Research and analysis

Frontline police responses to domestic abuse incidents involving children

Published 7 November 2025

Applies to England and Wales

Report authors and acknowledgments

Report authors:

• Ipsos UK: Nadia Badaoui, Stella Capuano, Peter Sakis, Ellis Akhurst, Zoe Williams and Caroline Paskell
• The Connect Centre for International Research on Interpersonal Violence and Harm, University of Lancashire: Phillippa Olive, Helen Richardson Foster, Sophie Hallett, and Christine Barter

With thanks to Charlotte Goujon, Hannah Richardson, Ilya Cereso, Irene Soriano-Redondo, Catherine Fenton, Sarah Shorrock, Neil Wilson and Clare Scollay for their work on this study.

Our thanks also go to the anonymous peer reviewers who provided us with comments during the reporting stage and, finally, to all the project stakeholders and service users who gave their time generously to the evaluation process.

Finally, we would like to thank the Home Office for their input throughout the lifetime of the project.

Executive summary

Introduction

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 acknowledged the devastating impact domestic abuse can have on children and young people (UK Public General Acts, 2021). The Act recognised children who see, hear or experience the effects of domestic abuse as victims of domestic abuse in their own right. Identifying children experiencing domestic abuse is therefore crucial, and police called to a domestic abuse incident can play a critical role in this.

The Home Office commissioned Ipsos UK in partnership with the Connect Centre, University of Lancashire to carry out research. The research reviewed frontline police officer responses to domestic abuse incidents involving children. It aimed to better understand current practice, processes, attitudes and behaviours among responding officers when attending these incidents.

Methodology

Ipsos and the University of Lancashire conducted the research in 2022 using the following methods:

• a survey of police officers and staff in England and Wales (772 responses across 33 of the 43 territorial forces)
• deep dive research in 5 police forces: research focused on those who directly responded to or were involved in the response to domestic abuse incidents involving children; across the forces, 60 interviews were conducted with police officers and 31 with partner agencies or charities the forces collaborated with or referred cases to; 12 frontline officers completed written diaries and 178 case files recording frontline responses were reviewed
• interviews with 9 young people who had experienced the police response to domestic abuse; in this research, the term ‘young people’ refers to those who were aged 17 and under when they experienced domestic abuse

Key findings

Responding to domestic abuse incidents involving children

The research showed that responding to domestic abuse incidents involving children was a common occurrence for frontline officers. Officers would often receive information on their way to incidents but would not always be aware if there were children present prior to arrival. Frontline officers saw safeguarding children as an important part of their response at domestic abuse incidents. However, frontline officers were less clear on force protocols for responding to children or young people demonstrating harmful behaviours^{[footnote 1]}.

Interaction with children at domestic abuse incidents

Most frontline officers interviewed said they would speak to children at domestic abuse incidents. Officers said they were more likely to speak to children if they were physically injured, compared to those who had seen or heard the incident. The research also suggested that officers would be less inclined to speak to younger children or those who were neurodiverse. There was a lack of consensus on whether officers should always wake seemingly asleep children to speak to them.

Frontline officers explained that when speaking to children, they would build a rapport before asking about the domestic abuse incident. However, there were mixed views amongst officers about how they should ask children about an incident. Generally, officers reported feeling confident speaking to children and assessing their welfare. However, some officers felt inadequately trained on this or that they had not been provided with sufficient guidance. Officers rarely referenced operational guidance or formal training on what to consider when assessing a child’s welfare.

The research findings highlighted that officers did not routinely provide details of what would happen next to children. Officers said they were less confident giving children details about relevant support services available in the area.

Recording information about children at domestic abuse incidents

The 5 police forces researched used one or both nationally standardised risk assessments for domestic abuse to record information on children. These are the Domestic Abuse Risk Assessment (DARA) form and the Domestic Abuse, Stalking, Harassment and Honour-Based Violence Assessment (DASH) form. Officers and statutory agencies reported that these forms focused on adult parties and in some cases could be insufficient to capture information about children. Police forces with additional child-specific forms said this enabled them to record more detailed information about children.

Findings from the survey and qualitative research suggest that officers typically recorded demographic information and details about the child in relation to the incident. Whilst officers stated that they often recorded the physical and emotional wellbeing of children in interviews, this was not always reflected in the case files.

Referring children at domestic abuse incidents to social services

All 5 police forces involved in the deep dive research had a central referral mechanism for children at domestic abuse incidents. Frontline officers completed risk assessments on domestic abuse incidents and a central referral unit (CRU) would review cases and refer children onwards. Local authority (LA) stakeholders broadly held positive perceptions of the referral process and thought the accuracy of information received in police referrals was good. However, the level of detail about children at domestic abuse incidents provided by forces in referrals was not considered consistent. Some LA stakeholders flagged that a lack of detailed information about children could delay or negatively impact onward safeguarding responses. Officers stated they rarely received feedback from the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) or onward agencies about how to improve referrals.

Training on domestic abuse

Most officers receive some form of training on responding to domestic abuse incidents. For the officers interviewed, this was mostly delivered as part of the initial training package for new officers. Formal training on domestic abuse incidents involving children or externally provided training (such as Domestic Abuse Matters training by SafeLives^{[footnote 2]}) was less common. LA and third sector stakeholders felt that understanding and training on the impact of domestic abuse on children was a significant gap for frontline officers. This included training about different forms of domestic abuse, such as controlling or coercive behaviour, and other non-physical forms of abuse. It was also indicated by officers that additional formal operational guidance on how to speak to children and assess their welfare could be beneficial. Officers also found training based on victims’ real-life experiences and the wider domestic abuse investigation process beyond the frontline response to be useful.

Conclusion

Frontline police officers play a crucial role in safeguarding children during domestic abuse incidents. The research found examples of positive practice, but also some variation approaches and in the confidence of officers in engaging with children. Officers often lack specific training and clear guidance on how to communicate with children, assess their welfare, and record relevant information. Information about children’s needs and experiences are not always captured in sufficient detail, which can affect referrals and onward support. There is a need for enhanced, scenario-specific training, clearer operational guidance, and improved information sharing to ensure children’s welfare is consistently prioritised in police responses to domestic abuse.

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 introduced a statutory definition of domestic abuse, which includes emotional abuse, controlling or coercive behaviour and economic abuse as well as physical violence (UK Public General Acts, 2021). The Act recognises children who see, hear or experience the effects of domestic abuse and are related to or under the guardianship of either the perpetrator or victim, as victims of domestic abuse in their own right. In addition, the Act acknowledges the devastating impact domestic abuse can have on children and young people. Experience of domestic abuse is recognised as an Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE) that can impact a child’s long-term emotional wellbeing, behaviour, and educational outcomes (Lloyd, 2018). In addition, ACEs have been found to be show a predictive increase of future domestic abuse victimisation and offending (Butler and others, 2020; Schumacher and others, 2001; Costa and others, 2015). Therefore, identifying children experiencing domestic abuse is crucial, not only to child welfare, but also as a key role in crime prevention and police called to the scene of a domestic abuse incident can play a critical role in this (Stanley and others, 2011). Further, the Children’s Act 2004 (2004, c. 31), Section 11, places a statutory obligation on the police service to safeguard children.

The Home Office commissioned Ipsos UK, in partnership with the Connect Centre, University of Lancashire, to carry out research into the frontline police response to domestic abuse incidents involving children. The research aimed to better understand current practice, processes, attitudes, and behaviours among responding officers when attending these incidents. The objective was to identify specific considerations for practice, multi-agency working, or wider systems changes that could be implemented and evaluated in the future. The fieldwork took place between March 2022 and December 2022, and formed part of a wider project that included an evaluation of Operation Encompass^{[footnote 3]}.

1.2 Aims and objectives

Ipsos and the University of Lancashire carried out mixed-method primary research in police forces and with different statutory agencies. The research sought to answer the following research questions (RQs):

1. To what extent do police first responders consider child welfare when they attend a domestic abuse incident?
2. Do frontline officers record welfare concerns of the child and what is the type of information they record at the incident regarding the child, including action taken or referral services?
3. What is the quality and consistency of the referrals made by the police to other agencies in relation to child victims of domestic abuse?
4. How do the police work with/refer on to other statutory agencies, including social care and health, as part of an effective multi-agency response to children?
5. How do the police work with wider domestic abuse victim support services for children in their area?
6. How well are police trained on domestic abuse and safeguarding and to recognise the signs and impact domestic abuse has on children (including training on communicating with children and young people (CYP) directly)?
7. What could improve the police first response to child victims of domestic abuse?

1.3 Methodology

The research used a mixed methods approach to answer the above research questions.

1.3.1 Survey of police officers and staff in England and Wales

An online survey was developed for police officers and staff in England and Wales. The survey aimed to gather views, experiences and perceptions of police officers and staff about domestic abuse incidents involving children. It included questions about how officers respond to or coordinate these incidents; perceptions of working with other services, awareness of Operation Encompass and training they receive.

