APPENDIX 60
Supplementary memorandum submitted by
Refuge
The information presented below was requested
by the Home Affairs Committee following the oral evidence session
in which Sandra Horley, OBE participated on 19 February 2008.
1. BEST
VALUE PERFORMANCE
INDICATOR (BVPI) 225
As part of Local Area Agreements, a new,
single set of Performance Indicators (PI) will replace existing
sets of indicators (including Best Value Performance Indicators,
the social care Performance Assessment Framework Indicators and
other programme-specific indicators). This means that BVPI 225
will become obsolete when Local Area Agreements are rolled out
across the country.
BVPI 225 came into force on 1 April 2005
in order to assess the overall provision and effectiveness of
local authority services designed to help victims of domestic
violence and to prevent further domestic violence. By removing
the requirement on local authorities to meet BVPI 225, local authority
performance will no longer be measured across the following areas:
1. Has the local authority produced
a directory of local services that can help victims of domestic
violence?
2. Is there within the local authority
area a minimum of 1 refuge place per ten thousand population?
3. Does the local authority employ
directly or fund a voluntary sector based domestic violence coordinator?
4. Has the local authority produced
and adopted a multi-agency strategy to tackle domestic violence
developed in partnership with other agencies?
5. Does the local authority support
and facilitate a local multi-agency domestic violence forum that
meets at least four times a year?
6. Has the local authority developed
an information-sharing protocol and had it agreed between key
statutory partners?
7. Has the local authority developed,
launched and promoted a "sanctuary" type scheme to enable
victims and their children to remain in their own home, where
they choose to do so and where safety can be guaranteed?
8. Has there been a reduction in the
percentage of cases accepted as homeless due to domestic violence
that had previously been re-housed in the last two years by that
local authority as a result of domestic violence?
9. Does the council's tenancy agreement
have a specific clause stating that perpetration of domestic violence
by a tenant can be considered grounds for eviction?
10. Has the local authority funded
and developed a domestic violence education pack in consultation
with the wider domestic violence forum?
11. Has the local authority carried
out a programme of multi-agency training in the last 12 months
covering front line and managerial staff in at least two of the
following groups: housing staff, social services staff providing
services in the local authority area; education staff; health
staff; and front line police officers?
Performance Indicators
Whilst the new Local Area Agreements
(LAAs) have the potential to enable every local authority to set
targets on domestic violence across each of the 4 different policy
blocks (children and young people; safer and stronger communities;
healthier communities and older people; and economic development
and enterprise) learning from the pilot LAAs suggests that domestic
violence targets are typically being located in the safer and
stronger communities block.
This reflects the national tendency to
adopt a criminal justice approach to domestic violence and is
further reinforced by the fact that the new National Indicators
on domestic violence have a criminal justice focus:
— National Indicator 32: Reduction
in repeat incidents of domestic violence.
— National Indicator 34: Reduction
in domestic violence homicides.
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. Funding for refuges
and floating support services is currently ring fenced under the
Supporting People regime but this will not be the case when the
new Local Area Agreements are implemented in April 2009.
Furthermore, local authorities are only
required to choose up to 35 of the new National Indicators to
include as improvement targets in their Local Area Agreement.
This means that some local authorities may not even include NI32
and NI34 within their agreements and, as a consequence, will not
be held accountable for the level of domestic violence services
they provide.
Although Refuge welcomed the two National
Indicators on domestic violence[295]
Refuge has expressed the concerns outlined above to Government[296]
and has also made the following points:
National Indicator 32
— Only high risk cases are discussed
at MARAC—this means that repeat victimisation of low and
medium risk victims will not be measured.
— Cases referred to MARAC are
usually police initiated—yet only around 35% of women report
domestic violence to the police; the experiences of 65% of women
(some of whom may be very high risk) might never come to the table.
National Indicator 34
— Victims often move across
boroughs and other geographical boundaries so a homicide may occur
in another area to where the victim lived and received service.
— It will be difficult to account
for differences in homicide rate based on access to weapons in
that area, ethnic make-up etc.
Refuge recommends that:
— The new set of National Indicators
should be reviewed in consultation with the specialist domestic
violence sector with a view to reinstating indicators such as
those featured in BVPI 225.
