Facilitating the Collaborative Interface between Child Protection and Specialist Domestic Violence Services: A Scoping Review

ABSTRACT

Service provision in domestic and family violence involves complex responses from multiple systems. Early evidence involving other sectors suggests interagency working may benefit service systems and providers. This points to possible benefits for service users. A scoping review of models of interagency working between child protection and either domestic violence services or family law services, or all three services, was undertaken to improve understanding of practices that may facilitate collaboration between child protection and other agencies. A systematic search of nine databases and 10 organisation websites was conducted. Results were screened against selection criteria and 24 models were identified. From those, 22 facilitators for collaboration emerged and were grouped according to five interagency collaboration enablers: shared vision; formalisation of the model; authorising environment; leadership; and information sharing. These facilitators and enablers can be used to guide policy and practice development toward more integrated services for families experiencing domestic and family violence.

IMPLICATIONS

• Interagency collaboration in response to domestic violence has the potential to improve service efficiencies which may increase safety and wellbeing for women and children.

• Effectiveness of enablers for improving service provision and wellbeing of women and children requires further investigation.

为家暴受害者提供服务需要多系统复杂的反应。以往涉及其他领域的资料显示，机构间协作会有益于服务系统和服务提供者，并指出了可能给服务使用者带来的好处。我们考察了涉及儿保、家暴或家庭法律服务的机构间协作模式，意在更好地理解方便儿童保护与其他机构之间的协作。笔者还对9个数据库以及10个组织的网站做了系统搜索，并按选择标准进行筛选，共发现了24个模式。从中找到了22个有利于协作的因素，归为5个有助于机构间协作的因素，即，共同的愿景；模式的形式化；权威性的环境；领导；信息共享。这些有利及有助因素对政策和实践有着指导意义，可以整合为家暴遭遇者提供的服务。

KEYWORDS:

• Interagency Collaboration
• Child Protection
• Domestic Violence
• Scoping Review
• Family Law

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the financial and other support it has received from Australia's National Research Organisation for Women's Safety (ANROWS) towards this research and, through it, the Australian Government and Australian state and territory governments. The findings and views reported in this paper are those of the authors and cannot be attributed to ANROWS, the Australian Government, or any state or territory. The authors also gratefully acknowledge the input from the Project’s Advisory Group and participants in each state’s case study research. Parenting Research Centre contributors to the original work were: Robyn Mildon, Bianca Albers, Arno Parolini, Sophia Spada-Rinaldis, Ben Devine, Natalie Pill, Gina-Maree Sartore, and Anastasia Pourliakas.

Declaration of Conflict of Interest

Cathy Humphreys and Lucy Healey co-authored one of the studies included in this review (Frere et al., 2008).

ORCID

Michelle L. Macvean http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8897-9457

Cathy Humphreys http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8997-8993

Lucy Healey http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0180-2956