The survey link was sent to domestic abuse leads in all 43 territorial forces in England and Wales via the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPPC) on behalf of Ipsos. Domestic abuse leads were asked to disseminate the survey via email to all officers and staff with the aim that as many police officers and staff would complete the survey as possible. The survey was open 15 March to 17 June 2022.

In total, 772 police officers and staff in England and Wales completed the survey across 33 of the 43 forces. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the rankings of survey respondents. Constables, that is, response officers who would be the first to attend an incident, are referred to as “frontline officers” throughout this report. All ranks above constable involved in managing or responding domestic abuse incidents are referred to as “supervisory officers” throughout this report. Although the survey was open to all police officers and staff, most of the questions were about responding and managing domestic abuse incidents involving children. Therefore, not all survey respondents answered all questions. Officers were asked follow-up questions depending on their experiences of responding to domestic abuse incidents involving children and roles they had. Questions therefore had varying numbers of respondents, or base sizes.

Table 1: Survey respondents by rank

Respondents	Number of participants	Proportion of total participants
Constables	473	61%
Sergeants	133	17%
Inspector	43	6%
Chief inspector	8	1%
Superintendent	7	1%
Police staff (Police staff can include those with administrative, HR or finance roles)	108	14%
Total	772	100%

Following the completion of the survey fieldwork, any unfinished or unsubmitted responses were removed from the dataset. Demographic information for each of the participating forces was not requested by the research team. This meant there was not the opportunity to weight responses by different characteristics to make the survey sample more reflective of the whole police force. The data was put into tables and analysed descriptively by the total responses and by sub-groups (for example, by force and rank) where possible. T-tests were used to determine statistically significant differences between total responses and sub-groups.

1.3.2 Qualitative deep dives

Deep dive research took place in 5 police forces in England and Wales. The 5 forces were selected to achieve a broad spread by size of the force, geography (Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, 2011), population of the region and levels of arrests for domestic abuse-related crime. An initial short-list of forces were contacted to be involved in the research, with the final 5 sites chosen depending on force capacity and availability. For the purposes of this report, the 5 forces have been anonymised and labelled: Force A, Force B, Force C, Force D and Force E.

• force A is a predominantly urban force area with high numbers of domestic abuse-related recorded crimes per 1,000 population
• force B is a predominantly rural force area with medium numbers of domestic abuse-related recorded crimes per 1,000 population
• force C is a predominantly rural force area with low numbers of domestic abuse-related recorded crimes per 1,000 population
• force D is a predominantly rural force areas with high numbers of domestic abuse-related crime per 1,000 population
• force E is a predominantly urban force area with medium numbers of domestic abuse-related recorded crimes per 1,000 population

Outlines of the research materials can be found in Annex A.

Each deep dive was comprised of the following qualitative elements (see Table 2).

• in-depth interviews with frontline and supervisory officers who regularly responded or managed the response to domestic abuse incidents involving children: the officers were from different teams in the deep dive sites, including local policing or response and Public Protection Units (PPUs)
• paper diaries with frontline officers who regularly respond to domestic abuse incidents involving children: these diaries recorded their perceptions and experiences of domestic abuse call outs involving children across 7 shifts; all frontline officers who took part in the in-depth interviews were asked if they consented to taking part in the paper diaries; 7 officers took part and diary entries and quotes from the diaries are integrated throughout this report
• in-depth interviews with stakeholders from external agencies or organisations; Interviews were conducted with agencies or charities the forces work with or refer to when responding to domestic abuse incidents involving children; this included LA statutory agencies such as Children’s Social Care, schools and third-sector organisations

The research aimed to complete around 20 interviews with police officers and stakeholders per force. Participants were identified through a mixture of purposive sampling (through researcher-set quotas) and identification by the domestic abuse lead or other police contacts. Quotas were set on rank and division or team among officers in each force to ensure a diversity of participants within each force. Quotas were also set on type of external stakeholder to ensure representation from a range of other statutory and third sector agencies working with the force. Interviews were carried out over the telephone or online via Microsoft Teams following a pre-agreed topic guide.

Table 2: Number of police and external stakeholder interviews

Force	Frontline officers	Supervisory officers	External stakeholders
Force A	7	5	6
Force B	6	7	7
Force C	6	6	7
Force D	9	6	7
Force E	4	4	6
Total	32	28	33

In addition, 9 in-depth interviews with young people who had experienced police response to domestic abuse incidents took place across 3 police force areas (see Table 3). Five participants were male, 4 were female. Most (6 out 9) were White British and aged between 12 and 19 at the time of interview (all young people were aged 17 and under at the time of at least one of the domestic abuse incidents they had experienced). Recruitment was carried out through local ‘gatekeeper’ services (charities and third-sector partners identified potential participants). Criteria for selection of young people included that they had experienced a domestic abuse incident between one and three years ago but not within the last 6 months. This was to ensure sufficient time had passed since the young person’s experience of domestic abuse to minimise risk of harm to participants. However, not all young people identified for interview had such recent experience of domestic abuse. Although originally the research aimed to interview at least 6 young people per police force area, this was not possible due to limited third sector capacity to support recruitment and limited uptake from young people.

Table 3: Deep dive site young people achieved sample profile

Force	Children and young people
Force A	0
Force B	3
Force C	0
Force D	2
Force E	4
Total	9

Interviews were securely audio recorded (with participant consent) and transcribed. Findings from the interviews and diaries were analysed thematically and compared with survey responses. Analysis of the qualitative data was continuous (during and after the fieldwork period). A thematic analysis framework in Excel was developed, building on the key priority areas of interest for the Home Office. The framework allowed analysis by both interview and diary (anonymised), and by theme. Verbatim quotes were added into the analysis framework in order to maintain a link between the raw interview data. Care was taken to ensure that the analysis framework (including any verbatim quotes or descriptions of experiences) did not identify individuals.

178 case files recording frontline responses to domestic abuse incidents involving children were reviewed across the police force areas. A sample of 30 to 40 case files per force was created from all domestic abuse-flagged incidents with children present over the period 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022 (see Table 4). The research requested that forces provided access to a minimum of 30 case files. The number of case files reviewed were agreed with each force based on what was possible within the confines of the force’s capacity in the timeframes required.

The method of review and number of case files reviewed differed by police force area. This was due to the need to tailor the research requirement around force commitments and available resource. In addition, each force had a different case management system and vetting requirements. In Force A, C and D, cases were anonymised by officers in the force with a unique identifier and sent securely to the research team. In Force B and E, researchers were granted access to the case files and analysed the files using secure force laptops.

The inclusion criteria for each case was: (a) children present, (b) closed case (that is, a police outcome had been reached). Pre-agreed variables were collected from each case file record. Some variables were closed and quantifiable data, for example: age, ethnicity, sex of victim, suspects, and children. Some variables required narrative text, for example whether children were spoken to and details of welfare assessments. Demographic information about the perpetrators and or victims was not in scope of the analysis.

Table 4: Number of case files reviewed in deep dive sites

Force	Number of case files reviewed
Force A	30
Force B	36
Force C	36
Force D	40
Force E	36
Total	178

1.3.3 Limitations

While this research draws on survey responses, interviews, and case file reviews to provide insight into frontline police responses to domestic abuse incidents involving children, there are important limitations to note. The survey, although open to all police officers and staff in England and Wales, was completed by less than 1% of the workforce (Home Office, 2023). As a result, findings cannot be generalised to all officers and may be subject to response bias, with those holding stronger views more likely to participate. Small sample sizes also limit the ability to analyse results by demographic characteristics.

The number of qualitative interviews and young people sampled were also small. Recruitment relied on gatekeepers within police forces and support services, which could introduce selection bias. Some young people interviewed had experienced domestic abuse several years ago, meaning their accounts may not reflect current practice.

Finally, the review of case files was systematic but not comprehensive, covering only a limited number of cases in each force over a one-year period. In some areas, researchers relied on force analysts to select and anonymise files, so the accuracy and completeness of the information cannot be fully guaranteed.

1.4 Report structure

The report is structured according to the stages of police response to domestic abuse incidents involving children, from initial response, through to referral. It also considers training received by police officers on domestic abuse. The sections of the report map onto the RQs as follows:

• Section 1: Responding to domestic abuse incidents involving children (RQ1)
• Section 2: Interaction with children at domestic abuse incidents (RQ1)
• Section 3: Recording information about children at domestic abuse incidents (RQ2 and 3)
• Section 4: Referring children at domestic abuse incidents (RQ3, 4 and 5)
• Section 5: Training on domestic abuse (RQ 6)
• Section 6: Conclusions and recommendations (RQ7)

2. Responding to domestic abuse incidents involving children

This section outlines the process of how the frontline officers involved in this research typically respond to domestic abuse incidents involving children. This includes how often frontline officers respond to these incidents; initial steps taken at arrival; how and whether children are identified as living in the household; and the police response when children and young people are demonstrating harmful behaviours.

