CAMBRIDGESHIRE CRIME RESEARCH TEAM
An Analysis of Domestic Violence using a
Range of Partnership Data to Support the
Establishment of a ‘Domestic Abuse Centre’ for
Cambridgeshire.
AUTHOR:
Leigh Roberts / Michael Soper
CONTACT NO:
01223 718175
DATE:
13/02/2007
PRODUCED FOR:
County Community Safety Strategic Group
CONTENTS
SECTION
TITLE
PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3
SECTION ONE
PREVALENCE OF DOMESTIC ABUSE
4
DATA SOURCES
SECTION TWO
CAMBRIDGESHIRE CONSTABULARY
7
SECTION THREE
OTHER CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCIES
12
SECTION FOUR
SUPPORT & ADVOCACY SERVICES
14
SECTION FIVE
HEALTH, SOCIAL CARE & YOUNG PEOPLES SERVICES
17
SECTION SIX
HOUSING AGENCIES
21
SECTION SEVEN
DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS
23
APPENDICES
APPENDIX ONE
DETAILED DEFINITIONS OF PARTNER ABUSE
25
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thank you to the following organisations for their contribution:
Addenbrooke’s NHS Trust, A&E department
Cambridge City Housing department
Cambridge Women’s Aid
Cambridgeshire Advocacy Service
Cambridgeshire Constabulary
Cambridgeshire Probation
Connexions, Cambridgeshire County Council
Crown Prosecution Service, Cambridgeshire
East Cambridgeshire District Council Housing department
Fenland District Council Housing department
Huntingdonshire District Council Housing department
Office of Children & Young People’s Service, Cambridgeshire County Council
Research Group, Cambridgeshire County Council
South Cambridgeshire District Council Housing department
Victim Support
Vulnerable Adults Service, Cambridgeshire County Council
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The primary aim of this report was to establish the overall size of the client base for a
‘domestic abuse centre’ for Cambridgeshire. The secondary aims of the report were to
assess the overall availability of partnership data on domestic abuse and to make further
recommendations for the improvement of the data.
•
Overall the availability of information on domestic violence from a range of
partnership agencies is good.
•
In some cases the information available needs to be refined to enable it to give
maximum value in terms of its use for policy planning and more importantly to enable
it to be compared to other partnership data. For example:
- It would be helpful to be able to identify exactly how many unique victims there
were of the incidents recorded by the constabulary in the last twelve months.
- It would be helpful to widen the data received from the County Council’s OCYPS so
it covered a full years activity rather than just being a snapshot of currently open
cases.
•
A recommendation for a further piece of work would be to trial casework / client list
comparisons between agencies to establish the exact overlap that exists between
different partnership data sources.
•
The overall population need can be estimated using prevalence rates derived from
robust national studies (see section one). Taking the broadest definition of abuse it
can be estimated that 18,300 16-59 year olds experience at least one incident of
domestic abuse each year in the county (with a much larger group of people
experiencing at least one incident during their life time). Given the age range
concerned and the fact that other local data identifies domestic abuse victims among
the 60+ population then we can cautiously say that this figure, 18,300 represents the
minimum size of the client group for the abuse centre. Particularly in terms of broad
general services such as information provision.
•
Further it can be estimated that 9,800 people experience partner ‘threat or force’ each
year in the County meaning that this sub-group have a higher level of need for a
service. Given the expected level of repeat victimisation it is likely that this number of
people experience 29,200 incidents per year.
•
Beyond this overall population need assessment we can gauge how this need is
expressed to local agencies in terms of demand for services. It is at this point that
there is a great reduction in the expressed need. It is this contrast between the
number of people who experience domestic abuse and the number reporting it to
local agencies which is the reason why so much emphasis has been placed on
awareness raising and increasing reporting over the last few years.
•
Using a range of partnership data and taking into account some caveats it is possible
to say that,
at the very least, 500 victims per year in the County are requiring
relatively intensive service input from a least one partner-organisation.
•
Added to this are the vulnerable adults identified by the Vulnerable Adult Protection
Service
experiencing
abuse
(just
over
200
in
2006).
•
Information from the constabulary suggests that there is a large group of children
within the County who are affected by domestic violence. There were an estimated
3210 incidents where children were involved and given average family size and the
level of under reporting many more children than this are likely to be affected.
3
•
It is difficult to precisely estimate the number of children affected per year whose
family require intensive service input from a least one partner-organisation. Numbers
given in this report are limited by the availability of resources to provide services
rather than being a true expression of need. It is only possible to describe the
minimum size of the need group and it is
at the very least 450 children.
4
SECTION ONE – PREVALENCE OF DOMESTIC ABUSE
Estimated Prevalence of Partner Domestic Abuse in Cambridgeshire
Using two reports published by the Home Office it is possible to estimate the likely prevalence
of domestic abuse within the County committed against part of the population, 16 – 59 year
olds1. These are:
Domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking: Findings from the British Crime Survey
-
(2001), Home Office Research Study 276, Walby & Allen, March 2004
Domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking: Findings from the 2004/05 British Crime
-
Survey, Home Office Online Report 12/06, Finney, December 2006
Both reports derive their findings from British Crime Surveys. The methodology of these
surveys is broadly to interview a representative sample of people from England & Wales (this
was 22,463 people for the 2001 survey). As part of the interview the respondent is asked via
a computerised self-completion questionnaire, whether they have been subject to domestic
violence, sexual assault or stalking in their lifetime or in the preceding year.
Data from this part of the questionnaire can then be used to identify the prevalence of
domestic abuse experienced within the sample. Resulting prevalence rates can then be
applied to the population of Cambridgeshire to provide an estimate of domestic abuse. The
caveat in applying any prevalence rate is that in applying the rate we are making an
assumption that the population of our research sample share the same characteristics as the
population of the County. For example in terms of ethnicity, socio-economic background and
so on.
