House of Commons - Home Affairs

Select Committee on Home Affairs Sixth Report

11 Provision and funding of services

"Some areas provide 24 hour help and advice whereas in others, you need to be a victim Monday to Friday between the hours of 9-5!"

-eConsultation respondent

Service provision is a postcode lottery

The 2007 Map of Gaps report concluded that "whilst a minority of women live in an area where there are good services, too many women face patchy provision at best, and at worst there is no support at all".[378] The report assessed only third sector specialist women-only domestic violence services, thereby excluding all statutory domestic violence services, and those whose primary business is not domestic violence, such as Victim Support agencies. As such, the report does not reflect all available domestic violence services. However, it does give some indication of the postcode lottery of provision of specialist domestic violence services across the UK.

Interventions are overly focused on 'high risk' cases

372. Some witnesses told us that the Government's core response to domestic violence, configured around specialist domestic violence courts (SDVCs), multi-agency risk assessment conferences (MARACs) and independent domestic violence advocates (IDVAs), is creating a focus on high risk cases, most often those involved in the criminal justice system, to the detriment of all the other cases not deemed to be high risk. Standing Together Against Domestic Violence illustrated the consequences of focusing only on high-risk cases:

A concentration on high risk cases will mean that less funding will be directed at those suffering domestic violence in the early stages. This lack of earlier intervention reduces the ability to halt the escalation of violence, resulting in an increase in those suffering more serious abuse.[379]

373. Particular reference was made to independent domestic violence advocates (IDVAs), which some witnesses said were drawing funding away from other services. For example, some areas which had previously had outreach services—usually outreach workers, perhaps attached to a resource centre —were finding that funding for these services was now being diverted to the IDVAs. In many respects the work of outreach workers and IDVAs are similar. However, the key distinction is that IDVAs are only accessible to high risk victims and therefore all those who are not deemed high risk are losing a vital support service. Contributors to the eConsultation warned that outreach services were being closed:

"Outreach in rural areas is so important as this is sometimes the only service that DV sufferers and survivors can access, more and more outreach are being closed because of funding" - angels

"Even though there is now a drive to help victims of DV, why are some services being closed down?? I was told yesterday that the outreach project in my area was being stopped, which means that unless you go into a refuge, you will be turned away!!" - lis7901

374. A 2005-06 survey by Women's Aid found that 78% of support organisations offered some outreach services.[380] However, several organisations told us that funding cuts are requiring them to close non-core services, principally outreach services. Nicola Harwin of Women's Aid told us "we are seeing a loss of more generalist outreach domestic violence services which will have consequences for women who are low risk and medium risk and who need that kind of support".[381]

375. Witnesses also told us that women-only services are being adversely affected by changes to funding arrangements. For example, Newham Asian Women's Project told us that:

Vital outreach work done by women's organisations to women is being replaced by the 'one-stop shops': the courts, family centres and ill-qualified IDVAs.[382]

In terms of forced marriage, the recent Luton study concluded that victims most often approached women's organisations or community organisations for help: "there is evidence that they [victims] feel more at ease in approaching women's self help groups with representation from their own communities".[383]

376. We note the concern in the domestic violence sector that independent domestic violence advocates (IDVAs) are attracting resources which previously funded outreach workers and related community-based support. We also heard evidence that funding and commissioning processes are adversely affecting outreach services, which are often the only source of support for victims who can not or do not go into refuge provision. The Government must ensure that it provides sufficient additional resources to implement its IDVA programme. This must not mean cessation of funding for existing outreach and community-based services and the consequent loss of services for those victims not deemed to be high risk.

Commissioning and funding of domestic violence services

377. A recent report from New Philanthropy Capital on the funding of violence against women services concluded that violence against women services—including domestic violence services—are grossly under-funded, both in terms of Government investment and in terms of charitable giving. A Devon-based Donkey Sanctuary's income for 2006 was Ł20m with a further Ł30m in reserve. In contrast, the total combined funding received by the three largest charities tackling domestic violence—Refuge, Women's Aid Federation and Eaves Housing for Women—was just Ł17m.[384]

378. Evidence from our eConsultation attested to patchy distribution and inadequate funding of domestic violence services across the board:

"Considering how prevalent and serious domestic violence is - there should be blanket coverage of high quality services over the entire country as a matter of priority. What is the point of spending money on national defence if 1 in 4 women are not even safe in their own homes? I live in a town of 20,000 people in the South of England. There are NO domestic violence services here." - woman

"There isn't any provision to support women in a rural setting [in my area]" - angie

"It is absolutely ridiculous that some women can expect to receive support from well-funded and supported local service providers, whilst others...will receive no support at all" (16b)

"FUNDING!!!! FUNDING!!!! FUNDING!!!! Voluntary organisations struggle financially to provide necessary and vital services to support victims/survivors of DV. It is getting harder and harder and more time consuming to prove your worth as agency" - paula

379. Many domestic violence services are funded through local authorities. Various changes to the way that funding and commissioning is being administered locally caused concern to our witnesses.