2.1 How often frontline officers respond to domestic abuse incidents involving children

More than half (56%, 233 out of 473) of frontline officers responding to the survey said they responded to domestic abuse incidents every day. Of those who had responded to domestic abuse incidents, just under a quarter (23%, 96 out of 417) responded to incidents where children were physically present every day. Frontline officers across the police force areas reported in interviews that intimate partner abuse was the most common type of domestic abuse incident they responded to.

Figure 1: How often, if at all, do you respond to domestic abuse incidents involving children as part of your role?

Base: 473 frontline officers who responded to the survey

In interviews, officers said incidents where children were involved or physically injured were infrequent. However, they said children were often present in the household or had witnessed the incident. The time of the incident could impact how and to what extent children were present or had witnessed the incident. For example, children were more likely to be in the household at the weekend, or seemingly asleep in bed during the evening, but at school on weekdays.

2.2 Information received by the frontline officer prior to attending domestic abuse incidents involving children

Officers in interviews said they would be deployed to domestic abuse incidents based on priority grading. Priority grading in all deep dive sites was made using the National Decision Model (NDM) and THRIVE (Threat, Harm, Risk, Investigative opportunities, Vulnerability and Engagement) principles. The grade given to each incident would determine the speed of the response.

Frontline officers said they would receive information on their way to the incident where possible. This information could include whether there was previous history of domestic abuse at the address, or if children were known to live there. Frontline officers used this information to pre-plan response strategies to mitigate risk. However, the speed at which officers responded to immediate incidents meant they did not always have time to assess all available information. If the detail on an initial report was limited, key information might not be known by control rooms. Therefore, officers would not always be aware if there were children present before arriving at an incident.

2.3 Frontline response processes

Most officers who responded to the survey and had experience with incidents involving children (79%, 527 out of 668) reported being aware of force protocols on how to respond to domestic abuse incidents where children were present. Frontline officers across all police force areas described taking similar steps at an incident, which followed College of Policing Authorised Professional Practice (APP) (College of Policing, 2024). Priority would be given to de-escalating live situations, separating parties, establishing any immediate or ongoing safety risks and arresting or removing perpetrators if necessary. Frontline officers would then focus on gathering evidence. This could involve collecting accounts from adult parties, but also speaking to children and conducting welfare assessments.

If officers were unaware whether children lived at the address prior to arriving, they described asking adults and/or checking for signs that children lived there. For example, officers mentioned looking for children’s bedrooms, toys, and books. However, supervisory officers and external stakeholders expressed concerns that children could be missed by officers if they were not present at the time of the incident.

“The big issue is when the children are not there because sometimes the questions not asked, you know, ‘Is there children in the house?’ Sometimes you can see there’s children in the house because there’s bedrooms, kids’ stuff around, other times, they don’t ask the question because the child might be [away] … and that’s when they get missed.”

(Supervisory officer, Force A)

2.3.1 Rapid Video Response (RVR)

Force D also deployed a Rapid Video Response (RVR) from a centralised domestic abuse Hub^{[footnote 4]}. RVR would be deployed for medium or low-risk assessments on THRIVE if appropriate. For example, if the victim was not in immediate danger and had suitable technology to facilitate the call.

Steps taken as part of RVR were described as similar to that of a physical response. Priority was given to ensuring the safety of the caller – for example, by checking whether the perpetrator was present. Whilst the officers interviewed acknowledged that the RVR serves a different function to an immediate physical frontline response, they highlighted several benefits of the new system. RVR reportedly enabled more time for officers to review previous incident reports before responding. It also allowed them to focus on the victim or children without needing to de-escalate a live incident simultaneously. Officers said it afforded greater flexibility to callers, as it offered victims an opportunity to speak to officers immediately without having police present in their home.

2.4 Responding to incidents of children demonstrating harmful behaviours

Most officers (75%, 578 out of 772) responding to the survey said they were aware that their force had guidance on how to respond to children demonstrating harmful behaviours. However, fewer (60%, 463 out of 772) knew what the guidance was^{[footnote 5]}. This was reflected in some interviews with officers across police force areas, with not all officers clear on what the guidance advised them to do.

Actions taken were determined by the child’s age (including whether they were above the age of criminal responsibility) and the perceived severity of the incident. Officers stated that arresting children was a last resort, and explained they were more likely to safely remove children to another address, such as a family member’s house. However, this could be a challenge if there was not an appropriate place for them to stay.

There was an awareness that these types of incidents could be complex. Officers interviewed acknowledged the need to understand the child’s behaviour and ensure the child was safeguarded, whilst also safeguarding other household members. Officers said they would ask questions to understand if the child had learning difficulties, mental health conditions or if there was a history of domestic abuse in the family.

“If a child is [demonstrating harmful behaviours] then something is not quite right. … I need to look outside the box and explore why they’re [demonstrating harmful behaviours]. Are they a victim of something? Have they witnessed something themselves that’s making them act out? Is there mental health issue I need to take into consideration?”

(Frontline officer, Force A)

In cases specifically of child to parent abuse, actions taken could depend on what parents wanted or allowed. Parents could be resistant to police actions or moving children to another address. Some officers stated that they would like more guidance about how best to support families experiencing these incidents and noted this was a developing area of work.

In addition, awareness and availability of support services for children demonstrating harmful behaviours could vary. For example, in Force C, stakeholders highlighted that the police were proactive in referring children in these incidents to get them the support needed. However, in Forces B and E, officers and stakeholders commented that support services for children in these scenarios were limited.

3. Interaction with children at domestic abuse incidents

This section explores findings on how frontline officers typically interact with children at a domestic abuse incident. It focuses on how and when frontline officers speak to children, what they speak about, and how officers tend to assess children’s welfare. It also considers the challenges faced by frontline officers when trying to interact with children and assess their welfare.

3.1 Frequency of speaking to children during frontline response to domestic abuse.

During qualitative interviews, frontline officers described frequently speaking to children at domestic abuse incidents and saw it as an important part of their response. Most survey participants involved in responding to incidents involving children (68%, 279 out of 410) agreed it is the responsibility of a responding officer to care for children at the scene of a domestic abuse incident. A minority (10%, 40 out of 410) of officers disagreed it was their responsibility.

Forces A, D, E had run awareness campaigns for officers to consider the ‘voice of the child’. For example, via internal learning sessions and sharing resources. This was seen as an underpinning principle to frontline response and encouraged officers to speak to children and understand the incident from the child’s perspective.

Most officers interviewed said they would generally try to speak to children alone, with their body-worn cameras recording. However, they commented on the importance of using their judgement and in some cases, it may not be possible or appropriate to speak to children alone. For example, if children felt more comfortable talking to officers with their siblings or other family members present.

However, few details of interactions with children were provided in the case files seen (see Table 5 below). For example, in Force C, 17 of the 36 case files noted a child was spoken to, but only one file had details about the conversation. Similarly, in Force B, there were only 2 out of 36 cases with a clear record of the conversation with the child/children.

Table 5: Records of speaking to children in case files across police force areas*

Force	Total cases	Record of a child being spoken to	Record of a child not spoken to	Not possible to determine
A	30	16	4	10
B	36	2	28	6
C	36	17	6	13
D	40	15	10	16
E	36	7	11	18

Notes:

1. * It is important to note that some cases reviewed in the case files had more than one child present and therefore the total number of children can exceed the total number of cases.

3.2 Factors influencing whether officers spoke to children

How children were involved in domestic abuse incidents could impact whether they were spoken to by officers. Half of frontline officers surveyed (51%, 211 out of 410) said they would always speak to children who were physically injured. Two in 5 (37%, 152 out of 410) said they would always speak to children who had seen or heard the incident but were not physically injured. A quarter (24%, 99 out of 410) said they would always speak to children if they were present in the house but had not directly seen or heard the incident.

Whilst officers said that they were more likely to always speak to children who were physically injured, 4 in 10 also said that they would less often than not^{[footnote 6]} or never speak to these children (43%, 175 out of 410). This was higher than for children who saw or heard the incident but were not physically injured (13%, 55 out of 410) or children who were present but did not see or hear the incident (21%, 86 out of 410). This may suggest that there is less officer consensus on how to approach incidents where children are physically injured.

Some LA stakeholders interviewed, such as Children’s Social Care said that officers sometimes prioritised responding to immediate physical incidents and injuries. Authorised professional practice (APP) guidance from the College of Policing is to prioritise immediate threat/harm (College of Policing, 2022). Some stakeholders felt that officers were more accustomed to responding to physical incidents of domestic abuse. As a result, they reported felt that officers might be less aware of other forms of domestic abuse taking place - such as controlling or coercive behaviour – and may miss them. Guidance from the College of Policing recommends that frontline officers should be considering and trying to identify other forms of domestic abuse including signs of how they may manifest in victims (College of Policing, 2025).