However, because the British Crime Survey prevalence rate is based on all experienced
domestic abuse, rather than that reported to agencies, it will give us the best available
estimate of the total likely number of incidents in the county. In short it is our best measure of
the extent of total need including unreported, un-met need (need currently expressed to local
agencies would be counted within the prevalence figure).
Prevalence of ‘any partner abuse*’ in the last 12 months
Cambridgeshire
Prevalence – based on
Rate applied to County
Population aged 16-59)**
2004/05 BCS
population
(rounded to nearest 100)
Male
171,453
4.7%
8,000
Female
174,842
5.9%
10,300
Total
346,295
-
18,300
* ‘any partner abuse’ is defined as non-sexual abuse, sexual assault or stalking. Non-sexual abuse includes a range
of things from verbal threat, belittling to physical force and use of weapons. See appendix one for full definitions.
Prevalence of ‘partner abuse, threats and force*’ in the last 12 months
Cambridgeshire
Prevalence – based on
Rate applied to County
Population aged 16-59)**
2004/05 BCS
population
(rounded to nearest 100)
Male
171,453
4.1%
7,000
Female
174,842
5.6%
9,800
Total
346,295
-
16,800
* ‘Partner abuse, threats and force’ is defined as any abuse excluding stalking and sexual assault. This form of
abuse includes a range of things from verbal threat, belittling to physical force and use of weapons. See appendix
one for full definitions.
1 Potential abuse suffered by under-16s and 60s and over is dealt with elsewhere in the report.
5
Prevalence of ‘partner threat or force*’ in the last 12 months
Cambridgeshire
Prevalence – based on
Rate applied to County
Population aged 16-59)**
2004/05 BCS
population
(rounded to nearest 100)
Male
171,453
2.1%
3,600
Female
174,842
3.3%
5,800
Total
346,295
-
9,400
* ‘Partner threat and force’ is defined as any (non sexual) use of threats or force by a partner from frightening
someone by threatening to hurt them to the use of weapons.
Prevalence of ‘Partner Force *’ in the last 12 months
Cambridgeshire
Prevalence – based on
Rate applied to County
Population aged 16-59)**
2004/05 BCS
population
(rounded to nearest 100)
Male
171,453
2.0%
3,400
Female
174,842
2.7%
4,700
Total
346,295
-
8,100
* ‘Partner force’ is defined as any use of force from pushing, holding and slapping to use of weapons.
Tables one to four show the range of prevalence for domestic abuse. Table one gives an
estimate for the total possible number of people experiencing some form of abuse in the
County over the previous 12 months at around 8,000 men and 10,300 women. The other
tables use rates based on increasingly specific definitions of abuse and table four estimates
that 3,400 men and 4,700 women experienced partner force in the last 12 months (8,100).
It should be noted that reports on research conducted with male respondents to the Scottish
Crime Survey 2000 found that men were less likely to have been repeat victims of domestic
assault, less likely to be seriously injured and less likely to report feeling fearful in their own
homes. The survey retraced a small sample of men who were counted as victims in the
Scottish Crime Survey and found that just over half of the men who said that they were
victims of domestic violence, were also perpetrators of violence.
It is difficult to identify one specific estimate that would apply as the most likely customer base
for a domestic abuse centre. Although, people may feel that table three provides an estimate
of those people experiencing threat or force may be the most realistic figure to keep in mind
as abuse at this level is more likely to be reported to local agencies than other forms of
abuse.
Overall this suggests that the potential users or customers of the centre may be around 3,600
men and 5,800 women in any given twelve month period.
6
Estimated Incidence of Partner Domestic Abuse in Cambridgeshire
Whilst prevalence can be defined as relating to the number of people who experience
domestic abuse, ‘incidence’ relates to the number of times each person experiences it. The
recently published study based on the 2004/05 British Crime Survey does not provide any
estimates of incidence so for this we need to refer to the older and more comprehensive study
by Walby and Allen.
After accounting for a slightly different definition of ‘threat and force’ between the two studies
it is then possible to apply an incidence rate to our estimated victim population (see table five
below).
Estimated Incidence of Partner ‘threat or force’ for most cases of domestic abuse
Estimated victims during
Median** number of
Estimated number of
previous 12 months*
incidents experienced in
incidents
previous 12 months
Male
3,400
2
6,800
Female
5,600
4
22,400
Total
9,000
-
29,200
* Adjusted from table three to take account of slightly different definitions between the two surveys
** Median is applied due to Walby & Allen identifying a significant gap between mean and median in the 2001 BCS.
For women this was mean = 20 incidents, median = 4 – suggesting that whilst most women experience a few
incidents there are a few who experience a huge number. The median is one of three measures typically used to
represent the average. It is the ‘middle value’ with fifty percent of cases falling either side of it. The median is less
likely to be skewed by a small number of extreme values.
Table five above shows the estimated number of incidents experienced during most cases of
domestic abuse as identified by a median derived from the Walby & Allen report. The
estimated 6,800 incidents for men and 22,400 for women are a deliberate underestimate.
This method of estimating does not take into account the relatively small number of people
who experience a huge amount of incidents during a daily campaign of abuse. The gaps
between estimates for women based on median 22,400 and on mean 112,000 gives an
indication as to how bad this experience is likely to be.
Estimate of likely agency awareness of victims
The Walby and Allen report looks into the level of reporting of incidents to agencies including
the police, social services and housing departments. They found that those who suffer many
incidents are much more likely to seek help, the implication being that when people do
approach an agency they are likely to have already experienced a history of abuse.
The report does publish the results for victims of four or more incidents of domestic violence
and these are shown below in table six and applied to our estimated number of victims.