'Supporting People' funding

380. Since 2003 the 'Supporting People' fund has been the main funding source for domestic violence services. Supporting People funding is allocated centrally by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), but administered at the local level. Sandra Horley, Director of Refuge, said that Supporting People had initially been welcomed for introducing service standards to the sector. However, she warned that "with the way that it is being rolled out, a lot of the local authorities are opening this up to tender, they are looking to commission one provider to provide all services. The worrying thing is that they are suggesting that one size fits all".[385]

381. Nicola Harwin, Chief Executive of Women's Aid, told the committee:

There are examples in some areas where local authorities have commissioned generic providers with absolutely no track record in the field instead of local services that have been providing services for 30 years with the specialist trained staff.[386]

The Haven Wolverhampton, whose refuge provision and floating support services are funded through Supporting People, described the effect of these changes:

Wolverhampton SP team have drafted a 5 year strategy that disinvests Ł200k from refuge accommodation, this will result in a reduction of 10 bed spaces which will undermine our ability to provide core services adequately, and therefore resulting in a reduction of women only services.[387]

382. The Minister for Communities and Local Government, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the DCLG, Iain Wright MP, argued that Supporting People funds should not be allocated on the basis of economies of scale:

Authorities are encouraged not to base their criteria of success on a service that can demonstrate "value for money" in strict cost terms but those that provide best value which assesses quality as well as cost...as a general rule we do not encourage a "single provider" approach.[388]

383. The Minister told us that local authority spending on domestic violence services had increased under the Supporting People system:

They [local authorities] are spending more of their Supporting People funding on domestic violence services, some Ł61,645,319 in 2006/07 compared to Ł59,333,258 in 2005/06. More services overall are also being funded: the number of services for women at risk of domestic violence has risen from 579 in 2005/06 to 613 in 2006/07 and the number of units of support available increased from 7,578 to 8,660.[389]

It is not clear exactly how these figures for overall spending of Supporting People funding on domestic violence services relate to the funding of individual units of support. If the overall funding figure equates directly to the units of support, then the amount spent on each unit went down, from Ł7,830 in 2005/06 to Ł7118 in 2006/07. It is hard to imagine that a reduction in the funding of individual units of support would not have a negative impact on the quality of that support.

384. The Minister expressed concern about "the unintended consequences" of Supporting People on smaller providers, saying "I am very concerned at the loss of expertise and capacity on the ground and I am keen to address that". He promised to look at this situation.[390]

Local authority commissioning processes

385. Other local commissioning processes are having a similarly adverse effect on specialist providers. Southall Black Sisters (SBS), a campaign and support organisation for BME women which has been at the forefront of domestic violence campaigning for many years, criticised the move to commissioning services locally for inadvertently targeting BME services:

In 2008 for instance, SBS is threatened with closure because the local authority proposes to take away its funding in order to finance a single provider of services on domestic violence for all women in the borough. Yet no account is taken of the adverse impact that this will have on black and minority women due to the unequal economic, cultural and social contexts of their existence. They will be left without a single organisation in the area that can address their specific needs including protection from forced marriage and honour killings.[391]

386. Women's Aid provided us with five examples of where a contract for domestic violence services, previously provided by the local Women's Aid, had been awarded to generic housing associations under new commissioning processes.[392] Women's Aid has drawn up a series of recommendations on commissioning to protect specialist services. These include a commissioning framework with guidance to ensure that quality is not lost to low unit cost, and the implementation of minimum national service standards for domestic violence services.[393]

Single Group Funding: the Community Cohesion agenda

387. The 2007 Commission for Cohesion and Integration report[394] recommended that community cohesion could be advanced through funding services which bridge more than one group. The report set out several key principles for Single Group Funding, including that:

there should never be a 'one size fits all' approach

the presumption should be against Single Group Funding unless there is a clear reason for capacity building within a group or community

388. The Government response to the Commission report set up a public consultation to inform guidance for funders on community cohesion.[395] This consultation closes on 26 May 2008, with a strategy on funding planned for publication in summer 2008. In the foreword to the consultation the Secretary of State for CLG, Hazel Blears MP, stated:

This guidance does not preclude work supporting victims of hate crime, or services specifically targeting women.[396]

90">Local Area Agreements have reduced the requirement on authorities to provide domestic violence services

389. As part of Local Area Agreements (LAAs), which come into force in June 2008, a new single set of performance indicators will replace existing indicators, including Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI) 225.[397] BVPI 225 measures the overall provision and effectiveness of local authority services designed to help victims of domestic violence and prevent further violence. LAAs will comprise a range of targets set across four policy blocks: children and young people; safer and stronger communities; healthier communities and older people; and economic development and enterprise. Out of the 198 performance indicators, each local authority will choose up to 35 indicators against which to be assessed for funding. Two indicators relate to domestic violence. National Indicator 32 is "reduction in repeat incidents of domestic violence" and National Indicator 34 is "reduction in domestic violence homicides".