3.3 Waking seemingly asleep children at an incident

There was no consensus amongst the officers interviewed on whether to wake seemingly sleeping children at domestic abuse incidents. Some said they would always wake children. Others cited College of Policing APP guidance (2024), which advises that officers should consider whether it is in the best interests of the child to wake them up. Some frontline officers reflected that waking children up could be unsettling. Officers said they would usually consider the severity and level of risk of the incident and history of domestic abuse in the household when making a decision on whether to wake them.

“You’re not going to be waking a 2-year-old up at 3 o’clock in the morning for a verbal only argument but you might be waking an 8-year-old up for an assault that, you know, there’s a lot of history for the family and there’s been serious injuries caused.”

(Supervisory officer, Force E)

Stakeholders highlighted concerns that this meant some children were not adequately safeguarded. They felt frontline officers were often just “casting eyes” over children in bed, which does not fully capture their wellbeing or determine if they have been affected by domestic abuse. Stakeholders from Children’s Social Care described how children could be hiding or pretending to be asleep, especially if they were afraid of talking to the police. Children could also be inadvertently woken by police activity at the incident. One young person interviewed described waking up while police made a visual check on them and feeling ‘confused’ and ‘worried’. Stakeholders encouraged a more thorough check on children who are present in the household and for police to not assume they haven’t heard or witnessed anything. Some suggested that guidance should be reviewed and for children to be woken up and checked on.

“We believe that if the children are in the household, they have witnessed it, because we’ve dealt with cases where the parents thought their children were asleep, and when the social worker has spoken to the children, they heard everything. And the officers might not know that, they might go in, and look, and say, ‘Oh, the children are fast asleep.’… so it’s just having that opening of the mind that, just because they were asleep, or just because they were not present on that particular incident, doesn’t mean that they haven’t been present for others that haven’t been reported.”

(Stakeholder, Force C)

3.4 Officer interactions with younger children and children with learning difficulties

Frontline officers in all police force areas stated that it was not always possible to have conversations with very young children. Instead, officers during the qualitative interviews said they relied on visual signs of distress and welfare checks of the house. This included checking whether there is food in the fridge, clean bedding, and toys for the children. Young people interviewed said that officers needed to consider the importance of age-appropriate responses, and which officers are best placed to respond.

“…I think there should be, maybe, especially for a lot younger children, a woman officer there. Because, psychologically, especially when I was younger, like, having this big guy in a police uniform.”

(Young person)

Frontline officers in Forces A and D said that it could be challenging to communicate with children with disabilities^{[footnote 7]} and/or additional needs, particularly children who were non-verbal. They reported it was not always possible to speak to children separately if they were reliant on their parents to communicate. Some officers said they would welcome further guidance on how to communicate in an age-appropriate way and with children with different disabilities and additional needs. The College of Policing has published guidance on talking to young children (College of Policing, 2021) and the police response to concern for a child (College of Policing, 2022), however this did not appear to be widely known amongst interviewees.

Officers also said assessing the welfare of children who could not speak English, or for whom English is a second language could be challenging. Officers in these instances relied on using a translator over the phone, which made it harder to build trust or follow the child’s account in detail. Additionally, frontline officers mentioned some cases where children present at the incident acted as translators for their parents. Officers felt this impacted their ability to build up rapport with children and their families. Using children as translators in these situations is not considered acceptable by the College of Policing.

3.5 Building rapport with children at the incident

Among frontline officers who participated in the survey and who speak directly to children, 96% (369 out of 394) said they say hello to children and greet them and 94% (369 out of 394) ask them how they are. Additionally, 88% (347 out of 394) of frontline officers reported that they would speak to children about general things, such as school or hobbies (88%, 347 out of 394). See figure 2 for more detail.

“They’ll try and make conversation to begin with to build a rapport with them because obviously, some children are more used to seeing police in their homes than not. You don’t want them to be scared of the police … So, you just speak to them about if they’re happy at home, what they would like for their birthday, for Christmas, what they’re doing on the weekend. Just general chitchat, isn’t it.”

(Supervisory officer, Force D)

Figure 2: Which of the following do you tend to communicate with the child/children about?

Base: 394 frontline and supervisory officers who speak directly to child/children at least half the time when responding to domestic abuse incidents

3.6 Speaking to children about the domestic abuse incident

In the survey responses, only a very small minority (3%, 14 out of 410) were concerned that speaking to children could negatively impact a case or investigation. Most officers reported asking children about what they saw or heard (84%, 329 out of 394). During interviews, it was expressed that children’s accounts could be very helpful to an investigation. Officers were aware of the importance of not conducting a formal Achieving Best Evidence (ABE) interview at the incident, which is an interview practise used to collect evidence for court and criminal proceedings (Ministry of Justice, 2023).

However, only one fifth (19%, 76 out of 410) of survey respondents said they have been trained on how to appropriately speak to children present at domestic abuse incidents. In some forces, officers were not always clear when the volume and types of questions would tip the balance into an ABE interview. There were also concerns that asking about the incident could further traumatise children and some officers lacked confidence navigating these conversations in a trauma-informed way. Some officers said they would welcome further training on how to structure conversations about the incident with children, including a formalised set of questions to ask.

“If you’re doing this ‘voice of the child’, it’s quite difficult. You’re supposed to ask enough for it to be a worthwhile exercise, but then you’ve got to be careful that you’re not asking too much or, sort of, probing and expanding too much where it could be, well, that’s becoming a full-on interview. It’s quite difficult to do that, really, especially if the child does start to become open and talk. Where do you rein it in? I keep saying it, we need some training.”

(Frontline officer, Force C)

3.7 Assessing children’s welfare at domestic abuse incidents

Almost all (96%, 393 out of 410) frontline officers responding to the survey said they were aware of the potential welfare impacts of domestic abuse on children. The majority (80%, 327 out of 410) agreed that they knew the signs that indicate a child is in distress at a domestic abuse incident. During interviews, officers described checking for signs of injury and neglect in children, and observing their demeanour, behaviour, and interactions with their parents. They said they would check household conditions and cleanliness, for example, look for food in the fridge or cupboards and ensure children’s bedrooms had adequate bedding. This is not advised or endorsed practice to ensure the welfare of a child. Officers should refer to College of Policing guidance on Safeguarding the child’s welfare (College of Policing 2022).

“Are the parents are coping? You know, it tends to be, like, if the kitchen’s absolutely jam packed with dirty pots and plates that look like they’ve [been] there for ages, toys all over the floor, carpet’s not been cleaned, all of those kind of highlighted things. The child themselves, do they look, you know, well-kempt or do they look unkempt? Are their clothes clean? You know, has the bathroom got toilet roll, has it got shower gel? Is there toothpaste in the toothbrush holder?”

(Frontline officer, Force E)

Few officers described having formal strategies or guidance for speaking to children or assessing their welfare. Instead, welfare checks were based on personal or operational experience. Some frontline officers described being unsure of what to infer from non-verbal cues or the household environment as this could be a subjective and/or based on personal judgement. Examples of non-verbal cues mentioned by officers included: avoiding eye contact or appearing scared of adults at the incident.

“If I step into a house, I would never because of my upbringing, I won’t compare my home life with, my house is quite tidy, it’s quite clean, it’s quite presentable. I can’t compare that to the people I go and meet because they’ve all got different circumstances, and different ways of life. But it’s a good identifying factor if you’re going into a house and it’s not well presented, it’s not looked after.”

(Frontline officer, Force D)

This meant confidence in speaking to children could vary. Less experienced officers described feeling less sure of how to approach children at domestic abuse incidents during interviews. Supervisory officers and stakeholders also commented that some officers’ lack of experience could lead to them missing signs of the impact of the incident on children. Officers stated they would benefit from more formal training and clear operational guidance on what to review when assessing children’s welfare. APP guidance on first response includes provisions for frontline officers on duties in relation to safeguarding children (College of Policing, 2024).

“We do have a lot of young, inexperienced officers now who don’t have children themselves and might not think about things in the same way. It’s more of a getting it right in the training process, I think, that perhaps needs to be focused on a little bit more.”

(Supervisory officer, Force D)

3.8 Young people’s views on interacting with police

Of the 9 young people interviewed, most reported negative experiences of their interactions with officers during domestic abuse incidents. Some stated that their experiences with the police had resulted in further trauma.

The young people interviewed reported feeling excluded and ignored when the police attended an incident at their home. None remembered being asked about their welfare. Two out of the 9 young people explicitly stated they were not asked if they felt safe, if they were being supported by anyone outside their family, or what they would like to happen. Both felt these should be routine questions that all children should be asked.

“As they were coming, I was stressed out. I was upset. When they got there, obviously, like, they pretty much sent me out of the room. They were sorting the situation, and they didn’t cooperate, like, with me, or any of my siblings with how we felt, and if we were alright, and if anything had happened to us. They went straight to, like, my mum, and brushed it all off with us.”

(Young person)

Despite these negative experiences, all young people spoken to felt that the police should talk with children and young people at domestic abuse incidents. These young people reflected on how their experiences with the police could have been better if officers had been empathetic. They felt officers asking caring questions about their welfare would have made them feel more supported and listened to. For example, how they were feeling more generally beyond the incident.