Estimates of reporting of domestic abuse
Estimated
% Victims of domestic force Estimate of local victims
victims during
of threats whose worst
who agencies may be
previous 12
incident became known**
aware of
months*
by…
Police
Social
Housing Police
Social
Housing
Services
Services
Male
3,400
8%
1%
-
272
18
-
Female
5,600
23%
2%
1%
1288
112
112
Total
9,000
-
-
-
1560
130
112
* Some of these would be victims of single incidents, less likely to report so final figures are likely to be an over
estimate. Particularly for the male group where around 47% only experience one incident.
** Victims of 4 or more incidents who were victims in the past 12 months
Table six above is likely to be an over estimate since we are applying a general rate for
victims of four or more incidents to the whole population (although as previously discussed
the median number of incidents experienced was 4). However it suggests that within any
7
given twelve month period the police in the County could be aware of around 272 male
victims of domestic abuse and 1288 female victims.
Summary
Using the findings of the British Crime Survey:
The estimated number of victims each year of partner ‘threat or force’ is 3,600 men and
-
5,800 women (9,400 total).
Excluding the most serious cases it is estimated that the victims of partner ‘threat or
-
force’ people experience about 29,200 incidents a year (6,800 for men and 22,400 for
women).
In addition to these incidents it is estimated that there are a small number of people
-
experiencing an extremely high number of incidents as part of a daily campaign of
abuse
Reporting to agencies will be low. It is possible that the police could be aware of only
-
1,560 victims in any twelve-month period (and even this is likely to be an over-estimate).
8
SECTION TWO - DATA RECORDED BY CAMBRIDGESHIRE CONSTABULARY
Police Recorded Domestic Violence Incidents
One of the main sources of information regarding the level of domestic violence and other
forms of domestic abuse within the county is the constabulary’s command and control
incident recording system. This system records all the ‘calls for service’ (incidents) that are
reported to the force, these are then assessed and a domestic violence ‘flag’ is added to
some incidents in accordance with recording guidelines.
The following information on the long-term trend of incident recording is a summary of
information contained within a Cambridgeshire Constabulary ‘force problem profile’ on
domestic violence produced in January of 2007 and some additional analysis of the 2005/06
incidents carried out by the County Council’s Research Group. Generally there has been an
upward trend in the number of incidents recorded since April 2004 but this is against a
background of a general increase in calls for service (see graph below). As a percentage of
total calls for service domestic violence incident levels appear to have remained fairly static.
The force problem profile identifies seasonal peaks, for example around Christmas, in relation
to calls for service (there were higher levels of calls for service in December 2004 and 2005).
Weekends are also identified as times of highest calls for service, with Saturday night /
Sunday morning showing a particular peak.
Looking at the data for 2005/06 in detail it shows that there is considerable variation in the
level of reported incidents between different CDRP areas. The table below shows that the
highest rate of reported incidents are in Fenland and Cambridge City. Overall,
Huntingdonshire has the highest number of reported incidents but this is unsurprising as it
has the highest population.
Total number of
Population
Rate per 1000
incidents
(2005 estimate)
population
2005/06
Cambridge
1550
111,020
13.96
East Cambridgeshire
565
75,510
7.48
Fenland
1271
87,460
14.53
Huntingdonshire
1545
159,720
9.67
South Cambridgeshire
904
136,460
6.62
Cambridgeshire
5835
570,170
10.23
Overall the total number of incidents recorded by the constabulary can be compared to the
total expected based on the prevalence data analysed earlier in this report. The prevalence
for ‘partner threat or force’ was 29,200 incidents per year, which gives a relationship of 5 to 1
between expected and reported incidents.
9
Domestic Violence Incidents and Income Related Deprivation
It is often hypothesised that there is a relationship between the level of deprivation in an area
and the incidence of domestic violence. It is thought that areas of relatively high deprivation
experience more incidents than areas of low deprivation. This hypothesis has been tested for
Cambridgeshire using household income data2 alongside data showing the rate of domestic
violence incidents per 1000 population recorded in each ward.
The graph below shows the relationship between domestic violence and income deprivation.
Ward median income compared to domestic violence incidents per 1000 population (2005/06)
£45,000
£40,000
£35,000
e £30,000
m
o
c
i
n £25,000
r
d
a
w
n £20,000
i
a
d
e
M £15,000
£10,000
Source
£5,000
Domestic violence incidents recorded by Cambridgeshire Constabulary 2005/06
Median ward incomes, CACI Paycheck data 2006
£0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Rate per 1000 domestic violence incidents
From the trend line it can be seen that there is a definite relationship between the two factors.
Further correlation analysis confirms this with a ‘Pearson’ correlation score of ‘–0.635’3
indicating a medium to strong inverse relationship. As median ward household income
decreases then the rate of domestic violence increases.
The table overleaf shows the twenty wards in Cambridgeshire with the lowest median
household income. Within this list are nine out of ten of the wards with the highest rate of
domestic violence (and all of the top seven). It should be noted, however that there is not a
perfect relationship between the two datasets. In other words there are wards that are the
exception to the rule. For example, Ely East ward, which contains the High Barns / New
Barns area of Ely has a lower than expected rate of domestic violence incidents given the
level of household income whilst Huntingdon West ward has a higher than expected rate,
ranked twelfth highest.
2 Supplied by CACI Ltd from their ‘Paycheck’© dataset.
3 Scores: Where ‘1’ would indicate the two datasets are exactly the same, ‘0’ would indicate absolutely no
relationship, and –1 would indicate a perfect inverse relationship.
10
The twenty wards with the lowest median household income in Cambridgeshire
together with the rate of domestic violence incidents.
