Learning from Domestic Homicide Reviews using Experience Based Co-Design
Lead Research Organisation:
Manchester Metropolitan University
Department Name: Nursing
Abstract
The proposed study addresses important gaps in existing knowledge of domestic homicide and aims to learn from the experiences of families who have lost a relative to domestic homicide, victims/survivors of domestic abuse; professionals and domestic homicide reviews (DHRs) to document, analyse, map, and influence policy and practice to prevent future domestic homicides. The definition of domestic homicide used in this study will follow that of the Home Office (2016) guidance. To build comprehensive knowledge of the learning from DHRs, the study is organised in three work packages:
In Work Package 1 we will conduct a systematic literature review of i) international approaches to the review of domestic homicides; ii) identify key learning from international DHRs and iii) investigate any resultant initiatives from the DHRs, focusing on their impact.
In Work Package 2 we will firstly retrieve and use a quantitative approach to analyse all publicly available DHRs from 322 Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs) in England & Wales post June 2016 (approximately 200) to add to our existing dataset and preliminary analysis of 141 DHRs (collected from July 2011 - June 2016). We will refine the template created in our pilot study to identify and extract variables from DHRs to feed into SPSS. Descriptive analysis will be carried out to generate frequencies and proportions, with cross-tabulation of key variables. Statistical tests will also be used to identify key trends and risk factors. Secondly, we will conduct an in-depth qualitative analysis of a sample of DHRs of: i) adult family homicides; ii) complex cases where domestic abuse co-exists with substance misuse, mental health or disability; iii) families with children under 18; iv) black and minority ethnic families; v) analyse the recommendations made in DHRs in the above and vi) create an open access repository of DHRs. Sample sizes for the subsets will be worked out once all DHRs have been collected and categorised. These subsets are based on our preliminary analysis of DHRs (Chantler et al, forthcoming) and existing DHR literature. This work package will provide a large scale analysis of DHRs as well as a focussed analysis of specific sub-sets and can be utilised to inform prevention and risk management of domestic abuse cases that may lead to homicide.
Work Package 3 employs an experience-based co-design (EBCD) approach, an innovative, action orientated methodology bringing an additional dimension to interrogate the utility, learning and future development of services from domestic homicide reviews. Gwent and Lancashire (covering 19 CSPs) will act as study sites for the EBCD component. EBCD is a staged process involving gathering experiences and views of i) family members who have lost a relative to domestic homicide; ii) survivors of domestic abuse who have experienced assaults or stalking. Twenty one-to-one in-depth video interviews will be conducted which will be analysed using the Listening Guide method (Gilligan & Brown 1991) to identify 'touch points' to illustrate the journeys of victims, families, good practice and lost opportunities for intervention. The videos will be edited down in consultation with participants to create a digital story as the basis for conjoint activities to develop new ways of working. Twenty interviews will also be conducted with professionals who have worked with victims or been involved in DHRs and these will be analysed thematically. Following the analysis of WP1 and 2, and the identification of themes from interviews, a full day event will be convened with the two CSP networks to share the learning and to identify priorities for action.
An advisory group comprising representatives of Social Work, Policing, Health, CSPs, AAFDA, Safe-Net, AGENDA, survivors, academic experts, Home Office and authors and quality assurers of DHRs will provide expertise, help with recruitment and are key to dissemination and impact.
In Work Package 1 we will conduct a systematic literature review of i) international approaches to the review of domestic homicides; ii) identify key learning from international DHRs and iii) investigate any resultant initiatives from the DHRs, focusing on their impact.
