APPENDIX 78
Supplementary memorandum submitted by
Women's Aid
Q. 166: How could funding for specialist
provision (especially within the voluntary sector) be protected
when, as you have indicated, services are being mainstreamed into
the statutory sector?
Women's Aid began the domestic violence
movement in the 1970s, opening refuges in recognition of the need
for safe, separate spaces for women and children experiencing
domestic violence. Today the specialist domestic violence sector
has transformed into professional voluntary sector service providers,
and remain the experts on domestic violence and meeting the needs
of domestic violence survivors. Across the UK a wide range of
specialist domestic and sexual violence services providing advocacy
and support have been developed to meet a range of needs and now
include refuge, outreach (including IDVAs, floating support and
resettlement services), helplines, children's services and survivor
support groups.
Increasingly, however, we are witnessing
two strands of policy development which give concern: the focus
on high-risk criminal justice initiatives where local outreach
services are being replaced by IDVA services for "high-risk"
only victims, because that is the only funding stream available;
and a move towards the commissioning of generic service providers
to deliver specialist or generic support services, where independent
voluntary sector organisations are being decommissioned and replaced
with non-specialist services, sometimes directly managed by the
local authority.
These changes are a result of:
— under-representation of women's
organisation at local decision-making fora[308];
— a lack of understanding about
the specialist knowledge and skills specialist service providers
have, and which are required to meet the needs of domestic violence
survivors;
— local authority procurement
practices which disadvantage specialist voluntary sector service
providers. Local authorities are choosing to put contracts for
existing domestic violence services out to competitive tender,
under the premise of needing to evidence value for money. Smaller
specialist domestic violence organisations are comparatively disadvantaged
in the tendering process, which is resource-intensive and highly
bureaucratic. Smaller specialist service providers are unable
to complete, and are losing contracts to larger, generic service
providers who may achieve marginally lower unit costs but have
no experience of supporting domestic violence survivors.
Women's Aid is also particularly concerned
by the proposed removal of ring-fencing around Supporting People
funding. This change in policy is likely to result in:
— funding being redirected towards
Criminal Justice responses to domestic violence, and away from
the range of support services such as refuge accommodation and
support services, and outreach services, which are currently funded
by Supporting People;
— funding be diverted towards
services for groups to whom local authorities have a statutory
duty, for example older people and people with disabilities.
Thirteen local authorities in England
have been chosen to trial this policy during 2008-09. Women's
Aid shares concerns with the majority of supported housing providers
that a one year trial will be insufficient to monitor the full
impact of this policy.
In order to protect funding for specialist
service provision, Women's Aid recommends:
— Development of a Government-endorsed
framework for the commissioning of support services for women
and children who have experienced domestic or sexual violence;
this framework should be developed in consultation with Women's
Aid, based on indicators linked to the National Service Standards
for Domestic and Sexual Violence (developed by Women's Aid with
our national network of services and other voluntary organisations).
— Formal evaluation of all the
different types of specialist domestic violence service to assess
their effectiveness in delivering effective outcomes for victims
and preventing domestic violence (past research shows survivor
feedback is consistently positive and rates these services higher
than any other).
— Funding to support the roll-out
of all accredited training for all domestic violence service providers
using Women's Aid national accredited training programme.
— Publication of guidance by
the Department for Communities and Local Government to ensure
women's voluntary sector organisation are equally represented
on local-decision making bodies, as part of the Gender Equality
Duty.
— Independent review of the
impact of procurement on voluntary sector service providers.
— Extending the trial of removing
the ring-fencing around Supporting People funding to at least
two years, with a final decision being made in time for the next
Comprehensive Spending Review in 2011.
Q. 185: Please expand on what is needed
in terms of specialist services, in particular outreach services:
what outreach services are available, what are current levels
of provision, what would be most effective? Please include comments
on services for 16-18 year old victims
In recent years the Government has spent
millions of pounds rolling-out Independent Domestic Violence Advocates
(IDVAs) and Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conferences (MARACs)
as the "solution" to tackling domestic violence. Women's
Aid fully welcomes both IDVAs and MARACs. We are concerned, however,
that they are being seen as the panacea for domestic violence
and will become the sole form of support for survivors of domestic
violence.
Women who experience domestic violence
have a variety of short- and long-term support needs[309].
Practical and emotional support to enable survivors to re-build
their lives can best be given by a range of specialist independent
domestic violence services within the voluntary sector. This includes
refuge accommodation, outreach and floating support services,
advice and advocacy projects, IDVAs hosted by specialist independent
domestic violence service providers, and services for children
and young people.