3.9 Barriers to speaking to children and conducting welfare checks

Limited time and resourcing could impact officer ability to speak to and assess the welfare of children. The high-pressure environment and competing priorities at live incidents could mean both responding officers would need to concentrate on the adults present. Officers in interviews also spoke about the pressure to move to the next urgent call out. If an incident had taken time to deal with safely, the time left over before the next incident to speak to children could be restricted.

Officers across all forces also noted some parents’ obstructive behaviours, hostility and/or ‘active resistance’ to the police undertaking welfare checks on the children. This was reflected in survey findings, where half (51%, 208 out of 410) of those responding said adults at the scene could hinder them from speaking to children present. Some officers linked this to parents’ fears about further involvement from Children’s Social Care. In such cases, officers described clearly explaining to parents why they needed to speak with the children and reassuring them about doing so. As per the APP guidance, an officer’s request to speak to a child is refused, a record should be made along with the adult’s response. Where it is clear that the parent or carer had no involvement in the suspected abuse, it is considered good practice to seek their cooperation (College of Policing, 2022).

“I think parents are probably the biggest challenge, parents don’t want their children being spoken to because everyone knows that kids will say exactly what’s going on, don’t have any filters.”

(Supervisory Officer, Force A)

Officers reflected that it could be difficult to build rapport with children during live incidents, particularly if they were worried about the police taking away their parent(s), family and or carers. Furthermore, negative parental and family attitudes towards the police were commonly identified as having an impact on children’s perceptions and distrust of the police.

Supervisory officers also described the risk that frontline officers could face ‘compassion fatigue’. They felt the high rate of domestic abuse incidents could mean that frontline officers could become desensitised to domestic abuse and its impact.

“I think as well, victim fatigue with some officers, I think that can be quite a challenge. You know, you’re going to the third domestic of the day, where there’s sort of a similar incident. And I think that’s something that’s a challenge to officers, where we need to remain professional and sympathetic, because to this third victim, this could be a massive change in their life, their life is crashing down around them, and this to us is just the routine.”

(Supervisory officer, Force D)

This was strongly reflected in the views of young people interviewed. Most said they had not felt listened to and “brushed off” by officers at domestic abuse incidents. They described the police response as “tick box”, lacking empathy and minimising the seriousness of the incident.

“It would’ve been nicer if he’d just taken the time to like properly listen to what we were actually saying, rather than kind of, asking the questions to tick boxes… he just wasn’t really taking us that seriously.”

(Young person)

3.10 Awareness of prosecuting for emotional harm

Most officers interviewed were not aware of the option to prosecute individuals in domestic abuse cases for causing emotional harm to a child. None had worked on or heard of cases where this had been pursued in their force. However, some supervisory officers in Force C and E were aware of the change in legislation. Officers commented that forces would be more likely to bring a charge for physical harm. Officers had concerns about the evidential thresholds required to prosecute for emotional harm, and none said they had received training or guidance related to this. Training on the option to prosecute for emotional harm would increase awareness and use within forces.

4. Recording information about children at domestic abuse incidents

This section explores what type of information is recorded by frontline officers at domestic abuse incidents regarding the child. Challenges of recording information about children are considered, according to the police staff surveyed and interviewed, alongside the views of external agencies.

4.1 Protocols for recording information

Most officers responding to the survey said they knew of their force’s guidance on what information to record about the child/children present at domestic abuse incidents (91%, 608 out of 668). Similarly, the majority knew of their force guidance on how much detail to record about the child/children present at a domestic abuse incident (87%, 580 out of 668).

During qualitative interviews, officers described turning on body-worn cameras when attending domestic abuse incidents. Officers then used forms to capture information about the incident, perpetrators and victims on their mobile phones or notebooks. They inputted this information into case management systems before leaving the incident, in their patrol cars or at the police station. Most commonly officers in interviews referenced aiming to complete this by the end of their shift. Sometimes body-worn camera footage could be re-watched and used help with officer recollection of the incident. Recorded information was then used as a foundation for onward referrals.

4.2 Tools for recording information about children at domestic abuse incidents

Each police force area used either or both of the nationally standardised risk assessments for domestic abuse. These are the Domestic Abuse Risk Assessment (DARA) form and the Domestic Abuse, Stalking, Harassment and Honour-Based Violence Assessment (DASH) form. Four of the 5 police forces also used additional, customised forms to capture information about vulnerable or at-risk children. These documents included space for frontline officers to provide details about how children in the household were affected by the incident. The different forms used by forces to provide details about children suggests there is no standardised approach or best practice when it comes to child-specific domestic abuse related forms.

The limitation of using only DARA or DASH forms to record information about children was raised by supervisory officers and statutory agencies. Standard questions on both forms were seen as focused on adult parties and insufficient to capture information about children. In interviews, forces with child specific forms said that this enabled them to record more detailed information. Frontline officers highlighted the need for more questions and prompts in the DARA or DASH to help them to record sufficient information on children. For example, specific questions relating to wellbeing checks of the child.

Officers and external stakeholders across the police force areas mentioned a lack of sufficient guidance for completing these forms. There were concerns that often the forms and processes used relied on individual judgement of frontline officers. Even in forces with customised forms for children, frontline officers highlighted feeling unsure about using their individual professional judgment.

“You just use your own judgment whether [an incident is] high risk or not. It’s entirely down [to] you to justify what rating you put it as.”

(Frontline officer)

4.3 Types of data recorded on children at domestic abuse incidents by officers

Most officers responding to the survey said they would usually record personal information about a child present at a domestic abuse incident. However, only half (49%, 324 out of 661) said they would usually record children’s ethnicity. This was reflected in the case files, which showed that children’s age, gender, name of their school/nursery and their relationship to adults involved was routinely recorded in all deep dive sites. While ethnicity is regarded as a desirable basic field to be collected on record by the College of Policing (2022), in all but one force (Force E) ethnicity was not generally included^{[footnote 8]}.

Figure 3: Which of the following pieces of information do you/frontline officers usually record about domestic abuse incidents involving children? (Select multiple)

Base: 668 frontline and supervisory officers who ever record information in relation to children present at domestic abuse incidents

Of the officers who record information about children at domestic abuse incidents, 87% (567 out of 652) said they usually record the location of the children at the time of the incident. In addition, 84% (547 out of 652) said they usually record the physical state and 79% (515 out of 652) the emotional wellbeing of children. However, the case file review indicated that recording detailed information about children’s physical and emotional wellbeing was not routine. For example, in Force B it was only recorded in 6 of the 36 cases reviewed, and in 12 of 36 cases in Force E. Notes on welfare checks were brief, stating if children were physically hurt, frightened, or seemed under-nourished. This suggests a perception gap among officers regarding the type of information they usually record and how often (see Referrals section).

Table 6: Records of welfare checks in case files across police force areas

Force	Total cases	Record of a welfare check on children
A	30	14
B	36	6
C	36	2
D	40	11
E	36	12

4.4 Barriers to collecting and recording information

The typically high-stakes and dynamic nature of live domestic abuse incidents could limit officer ability to collect sufficient and timely information about children. Officers reported needing to prioritise de-escalation as per the APP guidance (College of Policing, 2025), which could mean collecting only the minimum information required for any further steps such as referrals. This includes details of the person making the report (name, address and telephone), information about the location and nature of report (College of Policing 2022; College of Policing 2025).

“[the] golden hour, essentially, to reduce the threat, harm, risk and you’re separating both parties. So, I wouldn’t go on about it, I wouldn’t ask them what school they attend. In the [form], it asks you about what GP they go to but I don’t ask about that, should do but don’t because you’re too focused on other things.”

(Frontline officer)

Officers also said they could sometimes struggle to complete the relevant forms between different callouts and some frontline officers were only able to complete crime reports at the end of a shift, after having responded to multiple incidents. This could impact the accuracy and level of detail they could provide.

“It can take me an hour or 2 to write up a domestic incident. If I think that it needs a high level of detail, I can easily do two hours, in which there are still other jobs going on and the sergeant still wants us to go out to jobs. And I’m being called by the control room to go out to other jobs. There have been times where I’ve had to leave paperwork halfway through and come back to it afterwards. You lose your train of thought so that becomes difficult.”

(Frontline officer)

Frontline officers also referenced challenges with attaining correct information from adult parties. Parents or other adults may deliberately provide false information or may not know all the information relevant to the children. In these situations, frontline officers would seek to fill information gaps by speaking to other to witnesses or reviewing previous records, or secondary investigations.

5. Referring children at domestic abuse incidents

This section considers force processes of referring children at domestic abuse incidents onwards. It considers collaboration between forces and onward agencies including Children’s Social Care, schools and third sector organisations.