In Work Package 2 we will firstly retrieve and use a quantitative approach to analyse all publicly available DHRs from 322 Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs) in England & Wales post June 2016 (approximately 200) to add to our existing dataset and preliminary analysis of 141 DHRs (collected from July 2011 - June 2016). We will refine the template created in our pilot study to identify and extract variables from DHRs to feed into SPSS. Descriptive analysis will be carried out to generate frequencies and proportions, with cross-tabulation of key variables. Statistical tests will also be used to identify key trends and risk factors. Secondly, we will conduct an in-depth qualitative analysis of a sample of DHRs of: i) adult family homicides; ii) complex cases where domestic abuse co-exists with substance misuse, mental health or disability; iii) families with children under 18; iv) black and minority ethnic families; v) analyse the recommendations made in DHRs in the above and vi) create an open access repository of DHRs. Sample sizes for the subsets will be worked out once all DHRs have been collected and categorised. These subsets are based on our preliminary analysis of DHRs (Chantler et al, forthcoming) and existing DHR literature. This work package will provide a large scale analysis of DHRs as well as a focussed analysis of specific sub-sets and can be utilised to inform prevention and risk management of domestic abuse cases that may lead to homicide.
Work Package 3 employs an experience-based co-design (EBCD) approach, an innovative, action orientated methodology bringing an additional dimension to interrogate the utility, learning and future development of services from domestic homicide reviews. Gwent and Lancashire (covering 19 CSPs) will act as study sites for the EBCD component. EBCD is a staged process involving gathering experiences and views of i) family members who have lost a relative to domestic homicide; ii) survivors of domestic abuse who have experienced assaults or stalking. Twenty one-to-one in-depth video interviews will be conducted which will be analysed using the Listening Guide method (Gilligan & Brown 1991) to identify 'touch points' to illustrate the journeys of victims, families, good practice and lost opportunities for intervention. The videos will be edited down in consultation with participants to create a digital story as the basis for conjoint activities to develop new ways of working. Twenty interviews will also be conducted with professionals who have worked with victims or been involved in DHRs and these will be analysed thematically. Following the analysis of WP1 and 2, and the identification of themes from interviews, a full day event will be convened with the two CSP networks to share the learning and to identify priorities for action.
An advisory group comprising representatives of Social Work, Policing, Health, CSPs, AAFDA, Safe-Net, AGENDA, survivors, academic experts, Home Office and authors and quality assurers of DHRs will provide expertise, help with recruitment and are key to dissemination and impact.
Planned Impact
The number of DHRs per locality is small so generating learning from a national sample will be valuable for both local and national level policy makers. The EBCD methodology takes research findings directly into policy and practice environments as we will work with a range of CSPs in partnership with surviving family members so that findings can be incorporated into service development, benefiting victims and their families more widely. Key beneficiaries include:
1) Policy makers and commissioners: will value the information that our analysis of DHRs yields regarding indicators of high risk and effective components of service responses to DVA. The literature review findings will have the capacity to shape the development of new approaches to reviewing homicides in the UK and internationally.
2) Managers and Practitioners: will benefit from the learning provided about direct work with DVA victims, perpetrators and children living with DVA. This can be widely disseminated through training and other forms of education as well as via the study outputs.
3) Victims of Domestic Violence: findings can be used to improve the identification and support provided to DVA victims, so reducing the likelihood of domestic homicide.
4) Families of Victims Domestic Homicide: findings will be relevant for family members of domestic homicides and the organisations that represent them. The study will produce evidence and narrative accounts that organisations representing survivors, such as AAFDA, can utilise in campaigns to reduce domestic homicides. Evidence generated by the research can be used to strengthen the professional response to the needs of family members of domestic homicide survivors.
5) General Public: the research team will use press releases and publications in the wider media to draw public attention to the phenomenon of domestic homicide and its links to DVA so heightening public awareness of DVA as a widespread and serious risk.
Three categories of impact (Nutley et al 2007) can be identified for this study:
1) Instrumental impact - influencing policy, practice and service provision. The EBCD methodology offers opportunities for the participating CSPs to enhance policy and practice to prevent domestic homicides. The digital recordings produced can be used more widely by other CSPs and in training programmes to improve students' and practitioners' ability to identify those at risk of domestic homicide and offer appropriate interventions, so preventing deaths. The systematic review of the international literature will be valuable for those involved in designing and developing review systems for domestic homicide and will inform the next generation of domestic homicide review systems.
2) Capacity building - technical and personal skill development. The analysis of DHRs in WP2 has the potential to inform the development of risk assessment tools and indicators, contributing to improved identification and protection of potential victims of domestic homicide. Establishing a national DHR repository will broaden access to DHRs for researchers, educators, policy makers and commissioners. The repository will be designed to allow educators and researchers to search DHRs in relation to key themes and categories so enhancing their utility.