Women's Aid annual survey of domestic
violence services in 2005-06 found that:
— 78% of our member organisations
provide both refuge-based services and also community-based support
in the form of outreach, floating support and advocacy services;
— an estimated 36,325 women
and children were accommodated and supported in refuges in 2005-06;
— approximately 114,430 women
and 7,660 children were directly supported by outreach, advocacy
and floating support services, and a further 68,850 children were
indirectly supported through the support given to their mothers.
In areas which have IDVA services, Women's
Aid local organisation continue to support hundreds of women each
year. For example, in one London borough which employs three IDVAs
(NB not "independent"!), in 2006-07, the local Women's
Aid organisation also provided accommodation, support and advice
to 384 women:
— refuge services = 110 women
— advice service = 173 women
— legal service = 55 women
— floating support service =
49 women
— women were also supported
through an in-house counselling service and parenting service.
There are six key concerns in relation
to the provision of specialist domestic violence services:
1. A lack of specialist service
provision for domestic violence survivors. One in three local
authorities have no specialist services for victims of domestic
violence[310].
Specialist services include refuge- and community-based services
and perpetrator programmes with attached women's support services.
In total 510 services were identified.
2. Existing services are consequently
over-stretched:
— hundreds of women are turned
from refuges on a daily basis[311]
because there is no space;
— outreach and floating support
services have established waiting lists because they are limited
to the number of women they can support at any one time[312];
— IDVAs, on average, have a
caseload of 140 annually[313],
which is higher than the recommended 80-100 cases per annum.
NB The level of support given across
different types of service provision also varies to meet demand.
Eg, much more intensive support is often given in refuge-based
services, to mothers and children, where for IDVAs, CAADA training
recommends no more than three telephone contacts with high risk
victims (however Women's Aid—run IDVAs often extend this).
Changes in commissioning policy and practice
are leading to a further decline in specialist service provision.
As already noted, in a bid to curb spending, local authorities
are increasingly commissioning one generic service provider to
deliver non-specialist support to a range of vulnerable groups,
including domestic violence survivors. Services for Black, Asian,
Minority Ethnicity and Refugee women are under particular threat
from current commissioning strategies.
3. Women-only services are
under threat. Local authorities are requiring services to open
their doors to women and men. This is despite research that shows
over 90% women support a woman's right to access women-only services
and professionals if reporting domestic or sexual violence[314].
Joint services for women and men may deter women from accessing
support. It may also put women at risk: heterosexual men who access
men's services were actually more likely to be a perpetrator (either
the main abuser or involved in "common couple violence",
meaning he and his female partner were abusive to one another)
than a survivor[315].
4. Continued lack of services
for children and young people who experience domestic violence.
Supporting people has never funded support services for children
and young people, leaving service providers reliant on grants
from local authorities and grant-making trusts. Furthermore, young
women aged 16-18 are unable to access refuge accommodation because
of Housing Benefit regulations.
5. The Government focus on
the Criminal Justice response to domestic violence. The new National
Indicators for domestic violence, namely on repeat victimisation
(RV) and domestic violence murders, will encourage local authorities
to divert funding towards initiatives which provide evidence for
these indicators, ie IDVAs and MARACs. Equally the measure of
effectiveness for these indicators is too narrow for three reasons
(i) women may well be re-victimised after a year has passed (many
women are threatened, injured or killed after several years) (ii)
women may be unwilling to report again (iii) evidence for these
RV indicators is restricted to MARACs and does not acknowledge
other preventative and protective services for high, medium and
low risk victims eg refuge and other outreach services. In one
local WA organisation, many women helped by their IDVA service,
also then went on to use their outreach services for the next
year. There is no incentive to support other much needed services
with the loss of BVPI 225 and the lack of reference to these in
the National Indicators.
Women's Aid recommends:
— the establishment of a secure
funding framework for the provision of specialist independent
domestic violence services in all localities, for all adult and
child survivors of domestic violence;
— the framework must include
provision for women-only services, and specialist services for
Black, Asian, Minority Ethnicity and Refugee (BAMER) women;
— all localities must provide
a range of services for domestic violence survivors, including
access to refuge accommodation, community-based support, advice
and IDVAs, support services for children and young people;
— mechanisms for counting reduction
in repeat victimisation that are wider that current requirements
for National Indicators;
— National Indicators gathering
evidence from a wider range of DV services;
— secure funding for a domestic
violence co-ordinator and a multi-agency domestic violence forum
in each local authority.
