a real understanding of what made their day good or not so good could be ascertained.  Observing and recording behaviour and experiences was key (in particular, interactions between a child and their parents / carers, and whether there was any difference in their interactions with other people), as was thinking about outcomes.  All Harbour staff regardless of role undertook voice of the child core training, and regular consultations were held with children and young people to help inform future practice.

 

·       Tell Nicole: Harbour worked closely with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s (DAC) Office and local children and young people were involved in the ‘Tell Nicole’ project (capturing the voices of individuals affected by domestic abuse).  Through subsequently published creative pieces of work, they highlighted what support they found helpful, what needed to improve, and what changes they would like to see that would help children in the future.  The Domestic Abuse Commissioner and her team came to visit local children and young people who took part, to thank them for their involvement, and to share with them the next steps and the commitments to child victims of domestic abuse.

 

·       Working with SBC and partners: Harbour worked closely with a multitude of agencies involved with families, attending joint visits and assessments, working together to support engagement / safety planning, and attending safeguarding meetings in relation to families accessing support.  Harbour also provided weekly updates and liaised regularly throughout support, and offered workforce development opportunities to the Council’s practitioners (free of charge).

 

·       Existing challenges: Key areas for consideration included the need to understand the impact of the new social care transformation, the need for specialist roles in social care settings, and ongoing funding challenges (i.e. the Hospital IDVA role may come to an end in March 2026, though conversations were ongoing with health partners in relation to this).  Given Stockton-on-Tees currently had the highest referral rate into Harbour across the areas in which it operated, continuing education and awareness-raising around domestic abuse and its impact on children and young people was crucial (this was not yet consistent across the Borough).  There was also a specific need to look at what was being delivered within schools around this issue.

 

Thanking Harbour’s representatives for their detailed submission, the Committee offered congratulations for the local input into the published ‘Tell Nicole’ report.  Noting that the children and young people involved in this project felt heard, Members stated that this review could also help accentuate the voices of those who had experienced domestic abuse.  SBC officers in attendance added that the Council was investigating the possibility of using some of the artwork from local children and young people within its buildings.

 

Referencing the comments around the support provided to mothers and their children, the Committee asked if there were any sessions which fathers could attend.  Regarding Harbour’s safe accommodation, Members were informed that refuges only catered for mothers / children, but that dispersed properties may house males who would be assisted through tailored support.  Continuing this thread, the Committee questioned the extent of fathers reporting that they had been victims of domestic abuse, and heard that this was an increasing trend locally.

 

The Committee sought views on why Stockton-on-Tees had the highest referral rate into Harbour.  Ongoing awareness-raising of domestic abuse was seen as a principal factor which had likely led to a rise in reported cases.  Ultimately, organisations were trying to break the cycle of this type of abuse, though it was acknowledged that this was difficult.  In response, the Committee asked how success was measured in relation to the interventions used – Harbour confirmed it had a monitoring / evaluation team and highlighted case studies to demonstrate success (further information could be provided if required), with SBC officers commenting that contract management data was showing an increase in the number of perpetrators completing interventions and that support was effective.

 

The evidence-gathering session concluded with further details on third-party referrals (raised earlier during discussions which followed the Stockton-on-Tees Domestic Abuse Steering Group submission).  SBC officers noted that should such a referral be received, Harbour would provide advice and an opportunity to meet on neutral territory to ascertain further information (though care was needed not to negatively affect an ongoing situation).

 

SCOPE AND PROJECT PLAN

 

With reference to the potential contributors listed within the scoping document, the Committee considered who it wanted to hear from at its next meeting in September 2025.  It was agreed that the September evidence-gathering session would focus on some of the health-related organisations which had previously been identified as having an important role within this scrutiny topic.

 

AGREED that the information provided by the Stockton-on-Tees Domestic Abuse Steering Group and Harbour be noted, and further information be provided as requested.