3) Conceptual impact - reframing of debates. This study will highlight the value of DHRs as a source of evidence for a range of public services involved in preventing violence, including criminal justice, social care, health services and third sector organisations. It will also emphasise the value of looking beyond oft-repeated messages about failings in interagency communication to interrogate how DHRs are used in both policy and practice. The interagency perspective of DHRs provides an impetus for interdisciplinary research and the interdisciplinary nature of the research team will ensure that the research messages reach researchers, practitioners and students from a range of disciplines
1) Policy makers and commissioners: will value the information that our analysis of DHRs yields regarding indicators of high risk and effective components of service responses to DVA. The literature review findings will have the capacity to shape the development of new approaches to reviewing homicides in the UK and internationally.
2) Managers and Practitioners: will benefit from the learning provided about direct work with DVA victims, perpetrators and children living with DVA. This can be widely disseminated through training and other forms of education as well as via the study outputs.
3) Victims of Domestic Violence: findings can be used to improve the identification and support provided to DVA victims, so reducing the likelihood of domestic homicide.
4) Families of Victims Domestic Homicide: findings will be relevant for family members of domestic homicides and the organisations that represent them. The study will produce evidence and narrative accounts that organisations representing survivors, such as AAFDA, can utilise in campaigns to reduce domestic homicides. Evidence generated by the research can be used to strengthen the professional response to the needs of family members of domestic homicide survivors.
5) General Public: the research team will use press releases and publications in the wider media to draw public attention to the phenomenon of domestic homicide and its links to DVA so heightening public awareness of DVA as a widespread and serious risk.
Three categories of impact (Nutley et al 2007) can be identified for this study:
1) Instrumental impact - influencing policy, practice and service provision. The EBCD methodology offers opportunities for the participating CSPs to enhance policy and practice to prevent domestic homicides. The digital recordings produced can be used more widely by other CSPs and in training programmes to improve students' and practitioners' ability to identify those at risk of domestic homicide and offer appropriate interventions, so preventing deaths. The systematic review of the international literature will be valuable for those involved in designing and developing review systems for domestic homicide and will inform the next generation of domestic homicide review systems.
2) Capacity building - technical and personal skill development. The analysis of DHRs in WP2 has the potential to inform the development of risk assessment tools and indicators, contributing to improved identification and protection of potential victims of domestic homicide. Establishing a national DHR repository will broaden access to DHRs for researchers, educators, policy makers and commissioners. The repository will be designed to allow educators and researchers to search DHRs in relation to key themes and categories so enhancing their utility.
3) Conceptual impact - reframing of debates. This study will highlight the value of DHRs as a source of evidence for a range of public services involved in preventing violence, including criminal justice, social care, health services and third sector organisations. It will also emphasise the value of looking beyond oft-repeated messages about failings in interagency communication to interrogate how DHRs are used in both policy and practice. The interagency perspective of DHRs provides an impetus for interdisciplinary research and the interdisciplinary nature of the research team will ensure that the research messages reach researchers, practitioners and students from a range of disciplines
Publications
Bracewell K
(2022)
Beyond intimate partner relationships: utilising domestic homicide reviews to prevent adult family domestic homicide
in Journal of Gender-Based Violence
Chantler K
(2022)
An analysis of minoritisation in domestic homicide reviews in England and Wales
in Critical Social Policy
Haines-Delmont A
(2022)
Negotiating organisational blame to foster learning: Professionals' perspectives about Domestic Homicide Reviews.