Q. 187: Please expand on sentencing
for domestic violence perpetrators, to include: what are the most
common forms of sentencing, and are they sufficient? Is training
needed for magistrates and judges, and if so what form would this
take?
Sentencing for domestic violence-related
incidents is a key concern for Women's Aid and our members[316].
Sentences handed down for domestic violence-related incidents
are routinely inappropriate; that the most common sentences for
domestic violence perpetrators are bindovers and fines is highly
problematic.
Women's Aid supports the views of survivors
of domestic violence, who most frequently request attendance at
a perpetrator programme as part of the sentence. Attendance at
a perpetrator programme may be helpful in encouraging some men
to change their abusive behaviour. Court-mandated attendance on
a perpetrator programme is only effective if sentences are long
enough to cover both the waiting period and attendance on the
full programme[317].
For perpetrators who receive no sentence—custodial or community—but
only a fine, there is even less incentive to attend.
As outlined in the new Public Service
Agreements, the Government is committed to increasing public confidence
in the Criminal Justice System[318].
When survivors see perpetrators receiving a fine, or a short community
sentence (and no accompanying perpetrator programme), they may
wonder whether the effort and stress of the court process was
worthwhile.
Many survivors, however, are only discouraged
from engaging with the Criminal Justice System because of inappropriate
sentences, but due to extremely low conviction rates. Currently
only 23% of women report incidents of domestic violence to the
police. Of those reported incidents, only approximately 3.5% end
in a conviction. This is significantly lower than conviction rates
for rape, which currently stands at around 5%.
The reasons for the high attrition rates
are multiple. In 32% of reported cases, the police take no action.
Furthermore, in only 20% of cases is the perpetrator arrested[319].
Another study[320]
found that only 25% of arrested perpetrators—and therefore
only 5% of those reported—are charged.
Due to the Crown Prosecution Service's
proactive domestic violence strategy, the rate of successful outcomes,
ie convictions, in domestic violence cases has risen from 59/7%
in 2005-06 to 68.3% in quarter 2 of 2007-08. However, this still
only equates to 3.4% of all reported incidents of domestic violence
ending with a conviction.
According to the Crown Prosecution Service,
a key reason for unsuccessful prosecutions is victim/witness behaviour,
either because the witness withdraws her statements or does not
willing attend court.
Further action needs to be taken at each
stage of the Criminal Justice System, from police attending a
domestic violence incident to sentencing. Women's Aid recommends:
— Mandatory domestic violence
training for all police officers. Officers must be trained to
collect a range of evidence in cases of domestic violence, not
relying on a witness statement which is retracted at a later date
and leads to an unsuccessful prosecution.
— Pro-arrest policies are adopted
to improve rates of arrest in domestic violence cases.
— Further research is conducted
into the low levels of charging in domestic violence cases, and
a strategy developed to address this issue.
— Domestic violence training
is made mandatory for all judges and magistrates.
— Evidence from Specialist Domestic
Violence Courts shows that training for all personnel—CENTREX-trained
police, prosecutors, magistrates, legal advisors and probation
staff—significantly improved the rate of successful prosecutions.
Domestic violence training must become mandatory, and where possible
must contribute towards Continuing Professional Development, eg
for prosecutors and barristers.
— Women's Aid has made a key
contribution to developing training courses and materials for
police and prosecutors and has had significant input into the
national training programme of CPS prosecutors in the last two
years. We also run training for local authorities and other agencies
in understanding of domestic violence, risk management and assessment,
safety planning, among other topics. We would be delighted to
contribute to further initiatives in this area.
Q. 196: Please expand on inappropriate
MARAC cases which you mentioned
The MARAC process do not always recognise
and respect the victim's self determination and autonomy and agencies
working in them can be paternalistic. This has been noted as a
concern by some of our members as there is a danger that victims
are now not allowed to be active in their own safety planning.
This is one anecdote from a large respected
Women's Aid organisation in a large city, who are active in all
forms of service provision and run their own IDVAs:
The WA IDVA at a MARAC meeting was surprised
to find that one of the staff from the WA organisation (from another
service) had been put forward to the MARAC by one of the statutory
agencies. She was separated from her violent partner but was assaulted
on the street by him some time later. She did not have her children
with her at the time. The police were called and the case referred;
she was also threatened with having her children taken into care;
it was also suggested to the WA organisation that it was not appropriate
for her to work in the service if she was a victim. There is a
danger that "repeat victimisation"/blaming the victim
can come from agencies themselves if individual patriarchy (of
the abuser) is replaced by collective paternalism. The IDVA of
course argued strongly against the proposals in this case and
was able too because she was independent.