Ward
Median
Rate per 1000
Rank -
Rank - rate of
Household
population,
median
domestic
Income,
domestic
household
violence
violence
income
incidents
2005/06
Waterlees
£21,600
28.88
123
3
Medworth
£22,000
19.55
122
11
Kingsmoor
£22,800
20.24
121
9
Kirkgate
£22,900
11.26
120
38
Hill
£23,000
20.14
118
10
Staithe
£23,000
16.4
118
13
Clarkson
£23,100
26.19
117
5
Roman Bank
£23,200
13.14
115
26
Huntingdon North
£23,200
28.94
115
2
March East
£23,700
13.41
114
24
Lattersey
£24,200
23.55
113
6
King's Hedges
£24,300
31.73
111
1
Littleport West
£24,300
13.7
111
22
Birch
£24,700
11.49
110
36
Elm and Christchurch
£25,000
15.19
109
16
Parson Drove and Wisbech St Mary
£25,300
9.77
108
45
Ely East
£25,600
4.8
107
96
Abbey
£25,700
27.93
106
4
East Chesterton
£26,200
21.65
105
7
Cherry Hinton
£26,300
16.17
102
15
Note. The eighth highest ward for domestic violence incidents, Arbury, was ranked 27th highest for median household
income.
Of the possible explanations for this variation the most likely is that the picture of socio-
economic factors influencing the level of domestic violence is more complicated than a simple
relationship with median household income. Further this simple approach does not take into
account demographic factors such as the proportion of families and couple households living
in each area. (Whilst it is possible to develop a proper regression model of relationships
using locally produced data this is beyond the remit of this particular exercise).
The pattern shown would also be influenced by systematic variations in the reporting of
domestic violence across different areas. There is a debate to be had about the extent to
which domestic violence is expressed (and therefore comes to the attention of the authorities)
in areas of differing socio-economic profile. Victims in more affluent areas may keep a lower
profile and may be less willing to come forward and seek help.
Recorded Crimes with a Domestic Violence Marker
There are other more comprehensives reviews available of crimes committed in
Cambridgeshire with a domestic violence marker within such documents as the strategic
assessments autumn 2006 and a more recently publish constabulary force problem profile.
The information given here is intended to provide a brief overview of the main points.
During the financial year 2005/06 there were 1,213 recorded-offences that had a domestic
violence marker representing approximately 3% of all recorded crime. The graph below
11
shows that the vast majority of these crimes were in the category of violent crime. Overall,
there were 1,079 violent crime offences that had a domestic violence marker representing
approximately 16% of all violent crime.
Crimes with a domestic
Burglary
violence marker 2005/06
Criminal Damage
0.25%
8.33%
Other Offences
1.15%
Theft And Handling
1.32%
Violent Crime
88.95%
Looking in more detail at the violent crime offences with a domestic violence marker shows
that just over 66% of offences are ‘other wounding (ABH)’, in other words they involve a
physical assault resulting in some form of minor injury. A further 23% involve the more minor
offence of common assault. There are also a small proportion of very serious offences such
as murder, manslaughter and GBH.
Murder
Other offences
Sexual offences
Manslaughter
0.1%
0.4%
3.3%
0.1%
Harassment
Wounding / Other act
2.8%
endangering life (GBH)
0.9%
Threat or conspiracy to
murder
2.6%
Common Assault
23.7%
Other wounding (ABH)
66.1%
Violent crime with a domestic
violence marker 2005/06
12
Victim / Offender Analysis
The following information on the victims and offenders involved in domestic violence is a
summary of information contained within a Cambridgeshire Constabulary ‘force problem
profile’ on domestic violence produced in January of 2007. Within this profile the following
points are made regarding the profile of the victims of domestic violence.
Of the victims of domestic violence incidents recorded on divisional monitoring spreadsheets
87% were female and 13% male. The average age of victims (where recorded) was 34 years
of age.
For approximately 55% of incidents children were identified as being present. This is the
equivalent of 3210 incidents during 2005/06, or around 270 per month although many of
these will be repeat incidents. Measuring repeat victimisation is difficult and there are
complications around the interpretation of the figures. For a sample of incidents between
April – September 2006 13.8% of incidents reported to the police’s central division and 22.3%
reported to southern division involved repeat victims (an average of 18.1% overall).
Where recorded, it is shown that approximately 93% of victims of domestic abuse related
crimes are white. The remaining 7% were from a variety of backgrounds including Asian,
Black and Chinese. Approximately 2.5% of incidents were identified as occurring between
homosexual couples.
The majority of the perpetrators of domestic violence are white males, with an average age of
35. From analysis of the Northern Division referral forms, alcohol would appear to be a factor
in 8% - 10% of cases; drugs make up a much smaller proportion, between 1% and 2% of
cases.
Summary
Overall, 5,835 incidents of domestic violence were recorded by the police in 2005/06.
-
With the prevalence for ‘partner threat or force’ being 29,200 incidents per year, this is a
relationship of 5 to 1 between expected and reported incidents.
There is a strong relationship between the rate of domestic violence in a ward and the
-
average household income. As median ward household income decreases then the
rate of domestic violence increases.
There are a few exceptions to this and the most probable explanation for this variation is
-
that the picture of socio-economic factors influencing the level of domestic violence is
more complicated than a simple relationship with median household income.
During the financial year 2005/06 there were 1,213 recorded-offences that had a
-
domestic violence marker representing approximately 3% of all recorded crime. Of
these there were 1,079 violent crime offences representing approximately 16% of all
violent crime.
For approximately 55% of incidents children were identified as being present. This is the
-
equivalent of 3210 incidents during 2005/06, or around 270 per month.
13
SECTION THREE - DATA RECORDED BY OTHER CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCIES
The Crown Prosecution Service
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) conducts an annual snapshot monitoring the
performance of how they prosecute domestic violence cases. The first monitoring snapshot
was taken in 2002. The snapshot is a count and analysis of cases of domestic violence
finalised in the December of each year. The 2006 snapshot results are not yet available. This
report includes data from the 2005 and 2004 snapshots, due to more detail being available for
the 2004 snapshot. The 2004 snapshot published in June 2005 provides a context for the
report, which states that the snapshot is part of an ongoing monitoring process of the CPS’s
policy and practice of domestic violence cases. The geographic area that Cambridgeshire
CPS covers is the county of Cambridgeshire including Peterborough. It was not possible for
this report to exclude the Peterborough figures.