in Health & social care in the community
Jones C
(2022)
Domestic Homicide Review Committees' Recommendations and Impacts: A Systematic Review
in Homicide Studies
| Description | 1) Research on domestic homicide has traditionally focussed on intimate ex/partner domestic abuse, violence (DVA) and homicide. Our study analysed 302 domestic homicide reviews (DHRs) and divided them into different types of domestic homicide: Intimate ex/partner; adult family (familial homicide involving those aged 16years and over and not in an intimate relationship) and homicide-suicide. The study also provides findings on the risks, vulnerabilities and contexts of domestic homicide of i) female perpetrators and ii) victims and perpetrators from a Black and Minoritised background. 2) Of the 302 DHRs, 66 related to adult family homicide. This illustrates the importance of understanding familial violence and homicide between those aged over 16. Most typically, this type of homicide is perpetrated by an adult son towards his parent(s). Whilst mothers were victims more often than fathers, the gender difference is small compared to Intimate ex/partner homicides where the gendered (female victims and male perpetrators) nature of domestic homicide prevails. Comparing adult family homicide (AFH) cases to intimate ex/partner (IPH) cases showed that AFH cases were more likely to involve victims and perpetrators who lived together (73% v 59%); overall use of violence was greater in AFH apart from prior DVA within the victim-perpetrator relationship (55% v 80%); friends were less aware of abuse within the victim-perpetrator relationship (where present) than in IPH cases (22% v 52%), although agencies were similarly aware. AFH cases were less likely to have been DVA risk assessed (27% v 48%) or to have been referred to a Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) (2% v 14%). Victims of AFH were older, retired and more likely to have a disability than IPH victims (23% v 4%); and more likely to have physical health conditions (61% v 31%) and the dynamics of care are an important feature. AFH victims were more likely than IPH victims to have been abusive to the perpetrator prior to the homicide. AFH perpetrators were more likely to have had drug use issues (65% v 32%) and were more likely to have co-morbid substance use and mental health problems (39% v 26%). Diagnosed mental health difficulties were not significantly higher in AFH perpetrators (53% v 42%), but there were higher rates of diagnoses of psychotic disorder (27% v 4%). 3) Homicide-suicide: These largely occurred within the context of intimate partner relationships and constituted 13% (n=37) of our sample. Comparing Homicide-suicide cases to intimate partner domestic homicide (IPH) revealed differences: homicide-suicide victims and perpetrators were older than IPH cases and had more physical health problems, were more likely to be retired, and in a better socio-economic position and were less likely to have had previous domestic abuse reported. Homicide-suicide contexts more often related to older couples struggling with terminal, degenerative or chronic illness within a 'care' context. Compared to IPDH, victims of homicide-suicide were more likely to have been shot (26% v 2%). 4) Female Perpetrators of domestic homicide are a small percentage of domestic homicide perpetrators (10%). Comparing male and female perpetrators found that female perpetrators had higher levels of vulnerabilities. They had higher rates of mental health diagnosis than male perpetrators (61% v 42%); were more likely to have substance use problems (81% v 57%); and more likely to have economic, unemployment and housing issues (71% v 48%). Female perpetrators were equally as likely to have committed prior DVA to their victims but more likely to have experienced DVA from their victims (61% v 8%) and much more likely to have been a victim of violence, abuse or some other trauma in their lifetime (87% v 44%). 5) Analysis of DHRs where either the victim or perpetrator was/is from a Black or Minoritsed background constituted 31% of the DHR sample. Analysis illustrates that statutory sector services should strengthen their responses to Black and Minoritised victims and perpetrators by ensuring proper recording of cultural background is used to inform practice; engage professionally trained interpreters with an awareness of DVA; resist framing DVA as endemic to Minoritised cultures; and enhance trust and confidence within Minoritised communities to contact services. The best examples of DHRs challenged service narratives and usually sought expertise from a specialist Black/Minoritised DVA service or community organisation. Nearly half of the sample who had migrated had lived in the UK for over ten years. Most cases (83%, n=78) contained evidence of prior DVA in the victim-perpetrator relationship, with nearly all of these (99%, n=77) involving the use of DVA by the perpetrator towards the victim, indicating the likelihood of missed opportunities for intervention. Importantly, where domestic abuse risk assessments were completed, ratings of 'High' were much less likely to be given to Black and Minoritised victims or perpetrators compared to White British victims or perpetrators (21% v 39%). 