— National Indicators should
reflect the cross-cutting nature of domestic violence by ensuring
that they are embedded within all four of the LAA policy blocks.
— All domestic violence National
Indicators should be made mandatory for all Local Area Agreements.
2. SENTENCING
OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE PERPETRATORS
Domestic violence has the highest rate
of repeat victimization than any other crime. Yet charges are
regularly downgraded to common assault and perpetrators of domestic
violence commonly receive non-custodial sentences such as bind
overs,[297]
fines or community orders if convicted.
In August 2007, Refuge issued a press
release around one particular case where a perpetrator of domestic
violence received only a £2,000 fine for branding his wife
with a hot iron (for failing to press his shirt) and slashing
her feet while sleeping (for not preparing his sandwiches for
the following day).
Refuge expressed concern that such sentencing
not only undermines Government legislation on domestic violence
(as it fails to send a strong message that domestic violence is
unacceptable and that there will be serious consequences for perpetrators)
but also discourages women from coming forward (it takes a great
deal of courage for a woman to give evidence and facing her attacker
in court is terrifying enough, never mind the prospect that he
might be released).
Despite the fact that there is a training
package for the judiciary on domestic violence, this case (amongst
others) also illustrated a general lack of understanding about
domestic violence by judges and acceptance of the many myths that
surround the issue. In this case, the judge spared the perpetrator
a community order because he ruled that there were "special
circumstances" suggesting that he was unlikely to re-offend
and his job meant that he was "too busy" to find the
time to complete any order. The judge also suggested that it was
"the circumstances of the marriage that had provoked"
the perpetrator and that sending him to prison would help no-one.
In those cases where a supervision/community
order is made it is often the case that a perpetrator programme—most
commonly the Integrated Domestic Abuse Programme (IDAP)—is
attached to it. Whilst attendance at a perpetrator programme may
be helpful in encouraging some men to change their abusive behaviour
research shows that behavioural change is often only short term
with the abuser likely to employ more sophisticated methods of
abuse and control in the future.
Moreover a survey carried out by the
National Association of Probation Officers in 15 probation areas
in January 2007 showed that there are acute shortages of staff
to run programmes and up to 12 month waits before those with orders
can start the group work element. In a case in Wiltshire, a man
was given an order in November 2005, was told that he would probably
start in January 2006 but was then told he could not start until
August 2006. He then re-offended, threatening his partner with
a knife, and the start date was brought forward to March 2006.
This case seemed to show that the only way of jumping the queue
was to threaten violence.
Within our written evidence to the Committee
Refuge on sentencing Refuge recommended that:
— Appropriate sentences should
be given to men so that violence is not repeated.
— There is a need for specialist
training for all parts of the judiciary.
— Courts should make more use
of witness impact statements to ensure more appropriate sentencing.
— The Sentencing Guidelines
Council should repeal the guidance within the Sentencing Guidelines
for Domestic Violence which states that there "may be circumstances
in which the court can properly mitigate a sentence to give effect
to the expressed wish of the victim that the relationship be permitted
to continue".
— Re-education for perpetrators
should not be used as a diversion from prosecution but as part
of sentencing.
In relation to the issues around IDAPs,
Refuge also recommended that:
— National targets and available
resources for the completion of IDAP must take into account the
higher demand for IDAPs particularly in SDVC areas.
— Refuge urges Government to
adopt a cautious approach to perpetrator programmes. An evaluation
of the long-term effectiveness of perpetrator programmes is required.
3. SPECIALIST
SERVICES
As the "Map of Gaps" published
by the "End Violence Against Women" campaign in January
2008 notes, almost one third of local authorities do not provide
domestic violence services. In addition, Refuge is increasingly
aware of a trend away from providing specialist domestic violence
services towards the provision of generic domestic violence services
as part of a "one size fits all" approach.
Black Minority Ethnic and Refugee Women (BMAER)
The lack of adequate specialist service
provision for BAMER women is very concerning, This is especially
so given that 2005-06 homicide data shared with the Metropolitan
Police Authority indicates an apparent disproportionality on the
grounds of ethnicity with 20/32 victims being from a black or
minority ethnic background.