Cambridgeshire CPS finalised cases against 33 defendants in December 2004 and 44
defendants in December 2005. The number of victims was 33 in December 2004 and 49 in
December 2005. The table below shows the gender breakdown for each year. The data
shows that in the majority of cases the defendant was male (over 90% both years) and that
the majority of victims were female (approximately 85% of cases).
December 2004
December 2005
Female
Male
Not
Total
Female
Male
Not stated
Total
stated
Number of
3
30
0
33
Unknown
41
Unknown
44
Defendants
Number of
26
6
1
33
41
Unknown
Unknown
49
victims
The table below shows the relation of the victim to the defendant. As seen with the advocacy
data (see section four), the majority of cases involved partners/spouses or former
partners/spouses.
Victims relationship to defendant
December 2004
December 2005
Spouse/Former Spouse
6 (18%)
12 (24.5%)
Partner/Former Partner
21 (64%)
22 (45%)
Parent/Step parent
0
4 (8%)
Grandparent
0
0
Child/Step child
1 (3%)
11 (22.5%)
Sibling
2 (6%)
0
Member of extended family (incl in-laws)
3 (9%)
0
Total defendants
33
49
The table below shows that for the 33 defendants in December 2004, there were 43 offences.
It provides an illustration of the types of offences that are linked to domestic abuse. The
largest proportion was common assault; most of the offences were violent crimes.
Offence Type
Number of Offences
Murder
1
Grievous Bodily Harm with intent
1
Actual Bodily Harm
4
Common Assault
19
Indecent Assault
4
Harassment
3
Criminal Damage
7
Other Assault
1
Other
3
Total
43
14
Probation Service
In 2005 Community Safety Partnerships supported the Cambridgeshire Probation Service in
developing the Integrated Domestic Abuse Programme (IDAP), a specific cognitive behaviour
course to address domestic violence. Convicted perpetrators receive orders to attend this
course targets. Partners of offenders are supported by dedicated Women's Support Workers,
who liase with course organisers as well as other key agencies. Its potential effectiveness lies
in it being embedded within a wider community framework including agency awareness,
policing priority and support for victims/survivors. Agencies offer continuing support.
In Cambridgeshire during 2006, 45 offenders were ordered to complete the Integrated
Domestic Abuse Programme (IDAP).
Summary
The last annual snapshot survey of the local CPS workload showed them finalising 44
-
cases in December 2005 (the equivalent of 528 per year).
During 2006 45 offenders undertook the IDAP program managed by Probation.
-
15
SECTION FOUR - DATA RECORDED SUPPORT & ADVOCACY SERVICES
Victim Support Services
Victim Support is an independent national charity that helps support people affected by crime.
They provide a free and confidential support service whether or not the victim has reported
the crime.
In 2006 victim support covering Cambridge and Ely supported 378 victims of domestic
violence. 14% of these were men and 86% were women.
Quarter
Female victim
Male victim
Total
Jan-Mar 06
73
15
88
Apr-June 06
81
10
91
July-Sept 06
99
16
115
Oct-Dec 06
71
11
84
Total
324
52
378
Cambridge Women’s Aid
Cambridge Women’s Aid runs an outreach service, which is funded by Cambridge City
Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council. The Outreach Project offers support and
advice to women living in Cambridge and the surrounding area, including some outside of the
county. During 2005/06 over 250 women accessed support through the outreach service.
Women’s Aid feels that the majority of these women were not being supported by either
Victim Support or the Advocacy Service.
Advocacy Service
The Domestic Violence Advocacy Service is an independent service offering crisis support,
ongoing support through courts and information to survivors of domestic abuse. The majority
of referrals are made via the police, though not all and the advocacy workers will advocate
with other agencies on a clients behalf. The service is currently funded through the Local Area
Agreement (LAA process).
Each case that has either telephone or face-to-face contact is entered onto a database. Due
to the relative volume of cases to the number of advocates, higher risk cases receive priority.
The database contains demographic information, such as gender and ethnicity and details of
the type of abuse suffered. For each entry onto the database the client’s district council area
is recorded.
For the period of January to December 2006, there were 329 clients. Of which 21 were male
(6%), 302 were female (92%) and 6 did not have their gender recorded (2%).
District Council Area
Total Number
Percentage
Population
Difference
%
Cambridge
53
16.1%
19.5%
-3.4%
East Cambridgeshire
46
14.0%
13.2%
+0.8%
Fenland
80
24.3%
15.3%
+9.0%
Huntingdonshire
101
30.7%
28.0%
+2.7%
South Cambridgeshire
43
13.1%
23.9%
-10.8%
Unknown
6
1.8%
-
-
Total
329
100%
100%
-
The table above shows the distribution of cases the Advocacy Service saw within the county,
but this should not be used as an indication of levels of prevalence as individuals can self
refer to the service and risk level is a factor in the resource allocated to cases.
16
The table below shows the ethnicity of the individuals seen by the service between January
and December 2006. Traveller is not currently an ethnic option within the database. The data
show that the largest percentage is for white (all categories) this is in line with the estimated
ethnic demographic for Cambridgeshire.
Ethnicity of Victim
Total Number
Percentage
Asian - All
13
4%
Black - All
13
4%
Mixed
3
1%
Other
3
1%
White - All
290
88%
Unknown
7
2%
Total
329
100%
For the clients of the Advocacy Service 48% of cases involved a current partner, with 43%
involving an ex-partner.
Relationship to perpetrator
Total Number
Percentage
Partner
158
48.0
Ex-Partner
144
43.8
Intra-Familial
21
6.4
Unknown
6
1.8
Total
329
100.0
For each case, the number of children in the household is recorded. The table below shows
70% of people suffering domestic violence seen by the service had one or more children. A
total of 443 children were either directly or indirectly affected by domestic violence for those
cases in 2006 where the advocacy service was involved.