6) DHR Processes: Based on professionals' and family members experiences of the DHR process and our systematic review. Our analysis revealed that DHRs are a complex process where the facilitative skills of the Chair, meaningful involvement of families, survivor networks, specialist NGO agencies and openness to learning are key. To maximise learning and action from DHR findings, participants called for a greater role for national bodies (e.g. the Home Office) and a national repository of DHRs. Disrupting the hierarchy between statutory organisations and the voluntary sector enriches the DHR process. Whilst DHRs are about learning rather than apportioning blame, it is vital that organisations accept responsibility for failures to ensure learning takes place. Professionals wanted improved action from senior leaders across organisations at local and national level to ensure learning and recommendations are actioned. This was also found in interviews with family members who had lost someone to domestic homicide. The complexity of the DHR process is also reported globally, including the need for diversity on review panels, the appropriate involvement of children and potential conflict of interest of panel members. Adequate resourcing for specialist domestic abuse services is also called for in our systematic review of DHR processes. Other common recommendations in DHRs include DVA training, better multi-agency arrangements, information sharing and raising awareness of DVA in local communities. There is no research on whether recommendations from DHRs are implemented as there is no statutory requirement to report back on progress. Family members bereaved by domestic homicide and involved in the DHR process showed a mixed experience of the DHR processes. Some family members expressed very positive experiences and reported that their loved ones had a voice through the process. Others were disappointed and frustrated about the lack of change following DHR recommendations and urged for more monitoring of recommendations. Family members also suggested early education on domestic and sexual violence in schools. 7) Survivor Voices - based on interviews with high-risk victims of domestic abuse. These interviews echoed the findings of the DHRs in that services need to be more joined up; that different types of abuse and their impacts on victims need to be better understood by statutory sector professionals; and that risk assessment processes need to be better explained and executed. Specialist domestic abuse agencies were generally highly valued regarding support offered to survivors of domestic abuse. |
| Exploitation Route | There are missed opportunities for intervention in mental health, substance use, adult social care, policing and probation regarding adult family homicide. Future research should focus on how engagement with perpetrators in these agencies can be enhanced not only for adult family homicide but other types of domestic homicide. Statutory sector services (health, adult social care, children's services, criminal justice agencies) also need to develop professional curiosity including around race, culture and ethnicity and racism. In nearly two-thirds of cases, there were no children under 18 living in the household so safeguarding adults where there are no children under 18 living in the household is a particular priority. Providing detailed information about different types of homicide, victim and perpetrator characteristics and contexts should assist agencies to develop tailored domestic abuse interventions to prevent escalation to domestic homicide. Adequate funding of specialist DA agencies is required as well as other relevant services mentioned above. In particular, the 'by and for' sector needs to reinstated. Monitoring whether DHR recommendations are implemented and what the outcomes of these recommendations are, is central to maximising the utility of DHRs. |
| Sectors | Communities and Social Services/Policy,Healthcare,Government, Democracy and Justice |
| URL | https://domestichomicide-halt.co.uk/ |
| Description | Discussions are on going with Greater Manchester Police (GMP) as to how the findings can be used to inform policing practice regarding domestic abuse victims. GMP are particularly interested in our analysis of different types of domestic homicide and understanding the role of risk indicators to enhance domestic abuse risk assessment. The PI has been commissioned to do some further analysis of the data to inform the Domestic Abuse Commissioner's Oversight Mechanism (DHOM) for Domestic Homicide Reviews. The mechanism will seek to establish a robust system of analysis, tracking and scrutiny of trends in DHR learning and implementation at the national and local level and to hold such agencies to account. The PI has also appeared on BBC Breakfast, Radio 4 and has material on the BBC website about coercive control in domestic homicide. As a result of press coverage, the PI has also been approached to share the study's findings for a virtual reality training package on coercive control. Findings have also been used to raise awareness of domestic abuse more widely - via public engagement e.g. through poetry reading on International Women's day The PI led a series of four seminars on domestic homicide based on HALT's findings to coincide with the 16 days of Action against Violence Against women. An average of 100 people logged in to each seminar and the audience was a mix of practitioners, managers, students, academics and NGOs. |
| First Year Of Impact | 2021 |
| Sector | Government, Democracy and Justice |
| Impact Types | Policy & public services |