In the light of this and other anecdotes,
and based on evidence from the recent review of Specialist Domestic
Violence Courts, it is paramount that IDVAs are located in "an
agency where their independence and focus on client safety is
demonstrable to both victims and other agencies"[321].
Independence from the Criminal Justice System and other statutory
agencies is key to ensuring women have confidence in the service
and will improve levels of engagement. IDVAs must be accountable
to the independent agency, not to statutory agencies or their
committees.
Q. 209: Without advocating a blanket
change to immigration rules, what could be dome to close the gaps
for No Recourse victims? What is the average time it takes to
get a decision on applications for leave to remain in these cases?
Would you support a waiver to benefit regulations for women with
No Recourse? What assessment measures could be put in place to
prevent abuse of such a waiver? How do you get around the No Recourse
rule to help these women?
Supporting women with "no recourse
to public funds" who experience domestic violence is a continuing
problem for local authorities and domestic violence services.
Currently, women with no recourse to public funds are not eligible
for assistance under housing legislation. The Home Office recently
announced funding for women who successfully apply for Indefinite
Leave to Remain (ILR) under the Domestic Violence Rule. This will
allow organisations housing women with no recourse to public funds
to apply for backdated payments for accommodation and subsistence
costs from the date the woman submitted her claim for ILR to the
date the claim is decided in favour of the applicant.
Whilst this is a step in the right direction,
this will not cover the cost of housing women up to the time when
they make the application. Women with no recourse to public funds
can rarely starts legal proceedings until they have left the family
home, and it can take several weeks to find a solicitor who will
take the case, and even longer to collect all the evidence to
submit with the application. Women's Aid is aware of a case in
Lambeth where a woman lived in the refuge with her child for seven
months before an application for ILR was submitted simply because
the police and social services took so long to provide the required
evidence.
Furthermore, this does not cover the
cost of housing women with no recourse whose application for ILR
is unsuccessful, or women who are not eligible to apply for ILR
under the Domestic Violence Rule. The latter group includes women
who are legally in the U.K., for example students or women newly
arrived from E.U. accession countries who need immediate safe
accommodation and support before they can arrange to return to
their home country, if it is safe to do so. As a result, refuge
organisations will have to continue accommodating and supporting
women with no recourse to public funds from their own reserves
and at a financial loss. In 2006-07, Women's Aid member organisations
provided a total of 400 women (and at least 355 accompanying children)
with refuge accommodation and subsistence support. This was largely
without any financial support from local authorities.
To improve access to safe accommodation
for women with no recourse, Women's Aid recommends exempting women
fleeing violence from the no recourse to public funds requirement.
Housing providers, including local authorities and refuge organisations,
should be allowed to apply for both Housing Benefit and Income
Support for women fleeing domestic violence. This would cover
accommodation and subsistence costs. Refuge organisations and
local authorities are already responsible for assessing whether
women should be allocated space in a refuge or in other temporary
accommodation. Currently, the reason women with no recourse are
not accommodated is not that they are making false claims of domestic
violence, but because of funding restrictions. It follows that
the same organisations should be able to apply for welfare benefits
on behalf of women with no recourse.
The Last Resort Fund must be reinstated
to provide immediate interim funding for refuge organisations.
In addition to improving access to safe
accommodation, emphasis must also be put on:
— fast-tracking applications
for Indefinite Leave to Remain under the Domestic Violence Rule.
Evidence from our members shows that applications take varying
amounts of time to be processed;
— improving access to legal
aid immigration solicitors for women with more complicated immigration
situations;
— extending the Domestic Violence
Rule to include all victims of domestic violence with an insecure
immigration status, not only those who are in the U.K. on a spouse
or partner visa, and introducing similar protection for trafficked
women subjected to sexual and economic abuse and to overseas workers
experiencing violence from their employers.
Additional question asked by the Committee: Should
visa sponsors be allowed to make confidential statement about
the reasons for a visa application? How could statements given
in confidence be used as evidence? Should the person sponsoring
a visa be interviewed as well as the person being sponsored?