Number of Children
Total Number of
Number
Percentage
in family
Children
None
99
30.1
0
1
89
27.1
89
2
76
23.1
152
3
45
13.7
135
4
10
3.0
40
5 or more
5
1.5
27
Unknown
5
1.5
--
Total
329
100.0
443
The database records the type(s) of abuse the client reports to the advocate. The table below
shows a large proportion of victims (61%) report emotional abuse. 43% of clients reported
suffering physical abuse. For 18% of the cases no information was recorded on the types of
abuse suffered.
Number reporting
Percentage reporting
Abuse suffered
YES
YES
Emotional Abuse
202
61.4%
Financial Abuse
21
6.4%
Sexual Abuse
6
1.8%
Criminal damage
34
10.3%
Physical Abuse
141
42.9%
Medical Attention required
8
2.4%
17
Cases were referred from a variety of agencies. The police referred 71% of the caseload for
the year, with 3% self-referring and 8% being referred from other agencies including health
visitors, victim support and social services. For 18% of cases the source of the referral was
unknown or not recorded.
Summary
Victim Support assisted 378 victims of domestic violence during 2006 of which 14%
-
were male.
The Domestic Violence Advocacy Service supported 329 clients across the County of
-
which 6% were male. There was a fairly even split in the relationship with perpetrator
between ‘partner’ and ‘ex-partner’.
70% of people suffering domestic violence seen by the service had one or more
-
children. A total of 443 children were either directly or indirectly affected by domestic
violence for those cases in 2006 where the advocacy service was involved.
The most commonly reported forms of abuse to the service were emotional abuse,
-
physical abuse and damage to property.
18
SECTION FIVE – HEALTH, SOCIAL CARE & YOUNG PEOPLES SERVICES
Addenbrooke’s Emergency Department (ED)
Dr A Boyle, based at Addenbrooke’s NHS hospital in Cambridge, produced a paper in 2003
that showed that the incidence of patients attending the emergency department due to
domestic violence was 1.2% of patients. Further respondents in the study showed a lifetime
prevalence of domestic violence of 22.4%. It is worth noting that the sampling process of this
study excluded any patient whose companions refused to leave. The study extrapolated that if
“an emergency department that has 55,000 patients of all ages attending a year would see
about 500 adult patients a year suffering acute domestic violence.”
Current Addenbrooke’s sees around 80,000 patients per year so this would equate to about
730 patients a year (although some of these will be repeat attendees). The study also found
a significant association between reported domestic violence and reported deliberate self
harm in women.
Data provided for the period January to December 2006 showed that the Emergency
Department at Addenbrooke’s recorded 27 individuals as disclosing domestic violence. The
table below shows the age distribution of those attending Addenbrooke’s ED, the patients
ranged from 16 to 94 years old. Previous annual estimate for the number of attendees at
Addenbrooke’s ED relating to domestic violence were higher. There are a number of reasons
that this particular period recorded a lower number including a change in recording practices.
It is acknowledged that disclosing and recording domestic violence is still under-reported at
Emergency departments and therefore the figure does not accurately represent all cases of
domestic violence.
Age group
Number of patients
0-15
0
15-24
6
25-34
6
35-59
10
60+
5
Total
27
Primary Care
The availability of data relating to the impact of domestic violence on GP and other primary
care services is limited. A study of one large general practice with seven GPs identified only
six patients, 5 female and 1 male, presenting following domestic assault. There is no further
indication of the likely attendance from the long-term effects of domestic violence such as
mental health problems, depression and so on.
Maternity Care
At one maternity hospital in Cambridge over a four-month period a total of 12 women
disclosed that they were victims of domestic violence during routine screening processes.
Social Care Data
The data in this section comes from Cambridgeshire County Council and relate to vulnerable
groups.
19
Social Care - Children and Young People
The Office of Children and Young People’s Services receives referrals regarding potential
children in need4 for a variety of internal departments and external agencies. These children
are then assessed and if found to be in need and meeting the criteria for a service to be
provided then a case is opened and additional support and resources are then put in place for
them. It is important to note that OCYPS will come into contact with a much larger group of
children who are experiencing or witnessing domestic violence between their carers than the
numbers given here. These are just the children who meet the current service criteria given
the finite resources available.
The table below shows the number of children in need’ for the following reasons, chronic
violence between carers and erratic relationship between carers. The current recording
method allows a child to be referred for more than one reason; therefore it is possible that a
child could be counted in both categories. For this reason the table shows the totals for each
category rather than a combined total. Children suffering direct abuse or neglect may also
have either of the two categories recorded.
The data below is an extract of all ‘open’ cases from the SWIFT database at a given time
point. It is not possible to extract the total volume of cases for the year from SWIFT.
The data shows that at December 2006 a total of 324 children were recorded as being in
need due to a chronic violent relationship between carers in Cambridgeshire. This figure
accounts for 13% of all the children registered as in need in the county. A total 378 children in
Cambridgeshire were recorded as being in need due to an erratic relationship between
carers. The figures are slightly up on December 2005 when 229 children were recorded with
an open case that was defined as chronic violence between carers and 347 children with an
erratic relationship between carers. Child – Erratic relationship between carers appears to be
a wider category than chronic violence between carers. Further there may be recording
differences across the districts.