390. Witnesses warned us that LAA pilots have demonstrated that domestic violence targets are typically being located in the safer and stronger communities block, reflecting a national tendency to adopt a criminal justice approach to domestic violence.[398] Refuge stated that:

As a consequence, local authorities could decide to divert funding from housing related services such as refuges—who work with the majority of victims—to criminal justice initiatives which better evidence the national indicators but only work with the minority of women.[399]

391. Witnesses expressed disquiet that some local authorities may not opt to be assessed for funding against any domestic violence indicators. The Minister for Communities, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the DCLG, Iain Wright MP, disputed this assertion, saying that "out of 150 authorities, 150 so far have pledged to do that",[400] although he did warn that "we are still in the process of negotiation with those local authorities, so that could alter".[401] However, during our inquiry, the Government announced that National Indicator 32 would be delayed until 2009/10 and that National Indicator 34 was likely to be deleted as it was deemed unworkable in practice.[402] Therefore there is currently no specific requirement on local authorities to provide any domestic violence services at all.

The role of the Equality and Human Rights Commission

392. In launching the latest Map of Gaps report, jointly with the End Violence Against Women coalition, Trevor Phillips, Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), announced that the EHRC would be using the provision of violence against women services as the key measure for assessing local authorities' performance under the Gender Equality Duty. He said:

In nine months time we will ask public authorities where they stand. If they don't measure up, they can expect to be named publicly. If they don't act, they will see us at their doors with compliance notices.[403]

The Commission has set an initial date for assessment of November 2008.

393. Throughout our inquiry we were told that funding for community organisations offering culturally-specific, or gender-specific, domestic violence services was being cut. For example, Southall Black Sisters, a campaign and support organisation for BME women, was facing closure because the local authority had moved to commissioning generic services at the local level. We find this seriously concerning at a time of greater awareness about "honour"-based violence and forced marriage, with increasing numbers of victims coming forward.

394. The Government and local authorities need urgently to reassess funding and commissioning arrangements for domestic violence services, particularly those under 'Supporting People', and bearing in mind the Gender Equality Duty. In this context we support the call by Women's Aid for the development of a commissioning framework, with guidance, to ensure that quality is not lost to low unit cost, and the implementation of minimum national service standards for domestic violence services.

395. The introduction of a presumption against funding groups which serve a particular group, or a single issue, creates a particular problem for some domestic violence services. This is especially the case for those serving the BME community, addressing "honour"-based violence and forced marriage and for women-only services. The Government has recognised that certain groups or issues require specialist services and it has explicitly stated that it does not intend that a move away from Single Group Funding should undermine work on women's services. Despite this, the general trend highlighted by our witnesses towards funding being awarded to generic service providers seems to show that authorities are interpreting the Commission's recommendations to mean that they must only fund generic services. This is a deeply worrying development, and one on which the Government must take immediate action.

396. We hope that the Government's forthcoming 'Guidance on Funding for Cohesion' will reflect the need for targeted services in an appropriate setting. In its guidance, the Government should clarify the kinds of issues which may require specialist services. It must give local authorities and other funders the confidence to make the case that for these services, the exception rather than the rule may well be appropriate—in other words, that Single Group Funding is appropriate. Failure adequately to fund vital services to victims of crimes such as "honour"-based violence and forced marriage will have dire consequences.

397. The current Local Area Agreement National Indicators on domestic violence seem to be inadequate, both in terms of the scope of the indicators themselves, and of the fact that they are in principle optional with regard to funding assessment, and in practice their implementation has been delayed. This amounts to a retrograde step in respect of the current 'postcode lottery' provision of domestic violence services. The Government should revisit the Local Area Agreement indicators to ensure that they include essential prevention and early intervention work, are not overly focused on the criminal justice system, and are adopted by every authority with regard to funding assessment. It should also reinstate the key elements of Best Value Performance Indicator 225.

398. We applaud the initiative taken by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) in adopting a tough line on violence against women service provision by local authorities. The EHRC should be given a mandate to inspect local authorities annually on their provision of violence against women services, specifically including domestic violence services. We recommend that, further to taking legal action against the worst performing authorities, as the EHRC suggests, it could publish an annual report assessing local authorities on their range of domestic violence services. This should include services for those at risk of "honour"-based violence and forced marriage.

378 End Violence Against Women coalition and Equalities and Human Rights Commission, Map of Gaps 2007, p 5 Back

379 Ev 107 Back

380 Ev 229 Back

381 Q 185 Back

382 Ev 138 Back

383 Dr Nazia Khanum OBE, Forced marriage, family cohesion and community engagement: National learning through a case study of Luton, (March 2008), p 31 Back

384 Hard Knock Life: violence against women, a guide for donors and funders, New Philanthropy Capital (April 2008), cited in a Guardian newspaper article, Britons give more to donkey sanctuary than abuse charities, Wednesday April 23, 2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/apr/23/charitablegiving.childprotection?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

Back

385 Q 165 Back

386 Q 166 Back

387 Ev 142 Back

388 Ev 402 Back