Women's Aid welcomes the opportunity
for individuals who are sponsoring a visa, or are being sponsored,
to make a confidential statement. However, we have concerns about
what action will be taken where cases of forced marriage are disclosed.
Victims of forced marriage, like those of domestic violence, are
at greatest risk of violence after they leave, or attempt to leave,
the situation. The officials taking the statement must be trained
to deal with disclosures and know what action to take.
Furthermore, identified victims need
access to support services who specialise in working with Black,
Asian, Minority Ethnicity and Refugee (BAMER) women. As already
mentioned, we are currently witnessing a move away from funding
of specialist services for BAMER groups and towards contracts
for larger, generic services. As the Committee Chairman, Mr Keith
Vaz, himself explained, ethnic minority women tended to want to
go to agencies with cater specifically for ethnic minority women.
If specialist services do not exist, and thus appropriate safety
and support can be offered, victims of forced marriage will be
discouraged from disclosing.
Finally, in relation to forced marriage,
Women's Aid supports Refuge, Southall Black Sisters and Imkaan,
in opposing the proposal to raise the age of consent for sponsors.
From countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands where the age
has already been raise, there is little evidence of a correlation
between raising the age and a reduction in forced marriage. Instead,
this proposal will unfairly discriminate against minority groups.
April 2008
308 Whilst women's organisations represent around 7%
of the total voluntary sector, there are severely under-represented
on Local Strategic Partnerships, comprising only 1.8% of voluntary
sector representatives. Gudnadottir, E, Smith, S, Robson, S and
Corry, D (2007) Where are the women in LSPs? Women's representation
in Local Strategic Partnerships (London: Oxfam/Urban Forum/Women's
Resource Centre) available at: www.wrc.org.uk/downloads/Policystuff/womenlsps.pdf Back
309
See Abrahams, H (2007) Supporting women after domestic violence:
Loss, trauma and recovery (London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers);
Humphreys, C and Thiara, R (2002) Routes to safety: Protection
issues facing abused women and children and the role of outreach
services (Bristol: Women's Aid); Bossy, J and Coleman, S (2000)
Womenspeak: Parliamentary domestic violence internet consultation
(Bristol: Women's Aid Federation of England); Parmer, A, Sampson,
A and Diamond, A (2005) Tackling domestic violence: Providing
advocacy and support to survivors of domestic violence (London:
Home Office Development and Practice Report 34). Back
310
Coy, M, Kelly, L and Foord, J (2007) Map of Gaps: The Postcode
Lottery of Violence Against Women Support Services (London: End
Violence Against Women) Back
311
Women's Aid annual survey in 2006-07 found that on one day, 2
November 2006, 485 women were turned away from refuges4; 64% of
whom were turned away because of lack of space. Evidence from
one member organisation in the North East showed that 1,191 women
were referred to their refuge service in 2006-07, but only 253
women and 319 children could be accommodated. Back
312
The same organisation in the North received 362 referrals to their
outreach service, but due to capacity only 278 could access the
service in 2006-07. Back
313
HMCS/HO/CPS (2008) Justice with Safety: Specialist Domestic Violence
Courts Review 2007-08 Back
314
Women's Resource Centre (2007) Why women-only? (London:WRC) Back
315
Robinson, A and Rowlands, M (2006) The Dyn Project: Supporting
Men Experiencing Domestic Abuse (Cardiff:Cardiff University) Back
316
Women's Aid conducted a survey of our member organisations and
individual supporters for the purposes of the Home Affairs Select
Committee. The survey found 63% of respondents had concerns about
sentencing for domestic violence perpetrators. Back
317
Perpetrator programmes have increasingly long waiting lists due
to problems in the probation service, lack of funding and consequent
under-investment. Back
318
Within Public Service Agreement 24: Deliver a more effective,
transparent and responsive Criminal Justice System for victims
and the public, indicator 2 is "Public confidence in the
fairness and effectiveness of the CJS". Back
319
Povey, D (Ed.), Coleman, K, Kaiza, P, Hoare, J and Jansson, K
(2008) Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2006-07:
Supplementary Volume 2 to Crime in England and Wales 2006-07 (London:
Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate) Back
320
Hester, M (2006) "Making It Through the Criminal Justice
System: Attrition and Domestic Violence", Social Policy
and Society, 5:1, pp.79-90 Back
321
HMCS/HO/CPS (2008) Justice with Safety: Specialist Domestic Violence
Courts Review 2007-08 Back
|