Snapshot of open cases at December 2006
Child - Chronic Violence
Child - Erratic relationship
Total children
District
between carers
between carers
in need
Number
%
Number
%
Number
Cambridge City
38
11%
52
15%
347
East Cambridgeshire
20
11%
18
10%
188
Fenland
61
13%
47
10%
472
Huntingdonshire
131
14%
193
21%
906
South Cambridgeshire
40
16%
33
13%
248
Unknown
34
9%
35
9%
376
Total
324
13%
378
15%
2,537
Social Care - Vulnerable Adults
A Vulnerable Adult Protection Service is co-ordinated by Cambridgeshire County Council and
is supported by the No Secrets guidance published by the Home Office and the Department
of Health. The guidance defines a vulnerable adult as:
"A person aged 18 years or over, who is in receipt of or may be in need of community
care services by reason of mental or other disability, age or illness and who is unable
to take care of him or herself or unable to protect him or herself from significant harm
or exploitation." (Department of Health 2000)
4 Children in need are those who are disabled or whose vulnerability is such that they are unlikely to reach or
maintain a satisfactory level of health and development, or their health and development will be significantly impaired
without the provision of services.
20
The service collects a range of data when referrals are made to the service. Individuals who
are the subject of referrals are collated into groups with similar disabilities; these are Learning
Disability, Mental Health, Older people (defined as over 65s), Physical disability and Sensory
services. The referral includes demographic information such as gender and ethnicity, the
known or suspected perpetrator of the abuse and the type of abuse suffered. The type of
abuse falls into the following categories; sexual, physical, psychological, neglect/act of
omission, financial/material and harm. More recently domestic violence as its own category
has been included. The form allows more than one type of abuse to be recorded as
appropriate for each case.
The data included in this report was extracted on the following criteria,
•
Referral to the service between January and December 2006
•
Domestic violence being recorded or the known/suspected perpetrator being
recorded as partner, relative or spouse.
It should be noted that the data includes all referrals and that the 2005/06 annual report found
that 15% of cases referred with suspected abuse were not proven. 46% were proven cases of
abuse, 32% were inconclusive and 7% were still under investigation at the time of reporting.
The report also stated that ‘
of the proven cases almost half, (47%) were perpetrated by a
partner, relative or spouse’.
For the period January - December 2006, 204 cases were referred to the vulnerable adults
service. The largest proportion (59%, 121 people) of victims was recorded as older people.
Category of vulnerability
Number
Percentage
Learning Disability
31
15%
Mental Health
22
11%
Older People
121
59%
Physical Disability
30
15%
Total
204
100%
Of the referrals, 67% were female (137 women) and 33% were male (67 men). More women
than men were seen in most groups with the exception of learning disabled, where the split
was more even. It should be noted that the numbers were low for learning disabled, Mental
Health and Physical disability.
Category of vulnerability
Female
Male
Learning Disability
55%
45%
Mental Health
68%
32%
Older People
90%
10%
Physical Disability
64%
36%
Total
67%
33%
Of the 204 people referred, 37% (75 people) had more than one type of known or suspected
abuse recorded. 44% of people were noted with known or suspected physical abuse. 36% of
people were recorded as suffering/ suspected of suffering financial abuse. The number of
people referred with domestic violence only is low. This is in part due to the very recent
inclusion of this category and due to professionals recording domestic violence and other
categories of specific abuse.
Type of Abuse
Number
Percentage
Sexual
7
3%
Psychological
50
25%
Physical
89
44%
Neglect/Act of omission
31
15%
Financial/Material
73
36%
Harm
2
1%
Domestic Violence (unspecified detail)
4
2%
21
Connexions Service
The connexions service is an advice guidance and support service for all 13-19 year olds -
whether at school, in or out of work, in further education or a Sixth Form College - in the
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough area.
For the Cambridgeshire area excluding Peterborough the service worked with 16 young
people that reported that they were perpetrators of domestic violence between January and
December 2006. For the same period they connexions advisors worked with 41 young people
who disclosed being the victim of domestic violence. It should be noted that 4 of the young
people documented as perpetrators were also victims of domestic violence. Giving a total of
54 young people worked with in this period who were directly effected by domestic violence.
Of the 16 perpetrators, 13 were male and 3 were female. Of the 41 victims 13 were male and
28 were female.
Cambridgeshire Constabulary does not record perpetrators under the age 18 years old; this is
due to the Home office definition. Therefore the connexions data in relation to perpetrators is
currently unique for Cambridgeshire.
Summary
Whilst it is possible to get towards assessing the immediate impact of domestic violence
-
on health care services in terms of people needing care for physical injuries it is harder
to measure the level of secondary impact such as the effects on general health in
Cambridgeshire. Overall the level of disclosure is low.
Information supplied from OCYPS identified from a December 2006 snap shot identified
-
324 ‘children in need’ as being in need due to there being chronic violence between
carers (note there may also be other needs).
The information also identified a further 378 children where there was an erratic
-
relationship between carers. There maybe some children who are recorded under both
categories and whilst the use of the ‘chronic violence’ category appears consistent there
are variations in the ‘erratic relationship’ category that suggest that there might be
differences in recording practice.
The information from the ‘Vulnerable Adult Protection Service’ shows the extent of
-
abuse directed against vulnerable adults with 204 referrals over a twelve-month period.
During a twelve-month period a total of 41 young people reported to the Connexions
-
Service that they were the victims of domestic violence.
22
SECTION SIX - HOUSING
District Council Housing
Each district authority provides returns to the Home Office on housing applications each
quarter. The five district authorities accepted as eligible for housing a total of 106 households
as homeless where the violent breakdown of a relationship was main reason for
homelessness during the period January to December 2006.
District
Number of eligible households made homeless due to
domestic violence
Cambridge City
15
East Cambridgeshire
32
Fenland
31
Huntingdonshire
17
South Cambridgeshire
11
Total
106
Supporting People
Supporting People is a central government programme, introduced in April 2003 to fund,
monitor and review and improve housing-related support services. This is done in partnership
with local housing authorities, social care services, health, probation, registered social
landlords users and their carers and the voluntary and private sectors. The Supporting People
partnership aims to provide housing and housing support to vulnerable young people and
adults across the county.
In the financial year 2005/06 Supporting People assisted a total of 1,906 people, of which 186
had recorded either primary or secondary reason of a woman being at risk of domestic
violence. 157 cases had being at risk of domestic violence as a primary need.