Furthermore, despite the fact that issues
such as Honour Based Violence (HBV) and Forced Marriage are moving
up the Government's agenda, this is being accompanied by reduced
funding for BME services with nine out of 10 local authorities
having no BAMER service at all (Map of Gaps, 2008).
Drug and alcohol support services
Some of the most vulnerable domestic
violence survivors, those with drug and alcohol problems, are
unable to access safe housing due to their complex needs. Due
to a lack of resources and in the absence of specialist staff,
refuges are often simply unable to provide the high level of support
required.
In the absence of specialist services
for drug and alcohol users, partnerships between domestic violence
service providers and local drug/alcohol agencies and/or Drug
and Alcohol Action Teams (DAAT) can provide floating support and
outreach services for women. The Stella Project (part of the Greater
London Domestic Violence Project) also suggests that domestic
violence services can make arrangements with local substance misuse
agencies to provide services onsite.
Provision for 16-18 year olds
Statutory agencies such as social services
seldom intervene with young people between 16-18 years old effectively
meaning that they fall though the gap between adult and children's
services. Whilst there are some cases where 16-18 girls access
Refuge's domestic violence services via the social service or
homelessness route—they are often young teenage mothers.
It is relatively unusual for 16-18 year
olds to contact Refuge through mainstream services such as the
24 hour freephone domestic violence helpline which Refuge runs
in partnership with Women's Aid. Refuge agrees with the NSPCC
and other organisations that special intervention services need
to be developed for this age group—examples might include
web based services and perhaps even integrative working between
the national domestic violence helpline and Child Line.
Refuge believes that a two pronged approach
needs to be taken for this age group. In addition to providing
services, primary prevention work is needed to ensure that children
and young people understand what domestic violence is and that
it is not acceptable. Opinion polls show that they are currently
confused—an NSPCC survey with Sugar Magazine in 2005, for
instance, showed that 16% of teenage girls have been hit by a
boyfriend (with 4% having been hit regularly) and a further 15%
have been pushed. In the same survey, 43% of girls thought it
was acceptable for a boyfriend to get aggressive and 6% said it
was ok for a guy to hit his girlfriend.
Refuge recommends that Government:
— Develops a gendered definition
of domestic violence and expand it to include young people experiencing
intimate partner violence.
— Ensures that children of all
ages should have access to school based domestic violence awareness
and prevention programmes (for example, through PSHE, citizenship
and circle time).
— Funds training programmes
on domestic violence and provides materials for teachers in training,
schools and colleges.
— Ensures that an ethos of non-violent
conflict resolution, power/control and discrimination run through
all school teaching and activity.
4. AUTOMATIC
STATUS AS
INTIMIDATED WITNESSES
Special measures are intended to help
vulnerable witnesses by providing appropriate support when they
give evidence. By reducing the anxiety and pressure which vulnerable
witnesses may feel when giving evidence, they may be more willing
and better able to do so.
It is already the case that complainants
in sexual offences are automatically eligible for special measures
unless they advise the court that they do not want such assistance.
Yet victims of domestic violence still have to apply for special
measures despite the fact that they may well have experienced
sexual abuse as part of the many other forms of abuse that they
have experienced (physical, emotional, financial).
Independent Domestic Violence Advocacy
(IDVA) services across the country (including Refuge's own) report
that applications for special measures are not being made in the
majority of cases—often as a result of there being no clear
process through which to apply for them. Indeed, the forthcoming
Home Office review of the Specialist Domestic Violence Court Programme
notes that access to special measures to support victims and encourage
them to engage with the court process is one of the lowest performing
areas. This means that victims of domestic violence are consistently
missing out on the opportunity to access the protection to which
they may be entitled.
Given that special measures clearly have
huge benefits to victims, can help reduce victim retractions or
non-attendance and result in a higher number of successful prosecutions
Refuge (alongside the Greater London Domestic Violence Project
and Women's Aid) recommends that all domestic violence victims
should have automatic status as intimidated witnesses and that
the special measures available under this ruling should be made
available without application.