5.1 Referral mechanisms for referring children at domestic abuse incidents

Frontline officers saw themselves as playing a central role in ensuring that safeguarding concerns were raised for onward support. Most officers responding to the survey said they knew that their force had protocols/guidance on referrals (84%, 560 out of 668) and what they are (73%, 485 out of 668). These protocols/guidance on referrals would be force- specific, with APP guidance taking a localised approach to forces managing information about cases and referrals.

Although the specifics of force processes could vary, each police force had a central referral mechanism for children at domestic abuse incidents (outlined in Figure 4). This could involve 2 referral pathways:

1. Requesting immediate support for high-risk or emergency incidents. For example, if risk assessments by officers at an incident identify that children need to be immediately rehoused. Social services would then provide immediate support as needed, referring on to support in the long term.
2. Completing a risk assessment which would trigger an automatic referral to a central referral team. Specialist officers in the central referral teams would review cases and refer children onto relevant services. They would also update information on referral forms if needed.

Figure 4: Deep dive force referral process

Frontline and supervisory officers during interviews said the referral process was straightforward and easy to navigate. In 4 of the 5 forces, forms completed at all domestic abuse incidents would trigger an automatic referral to the force’s central referral unit if a child was present. Therefore, decisions about when and where to refer children did not sit with frontline officers.

“We would do the crime report, we would then send off basically that crime report and send it to the central referral unit and from there on they disseminate it … we don’t as response officers necessarily do the referral to social services and things like that, we just stick it on the [risk assessments].”

(Frontline officer)

However, in Force E, completion of an optional child-specific form would trigger a referral. This meant children’s onward referrals relied on frontline officer’s professional assessment of a child’s risk. Officers in Force E described worrying that children in need could be missed and not be provided with the support they needed. They said they would welcome further guidance on the thresholds of risk for referrals.

“I over refer just because I’m paranoid about not doing it and then something happening. … I might just be not aware of it but I’m not sure of any particular guidance about, like, the threshold that needs to be met to refer it on.”

(Frontline officer, Force E)

5.2 Awareness of referral processes

The automatic system meant that frontline officers in deep dive sites did not always have a clear understanding of the referral process beyond central referral units. During interviews, some officers reported being unclear which organisations would receive and respond to referrals. This meant they were not always able to explain to children what the next steps might be (only 33%, 129 out of 394 of survey respondents said they would do this often). In addition, only a minority of officers (9% of survey respondents, 34 out of 394) said they would tell children about relevant support services in the local area. Officers interviewed stated that they were not aware of many charities or support groups for children affected by domestic abuse. Officers also described feeling unsure of how to discuss this with children in a trauma-informed way. Frontline officers highlighted this was a potential gap in their training.

“I’d say that we have to make them aware of social services because that’s a fact, that is happening, but I can’t tell them much more because I don’t know what would happen after they’ve been made aware. I’d say that is probably a bit of training that we do lapse, and I wouldn’t see an issue with us getting a little bit of a refresher on that training about how much information should we share.”

(Frontline officer)

Many of the young people interviewed said officers should explain to children what the immediate next steps would be and how they could access support. However, they felt this needed to be undertaken in a calm, empathetic and less procedural way. Often onward support services require parental consent.

5.3 Information sharing, quality of referrals and collaboration with external agencies

LA stakeholders interviewed broadly held positive perceptions of the referral process. In forces with integrated service delivery models (as in Force A and D), central referral teams were embedded in the LA social services team. This was seen as an enabler of collaborative working. Stakeholders also acknowledged progress within forces regarding referral processes and general response to domestic abuse incidents. This was particularly the case in Forces C and D.

“I don’t think it’s difficult at all. I think obviously what helps is we have our representatives from the police in the office … I think it works well … We’ve got consent to request information, there’s a really good process in place here with Central Referral Unit colleagues, in terms of sharing that information and vice versa, really… it works smoothly, and there is a lot of information sharing between us.”

(Stakeholder)

Overall, LA and third sector stakeholders working across the forces reported that the accuracy of information received in police referrals was good. However, stakeholders working with Force B noted that sometimes basic demographic information received from the force could be inaccurate. This meant they needed to spend time compiling the correct information on the numbers of children in a family or household, languages used and ethnicity. This slowed down stakeholders’ ability to fully understand the context and details of the household and make decisions on what actions should be taken in response to the referral. Additionally, stakeholders for all forces highlighted that the level of detail about children at domestic abuse incidents provided referrals was not felt to be consistent.

“It’s probably not consistent across the board. You know, sometimes you get a lot more information and then others can be really brief.”

(Stakeholder, Force B)

In some instances, stakeholders reported that referrals would not include information necessary for onward safeguarding actions. This included a lack of information on the impact on the child/children, their emotional wellbeing, and the wider context of the incident. This was supported by the case file review. Particularly in non-physical domestic abuse incidents or where children were not physically injured, stakeholders felt officers would prioritise recording the impact of the incident on the adults. Very few case files contained detailed information about the children, their demeanour or conversations had with them. Instead, details could be limited to ‘seen’ or ‘safe and well’.

“Sometimes officers can put something really generic in which is not helpful, ‘Oh the child looked fine, dressed appropriately, the house was clean’. Well, that’s not why you went round, is it?”

(Stakeholder)

LA stakeholders said they needed more detailed information to provide a holistic support package. Children’s Social Care stakeholders mentioned frequently needing to go back to frontline officers to gather further information before being able to pick up the referral. Additional types of information referenced as being useful included the emotional state of the children present at the scene, information about any legal or case related implications and information about any other children within the household. This could be time-consuming and impact the speed at which support agencies are able to make fully informed decisions about the type of support that children being referred needed. For example, stakeholders highlighted that knowing about the wider context of a child’s home helps them develop a tailored support plan for the child.

Some stakeholders additionally felt that police shift-patterns could create issues for contacting frontline officers. For example, shifts may not align with normal working hours, like nights or at weekends. This could make it difficult for Children’s Social Care who generally work normal working hours to contact individual officers who made the original referral. Officers and stakeholders outlined the advantages of additional training to improve officer understanding of the impact of domestic abuse on children, and information sharing for referrals. They noted that this would help officers provide the necessary level of detail in referrals.

“I don’t think they know what detail looks like, you know when you’re talking about children, what does that mean? How do they present? You know, you’ll just get a couple of lines saying, ‘Child seems okay, has bedding, cupboards checked for food.’…, doesn’t mean that the child is fed, it just means that there is something in the cupboards. It’s a very basic minimum standard.”

(Stakeholder)

Some domestic abuse organisations also mentioned instances where officer language used in relation to domestic abuse was seen as outdated and victim blaming.

“When we look at the kind of language we use, we say, ‘Oh, she’s high-risk,’ for example. Actually, if the perpetrator is the male in this situation, no. Actually, he is high-risk. She is not high-risk.”

(Stakeholder)

5.4 Feedback on referral information

However, officers in interviews also reported that they rarely received information back from onward agencies after they had submitted a referral. They said they received limited feedback on whether they had provided sufficient information for agencies and rarely knew what happened to children after referring.

“I can send a 2-page email to our social services MASH team, and I won’t ever get a reply. So, I never know. Because, in response, how it’s set up is, we don’t hold crimes. We literally go out, deal with what’s there, come back, record the crime, and put all the paperwork together, and then go to the next job, and it goes to an investigation team. … So, I don’t know whether what I’m sending is good enough, … [or] whether I’m sending it to the right people.”

(Frontline officer, Force A)

Supervisory officers mentioned that officers could therefore assume that onward services had received everything they required unless they were told otherwise. Stronger feedback loops between onward agencies and forces were seen as key to facilitate better collaboration. Feedback from statutory agencies could improve understanding of needs on both sides and to improve the types of information in police referrals.

However, not all officers wanted to receive feedback about their referrals from onward agencies. In Force E, officers said that they would not routinely want to know about onward actions taken after their initial referral. They said they would not have capacity to read this information, and some did not view it as part of their role.

5.5 Young people’s perceptions on information sharing

Interviews with young people found that they were broadly happy for their information to be shared with schools and other agencies. They highlighted that sharing information with their school, for example, might enable the school to understand their context and act appropriately.

“If school know then maybe they can help you pull out of class if you need a little break or something that’s come up that triggers you maybe, then you can leave the classroom and take a rest for five minutes or so.”

(Young person)

However, several of the young people interviewed emphasised that confidentiality was critical. They said that information should only be sent to key specialist staff who would be equipped to respond to the information. One young person commented that they would like to be consulted on the decision to share information onwards and who to, particularly in a school context.

6. Training on domestic abuse

This section explores the training on domestic abuse incidents involving children provided to frontline and supervisory officers. It considers findings regarding the training officers have received, and highlights training gaps according to officers and stakeholders from statutory agencies.

6.1 Domestic abuse training received by officers

Most officers responding to the survey (82%, 630 out of 772) said they had received some form of training on how to respond to domestic abuse incidents. For the officers interviewed, this was mostly said to have been delivered as part of their initial training package for new officers. Initial training had focused on the policies and procedures behind responding to domestic abuse incidents, such as guidance on completing DASH or DARA forms. Refresher training covering practical guidance on responding to domestic abuse incidents, including how to speak to children and record information, was not commonly provided across the deep dive sites.