Service Provider
Number of people
supported 2005/06
Cambridge and Peterborough YMCA
<5
Cambridge City Council
16
Cambridge Womens Aid
53
Ferry Project
8
Hereward Housing Association
10
Home Group Limited (Stonham)
<5
Huntingdonshire Housing Partnership
7
Jimmys Night Shelter
<5
King Street Housing Society
<5
Refuge, Fenland
57
Richmond Fellowship
<5
Salvation Army
<5
South Cambridgeshire District Council
<5
Spurgeons Child Care
21
Turning Point
<5
Total
186
Registered Social Landlords (RSL)
The table below shows the numbers of people that left their last settled household due to
domestic violence based upon returns to CORE from registered social landlords. CORE
(Continuous Recording) is a national information source funded jointly by the Housing
Cooperation and the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and
managed by the Centre for Housing Research at the University of St Andrews.
23
People who left their last settled
People who left their last settled
home due to domestic violence &
home due to domestic violence &
are within General Needs Housing
are within Supported Housing
District
Number
Percentage
Number
Percentage
Cambridge
5
2.3%
53
8.5%
East
Cambridgeshire
19
7.1%
5
2.2%
Fenland
2
1.7%
60
46.2%
Huntingdonshire
20
3.5%
29
8.9%
South
Cambridgeshire
4
1.8%
3
2.1%
Total
50
-
150
-
Summary
In the period January to December 2006 the district Councils collectively accepted 106
-
as being homeless due to domestic violence.
Data from supporting people identifies 186 people who were supported during 2005/06
-
who’s primary or secondary support needs were domestic violence.
Information from registered social landlords (via CORE) identify a total of 200 people
-
who had left their last settled home due to domestic violence.
It should be noted that there maybe considerable overlap between the different data
-
sources given here.
24
SECTION SEVEN – DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS
The initial aim of this report was to establish the overall size of the client base for a ‘domestic
abuse centre’ for Cambridgeshire. With the data that is available locally together with the
findings of national research it is possible to do this. One of the further conclusions of this
report is that there are some really good data sources available from a range of partners
relating to domestic violence although some of this local data would benefit from further
refinement in order for us to derive maximum value from it.
The overall population need can be estimated using prevalence rates derived from robust
national studies (see section one). Taking the broadest definition of abuse it can be
estimated that 18,300 16-59 year olds experience at least one incident of domestic abuse
each year in the county (with a much larger group of people experiencing at least one incident
during their life time). Given the age range concerned and the fact that other local data
identifies domestic abuse victims among the 60+ population then we can cautiously say that
this figure, 18,300 represents the minimum size of the client group for the abuse centre.
Particularly in terms of broad general services such as information provision. Further it can
be estimated that 9,800 people experience partner ‘threat or force’ each year in the County
meaning that this sub-group have a higher level of need for a service. Given the expected
level of repeat victimisation it is likely that this number of people experience 29,200 incidents
per year.
Beyond this overall population need assessment we can gauge how this need is expressed to
local agencies in terms of demand for services. It is at this point that there is a reduction in
the expressed need. It is this contrast between the number of people who experience
domestic abuse and the number reporting it to local agencies which is reason why so much
emphasis has been placed on awareness raising and increasing reporting over the last few
years.
Further information from the constabulary shows that they recorded 5,835 incidents of
domestic violence during 2005/06 and this report estimates that this probably a ratio of
incident recording of around 5 to 1. Given other information on incident reporting this
probably represents fairly good performance. Unfortunately it is not possible to say exactly
how many individuals this level of incident recording represents due to problems with creating
a unique dataset where repeat victims are only counted once. It is recommended that this
exercise be carried out.
Other partner data gives information on the range of services that the victims of domestic
violence require and is equally strong in terms of establishing the overall size of client group
for the domestic abuse centre. At this point we should say that caution should be exercised,
as there is no national peer-reviewed methodology for this form of estimation, we are merely
stating what seems reasonable. Further there is only very limited information on the relative
overlaps between different agency datasets.
Given that within one twelve month period Victim Support assisted 378 people, the Advocacy
Service supported 329 victims (based on a full caseload). Then these numbers almost
certainly form the absolute bare minimum number of people requiring a more intensive
service during the year (and we know that at least one of these services could have
supported more people if they had further resources). Information from the housing sector
tends to support this conclusion. Realistically, at the very least, 500 victims per year in the
County are requiring intensive service input from a least one partner organisation.
Added to this are the vulnerable adults identified by the Vulnerable Adult Protection Service
and the children additionally affected by domestic violence. As with the adult victims of
domestic violence it is difficult to precisely estimate how many there are but the Advocacy
Service figure of 443 again provides the absolute minimum requiring a service. The OCYPS
data that identifies 324 children who have a need due to there being chronic violence
between their carers appears to compliment this although we have no information on the
overlap between the two. Also it is important to be note that these figures are limited by the
availability of resources rather than being a true expression of need. Of further benefit would
25
be the ability to measure the annual volume of children in need within the OCYPS data rather
than to just have a snapshot.
So overall we know that across all the partner agencies demand for services for the victims of
domestic violence is relatively high and there is further unexpressed need. More importantly
it is possible to gauge what we don’t know and we are in the position to consider if knowing
what we don’t know would alter our current policy position.
26
Appendix One – Detailed definitions of partner abuse (abuse, threats or force)
Abuse
Prevented from having your fair share of household money
Stopped you from seeing friends
Repeatedly belittled you so that you felt worthless
Threat
Frightened you by threatening to hurt you / someone close
Force
Pushed you, held you down or slapped you
Kicked, bit or hit you or thrown something at you
Choked or tried to strangle you
Threatened you with a weapon (e.g. stick or knife)
Threatened to kill you
Used weapon against you (e.g. stick or knife)
Used some other kind of force against you
27