Such measures may include screens, a
live television link, giving recorded evidence or clearing the
public gallery if there is fear of intimidation. Obviously its
application requires additional resources for courts to be able
to implement these measures. These will be limited however since
the structures needed are already in place for victims of sexual
offences.
5. NO
RECOURSE TO
PUBLIC FUNDS
Refuge is one of the few domestic violence
service providers that still provide support to women with no
resource to public funds. It is currently costing the organisation
around £200,000 to do so yet we still we have to turn significant
numbers of women and children away as a result of not being able
to meet their costs.
Refuge has been talking to the Home Office
and the Department for Work and Pensions to come up with practical
solutions to this problem. One suggestion, for example, was that
housing benefit and other welfare benefits could be backdated
when women and children received indefinite leave to remain, thus
helping to recoup some of our costs.
Another suggestion is to waive the no
recourse rule to women applying for indefinite leave to remain
on the grounds of domestic violence altogether. In order to guard
against abuse of this system, the same evidence requested as part
of the application for indefinite leave to remain could be requested.
Refuge is also aware that organisations
such as Southall Black Sisters and Greater London Domestic Violence
Project have drawn up detailed proposals as to how this issue
could be tackled.
In addition, the practice of other countries
offers potential examples of how Government might deal with this
issue. These are outlined in the Amnesty International/Southall
Black Sisters report on no recourse to public funds "No Recourse—No
Safety" which is to be published on 13 March 2008:
— In Austria any woman, irrespective
of her immigration status, is entitled to access a refuge and
living costs if she applies for an injunction against her partner,
issues divorce proceedings on the basis of the violence or obtains
a report from a social institution confirming she is a victim
of domestic violence.
— In Canada spouses automatically
become permanent residents on arrival, meaning that there is no
probationary period. Therefore spouses whose marriages break down
due to domestic violence are entitled to emergency housing and
living costs. In this case costs are retrieved from the sponsor,
provided there is no risk of further risk or reprisals against
the victim or dependants. This principle is applied across Canada
although there is minimal variation in application across states
and territories.
— Also, in the USA, all immigrants
(including over-stayers and illegal entrants) qualify for federally
funded emergency and short-term shelter and housing programs,
as well as other forms of state and federally funded assistance
necessary to "protect life and safety". Immigrants suffering
abuse are entitled to obtain access to domestic violence shelters
and depending on state policy to income maintenance, nutrition
assistance and health care pending an application under the Violence
Against Women Act. Indeed shelter programmes that refuse to accommodate
immigrants are liable to being charged with discrimination in
violation of federal law and losing their federal funding.
6. CONFIDENTIAL
STATEMENT ABOUT
THE REASONS
FOR A
VISA APPLICATION
Refuge has responded to the Borders and
Immigration Agency consultation on Marriage to Partners from Overseas
in which the idea of allowing sponsors to make a confidential
statement about the reasons for a visa application is made.
Whilst appreciating that this might help
the authorities identify other issues or patterns that might be
helpful in resolving future cases, Refuge is confused as to why
young people might be given the opportunity to give a confidential
statement if they do not want to produce it as evidence and with
no guarantee that it would lead to an application being turned
down. This does little for the victim and may leave them with
the impression that nobody can help.
Refuge believes that in order to tackle
forced marriage effectively more preventative work needs to be
undertaken by making it mandatory for schools to teach children
and young people about forced marriage and to make them aware
of the courses of action available to them. Schools are also required
in their safeguarding role to identify possible cases of imminent
forced marriage through following up incidences where young girls
disappear from the school roll and by conducting awareness raising
work through displaying information about sources of support ie
helplines, support groups.
In addition, Government needs to focus
on `escape' routes for victims of forced marriage through strengthening
provision in the service sector and providing women with no recourse
to public funds with financial support.
March 2008
295 Refuge recommended to the Committee in written
evidence in October 2007 that domestic violence needed to be reflected
in the new indicators Back
296
Through Refuge's response to the consultation on the National
Indicators run by the Department for Communities and Local Government) Back
297
A person may be bound over to appear in court at a particular
time if bail has been granted or, most commonly, be bound over
not to commit some offence; for example, causing a breach of the
peace Back
| 