“When you speak to people on the frontline, they all know about the voice of the child because they’ve had training, it’s on our intranet, it’s in posters when they go to the toilet for example. So, it’s about how do we keep it fresh and keep people really focused on it?”

(Supervisory officer, Force A)

Officers considered regular and refresher training on domestic abuse incidents involving children to be more useful than one-off induction training. It helped ensure that both newer and longer-serving officers were following the same procedures.

“So I think maybe [the process for completing DASH forms] was becoming a little bit confused for people. There was a lot of new people coming in and I don’t know whether their initial training gave them that information, so that was quite a good sort of refresher.”

(Frontline officer, Force B)

6.2 Formal training on domestic abuse incidents involving children

Among survey respondents, 58% (228 out of 394) reported having training specifically on responding to domestic abuse incidents involving children. Just under half (49%,193 out of 394) had undertaken training on ACEs and trauma-informed approaches.

Some training was also only available to certain officers. In Force B, officers who were part of the Police Constable Degree Apprenticeship (PCDA) programme received training on ACEs and trauma-informed approaches. However, this training was not mentioned by other officers. Similarly, in Force E some frontline officers had received ACEs training, but one supervisory officer felt the force could do more to promote training on trauma-informed approaches more widely.

6.3 Guidance on speaking to children and assessing welfare

Some supervisory and frontline officers felt that on-the-job training was a key part of upskilling frontline officers in responding to domestic abuse incidents involving children. In Forces A and C, frontline officers indicated that a significant amount of their knowledge and confidence came from the guidance and instruction of more experienced officers.

However, this meant less experienced frontline officers could lack confidence in speaking to children. Frontline officers said they felt like they lacked formal operational guidance on how to speak to children and assess their welfare. Young people who took part in the research also felt frontline police lacked training on how to speak to young people.

“I feel like police should really be well trained in what they say and how they say it, to get some answers. But not directly question this child because, you know, that comes across as quite intimidating sometimes, at least from my experience.”

(Young person)

Officers called for further guidance on what questions to ask children and tips on how to encourage children to share information with them. They also said they would value specific guidance on how to speak to children of different ages.

“Communication with children would be really beneficial. Some guidance on whether we should or shouldn’t speak to children… some guidance on whether, you know, ‘Well, try and probe a bit more,’ or ‘No, absolutely don’t probe, leave that to social workers.”

(Frontline officer, Force B)

Stakeholders across the police force areas felt that training on the impact of domestic abuse on children was a significant gap for frontline officers. This included accounting for different forms of domestic abuse, such as controlling or coercive behaviour, and other non-physical forms of abuse, as well as contextual factors (such as complex family dynamics). Just half (51%, 201 out of 394) of survey respondents reported receiving training on the potential wellbeing and mental health impacts on children who witness domestic abuse. Some stakeholders felt this training gap may be due to forces not updating their internal training to account for changes brought about by new legislation.

Similarly, LA and third sector stakeholders felt that frontline officers lacked training on how to assess children’s welfare in all forms of domestic abuse. They said that further training may support a more informed and holistic response from officers that considers all types of domestic abuse.

Training based on domestic abuse victims’ perspectives and their real-life experiences was considered to be beneficial. Officers in Force E had found testimonials from victims and survivors more tangible. They felt it was clear how it applied to their job and highlighted what information they should be looking out for.

“We’ve had a lot more [training] recently where victims of domestic abuse have done videos… So, you’re getting their views… They’re saying, ‘This is where you’re letting us down…‘You’re not asking specific questions’…Actually, you should be looking at these signs, because it is controlling and coercive.”

(Frontline officer)

6.4 Externally provided training

Training from external providers was less common. Just over a quarter of those responding to the survey (28%, 217 out of 772) had received Domestic Abuse Matters training from SafeLives^{[footnote 9]}. Officers who had received this training said in interviews it was helpful but did not give sufficient focus to domestic abuse incidents involving children specifically. Similarly, supervisory officers in Force A noted that external training from other providers did not focus on domestic abuse incidents involving children. This included Barnardo’s Trauma Informed Training and the College of Policing’s Specialist Child Abuse Investigators Development Program (SCAIDP).

6.5 Training on recording information and referrals

In Force B, frontline officers valued training they had received on filling in DASH forms. Officers self-reported that it felt like this had improved their knowledge of what information was most useful to social services and what they should record as a priority. In Force C, stakeholders believed that frontline officers should have training on how Children’s Social Care use the child-specific forms. The consensus was that this would support officers to prioritise recording the most useful information for social services, such as the ‘voice of the child’ in welfare assessments.

Further training on the domestic abuse investigation process beyond frontline response was also seen as helpful. Some frontline officers reflected that they were not always trained to understand the next steps taken to investigate domestic abuse incidents or support victims after cases were referred onwards to PPUs, specialist domestic abuse officers or LA stakeholders. Force D officers said that training they had received had helped them understand what happens after cases are referred to Children’s Social Care.

7. Conclusion

7.1 Policy considerations

To improve the police response to domestic abuse incidents involving children, police forces and national bodies should prioritise enhanced, scenario-specific training and clear operational guidance for officers. This includes practical guidance on how and when to speak to children of different ages and needs, how to assess their welfare, and how to record and share relevant information. National forms and protocols—such as the DARA—should be reviewed to ensure they capture sufficient detail about children’s experiences and welfare, and forces without child-specific forms should consider introducing them.

Police collaboration with local authorities and other agencies should be strengthened through regular feedback, shared training, and opportunities for frontline officers to attend multi-agency meetings. Police forces should ensure officers are aware of local and national support services for children and are equipped to explain next steps and available support to children and families. National guidance should clarify when and how to refer children, including those demonstrating harmful behaviours, and provide clear thresholds and best practice examples.

Ongoing training should cover all forms of domestic abuse—including non-physical and coercive control—and the impact on children, with a minimum annual training requirement. The College of Policing and the Crown Prosecution Service could provide further guidance on prosecuting for emotional harm, and police forces should ensure officers understand when and how to use this option. Further guidance on how to respond to children demonstrating harmful behaviours would be welcomed by officers.

7.2 Evaluation concluding remarks

This evaluation highlights that while many frontline officers are committed to safeguarding children at domestic abuse incidents, there is some inconsistency in practice, confidence, and training. Information about children’s needs is not always captured or shared effectively, and multi-agency collaboration can be improved. Addressing these gaps through targeted policy and practice changes will help ensure children’s welfare is consistently prioritised and supported in police responses to domestic abuse.

Annex A: Qualitative research materials

Outline of discussion guide(s) for officers (supervisory and frontline)

Section	Details
Introduction	An introduction to the research, the purpose of the interview and provide an explanation of anonymity, confidentiality, the disclosure policy and how the data will be used. Researchers will also ask for consent to carry on with the interviews and consent to record.
Warm-up	Discuss the individual’s role to provide a useful background and establish rapport, this includes: - their role/rank - their background - how often they respond to or supervise responses to domestic abuse incidents involving children
Responding to domestic abuse incidents involving children	Discuss their experiences of responding to or supervising the response to domestic abuse incidents involving children, including: - the process of what happens when they/frontline officers arrive at the scene of a domestic abuse incident involving children including initial actions taken - what circumstances they/frontline officers would speak to or not speak to children and the types of things they/frontline officers would say to children - how they/frontline officers assess the wellbeing of children at the scene of an incident and any challenges faced when trying to do so - their understanding of the option to prosecute for causing emotional harm to children
Recording information	Discuss their experience of the information recording processes, covering: - any force level guidance or protocol on what information to record about children present at the scene of a domestic abuse incident - the types of information they record and the logistics of how and where they record it - any challenges faced when they/frontline officer record information
Referrals to and working with other agencies	Discuss their experience of carrying out or supervising referrals including: - the decision-making process for referrals and any force level guidance or protocol - how the referral itself works to different types of agencies and any challenges or barriers faced in doing so - their understanding of what organisations, agencies and schools do with referral information - the extent to which they/frontline officers speak to children about referrals made - any other way in which they work with referral agencies
Children and young persons displaying harmful behaviours	Discuss actions taken when children and young people display harmful behaviours including what actions they take at the scene of an incident and how this differs to responses to adult-on-adult domestic abuse.
Training and improving responses	Discuss the training provided to officers directly responding to or supervising the response to domestic abuse incidents involving children and any improvements required including: - how confident officers are in assessing and ensuring the welfare of children present at domestic abuse incidents - any training and other support received on responding to domestic abuse incidents involving children and how to communicate with children, as well as any challenges in attending or receiving training - opinions on anything that can be done to help improve the response to domestic abuse incidents involving children
Wrap-up	Thank participants for their time and perspective and provide them the opportunity to share any further thoughts on anything they feel they have not shared. For frontline officers taking part in the ethnographic workbook, researcher provide them with an overview of the next steps and plan logistics of carrying out the workbook.

Outline of discussion guide for external stakeholders

Section	Details
Introduction	An introduction to the research, the purpose of the interview and provide an explanation of anonymity, confidentiality, the disclosure policy and how the data will be used. Researchers will also ask for consent to carry on with the interviews and consent to record.
Warm-up	Discuss the individual’s role to provide a useful background and establish rapport, this includes: - their role/background - the work of their organisation - how they tend to work with the police and with domestic abuse incidents involving children
Frontline response to domestic abuse incidents involving children	Discuss their experience of frontline police response to domestic abuse incidents involving children, including: - their perspective of how frontline police response to domestic abuse incidents involving children in general - their experience of how frontline police response consider welfare of children when responding to domestic abuse incidents and whether this varies based on type of domestic abuse, how children are involved in the incident and by characteristics of the children - their understanding of challenges faced by frontline officers when considering the wellbeing of children at the scene of an incident - their overall perception of what works well/less well in frontline police response to domestic abuse incidents involving children - their understanding of police response to incidents where children are demonstrating harmful behaviours towards adults
Referrals and information sharing	Discuss their experience of police referrals into their services or other services and the information shared by the police about domestic abuse DA incidents with a child/children present. This includes: - their understanding of the referral process from police to statutory services and how police refer into their own service/organisation/school - their perception of the level of detail, quality and consistency of information provided via police referrals - their experience of working with the police once a referral has been made, any follow up actions and sharing information back with the police
Working with the police	Discuss their experience of working with the police, including: - the different ways in which they work with police outside of referrals and their experience of what works well/less well - the extent to which they feel police response to child welfare/child victims of domestic abuse is collaborative - their perspective on what can be done to improve joint working between the different organisations and agencies
Improving responses	Discuss the ’s views on how to improve frontline police response to domestic abuse incidents involving children, including: - their perception of whether child victims of domestic abuse feel supported and if there are any particular characteristics/groups that would feel less so - their confidence in frontline police to consider child welfare and their perception of police responsibility for child welfare at the scene of an incident - their views on anything they believe needs to be improved in how frontline response to domestic abuse incidents involving children functions
Wrap-up	Thank participants for their time and perspective and provide them the opportunity to share any further thoughts on anything they feel they have not shared

Outline of discussion guide for children

Section	Details
Introduction	An introduction to the research, the purpose of the interview and provide an explanation of anonymity, confidentiality, the disclosure policy and how the data will be used. Researchers will also ask for consent to carry on with the interviews and consent to record.
Scenarios	Participants are provided with two different, fictional scenarios where police attend a domestic abuse incident involving children and young people. Participants are then asked about: - what they think the police would do - what they would like/want police to do
Views of the police and domestic abuse incidents	Discuss with participants their views of the police, including: - what they think of the police in general - what they think the police can do to keep children and young people safe when they attend domestic abuse incidents and what they would like to talk to the police about - their opinion on police sharing with schools/doctors/relatives/social workers that an incident has taken place
Experience of the police coming to their home	Discuss with participants their experiences of interacting with the police, including: - their experience of the police coming to their house and how that felt - actions taken by the police during and after the incidents including where they stayed after the incident and any information shared with them - what they would have liked to have been done differently during the response
Wrap-up	Thank participants for their time and perspective and provide them the opportunity to share any further thoughts on anything they feel they have not shared.

Outline of workbook for frontline officers

Day number	Details
Day 1	Frontline officer’s reflection on the day including: - number of call-outs and types of incidents responded to - overall satisfaction with the shift - their reflections on the shift, what happened and their experiences
Day 2	Frontline officer’s reflection on the day and/or their general experiences including: - whether they were called to domestic abuse incident or a domestic abuse incident involving children during their last shift - what type of domestic abuse incident they respond to the most - what actions they took responding to any domestic abuse incidents involving children in their last shift or the last incident they responded to
Day 3	Experiences of interacting with children at the scene of an incident, including: - experience of speaking with children directly and the frequency with which they speak to children at the scene of an incident - what they speak to children about and where. How this may vary based on children’s characteristics
Day 4	Experiences of assessing children at the scene of an incident, including: - whether they responded to domestic abuse incidents involving children in their last shift and how they would describe the welfare of the children present - how they typically tend to assess the welfare of children at the scene of an incident
Day 5	Experiences of recording information at domestic abuse incidents involving children, including: - whether they responded to domestic abuse incidents involving children in their last shift and what information they recorded about the children - the type of information they recorded about the children present and any guidelines they used
Day 6	Experiences of referrals and working with other agencies, including: - whether they responded to a domestic abuse incident involving children in their last shift and what referrals, if any, they made and why - how often they tended to work with other agencies and their experiences of it

References

Butler N, Quigg Z and Bellis MA (2020) ‘Cycles of violence in England and Wales: the contribution of childhood abuse to risk of violence revictimisation in adulthood’ BMC Medicine, vol. 18(325).

College of Policing (2022) ‘Police response to concern for a child’ (viewed 12 Sep 2025)

College of Policing (2021) ‘Talking to young children – What I’ve Learned’ (viewed 12 Sep 2025)

College of Policing (2025) ‘Domestic abuse – Authorised Professional Practice’ (viewed 12 Sep 2025)

College of Policing (2024) ‘First response – Authorised Professional Practice’ (viewed 12 Sep 2025)

Costa BM, Kaestle CE, Walker A, Curtis A, Day A, Toumbourou JW and Miller P (2015) ‘Longitudinal predictors of domestic violence perpetration and victimisation: A systematic review’ Aggression and Violent Behaviour, vol. 24, pp. 261-272.

Home Office (2023) ‘Police workforce, England and Wales: 30 September 2022’ (viewed 12 Sep 2025)

Lloyd M (2018) ‘Domestic violence and education: examining the impact of domestic violence on young children, children, and young people, and the potential role of schools’ Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 9.

Ministry of Justice (2023) ‘Achieving best evidence in criminal proceedings’ (viewed 12 Sep 2025)

SafeLives (nd) ‘Training for Police: Domestic Abuse Matters’ (viewed on 5 September 2025)

Schumacher JA, Feldbau-Kohn S, Smith Slep AM and Heyman RE (2021) ‘Risk factors for male to female partner physical abuse’ Aggression and Violent Behaviour, vol. 6(2-3), pp. 281-352.

Stanley N, Miller P, Richardson Foster H and Thomson G (2011) ‘Children’s experiences of domestic violence: developing an integrated response from police and child protection services’ Journal of interpersonal violence, vol. 26(12), pp. 2372-2391

UK Public General Acts (2004) ‘Children’s Act 2004 c. 31’

UK Public General Acts (2021), ‘Domestic Abuse Act 2021 c. 17’.

1. In the research a range of harmful behaviours demonstrated by a child were discussed including abusive behaviour towards siblings, parents, and other family members. In the Tackling Domestic Abuse Plan the Home Office committed to developing an agreed definition of Child to Parent Abuse and updating the associated guidance for frontline professionals. The Domestic Abuse Statutory Guidance includes a description of the types of behaviours associated with child to parent abuse, as well as other abusive behaviours in the family context. ↩

2. For the purpose of this study, SafeLives delivered the training to the forces interviewed, however, they are not the only licenced providers of the training. The College of Policing, in conjunction with SafeLives and with input from Women’s Aid and Welsh Women’s Aid, developed the Domestic Abuse Matters programme, with SafeLives, Women’s Aid and Welsh Women’s Aid being licenced providers of the training. ↩

3. Alongside this study, Ipsos UK and UCLaN were commissioned to carry out an impact and process evaluation of Operation Encompass and its Early Years component. Operation Encompass is a police and education early information safeguarding partnership enabling schools to offer immediate support to children experiencing domestic abuse. Further information on the partnership can be found here. ↩

4. RVR is used as an additional response mechanism in Force D and was implemented in 2022. Officers respond to lower or medium risk domestic abuse incidents by speaking to callers remotely via an online app. ↩

5. The Home Office are in the process of developing an agreed definition of Child to Parent Abuse, which is supported by a public consultation. Per the commitment in the Tackling Domestic Abuse Plan, the definition will be used as the basis for updated associated guidance for frontline professionals. ↩

6. The phrase ‘less often than not’ has been intentionally chosen as a response option to convey a specific frequency that is definably less than ‘about half the time,’ yet not as minimal as ‘rarely.’ Participant responses indicate an understanding of this scale, as evidenced by response patterns. ↩

7. Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 defines a person as having a disability if he or she has a physical or mental impairment, and the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his or her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. ↩

8. College of Policing’s APP guidance highlights the minimum requirement to creating a person record at the scene of an incident: forename, family name, partial name, nickname and alias. The following is highlighted as desirable basic fields: age (date of birth), sex, race/ethnic origin, and height. ↩

9. Domestic Abuse Matters training is promoted by the Home Office as best practice. ↩