Written evidence from Refuge

Contact: Sophie Ireland, Senior Policy and Public Affairs Officer

About Refuge:

1. Refuge is the largest specialist provider of gender-based violence services in the country, supporting thousands of women and children on any given day. We provide a national network of 41 refuges, community outreach programmes, child support services and independent advocacy services for those experiencing domestic, sexual, and gender-based violence. We also run specialist services for survivors of tech abuse, modern slavery, ‘honour’-based violence, and female genital mutilation. Refuge runs the 24-hour National Domestic Abuse Helpline which receives hundreds of calls from women experiencing domestic abuse every day.

Summary

2. Refuge welcomes the broad aims of the Victims Bill to improve support for victims of crime and amplify victims’ voices in the criminal justice system. More than one in four women in England and Wales aged 16-74 experience domestic abuse at some point in their lives, and an average of two women are killed every week by their partner or ex-partner – a statistic which has not changed in decades.[1] [2] For many survivors of domestic abuse, the criminal justice system is incredibly challenging and distressing. Reporting crimes such as domestic abuse, rape, and sexual violence to the police, and pursuing their perpetrators through the criminal courts is often re-traumatising and survivors encounter barriers to justice at every stage.

3. Specialist domestic abuse support services, including Independent Domestic Violence Advocates (IDVAs) and Independent Sexual Violence Advocates (IDVAs), provide vital support to survivors at every stage of their journey, regardless of whether they pursue a criminal justice outcome. The vast majority (80%) of the women Refuge supports rely on community-based services. Yet community-based services remain chronically underfunded, resulting in women being turned away daily at the point of need. We welcome the government’s ambition to improve the commissioning of support services for victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse, and other serious violence however without any additional funding commitments the Bill will fail to deliver for survivors of domestic abuse. The Bill must be strengthened if it is to meaningfully amplify survivors’ voices and improve their access to vital support services. Refuge asks Committee members to consider the proposals outlined below in pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. Refuge recommends amending the draft Bill to:

1. Strengthen the duty to collaborate to require relevant public authorities to commission specialist domestic abuse community-based services at a level that meets local need and include full, ring-fenced funding, estimated by Women’s Aid Federation England to be £226 million per year.[3]
2. Include a duty on relevant criminal justice agencies to raise awareness of the Victims’ Code with survivors and frontline professionals.
3. Ensure the statutory definition for IDVAs and ISVAs does not exclude specialist ‘by and for’ services.
4. Extend the eligibility for IDVA services to all survivors of domestic abuse – not just those who are assessed as ‘high-risk’.
5. Include a statutory duty for all police and criminal justice practitioners who come into regular contract with survivors of VAWG to undertake mandatory, trauma-informed training. 

Duties to collaborate in the provision of victim support services 

4. The proposed duty on local authorities, PCCs, and Integrated Care Boards to work together to commission support services for victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and other serious violence falls far short of what is needed to improve survivors’ access to vital support services. The duty is directed at the relevant public authorities, but its focus on joint working overlooks the most significant barrier to survivors’ access to support services – the huge shortfall in funding for specialist VAWG services. Refuge is disappointed that the VAWG sector’s united call for a fully funded statutory duty on relevant public authorities to commission community-based services is missing from the draft Bill. This is a missed opportunity to put specialist community VAWG services on a sustainable footing and improve survivors’ access to much-needed support. Refuge recommends that this duty is strengthened to require relevant public authorities to commission specialist domestic abuse community-based services at a level that meets local need and includes full, ring-fenced funding, estimated by Women’s Aid Federation England to be £226 million per year[4].  

5. Community-based services play a vital role in supporting survivors at all stages of their journey. They are provided outside of a residential setting and include outreach, emotional support, advocacy (including IDVAs and IDVAs), and support for children and young people. Community-based services play a vital role in early intervention and are therefore critical to managing the far higher costs incurred by government when a survivor moves into refuge accommodation (according to government estimates, domestic abuse costs society a staggering £66 billion a year[5]). Community based services are also vital in supporting women still living with perpetrators to develop safety plans, and to leave a perpetrator if they want to do so. The vast majority (80%) of the women Refuge supports rely on community-based services. Yet community-based services are in general chronically underfunded, resulting in overstretched services with high caseloads. As the gateway to all services across the country, the National Domestic Abuse Helpline receives high numbers of calls from women unable to access community-based services due to a lack of availability in their local area. Community-based services consistently report unsafe caseloads and 23% operate without any local authority funding at all, which forces them to rely on insecure, fundraised income[6]. In the financial year 2020/21, more than half (56.6%) of Refuge’s own income was generated from such income sources. Given the prevalence of domestic abuse - more than one in four women experience domestic abuse at some point in their lives[7] - and the crucial role community-based services play in supporting survivors at every stage of their journey, it is vital that these services are put on a sustainable footing. Refuge would like to see an equivalent duty for community-based services to the part 4 duty for accommodation-based services, introduced in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which has increased funding for refuge services and the focus on needs assessment. Strengthening the duty to collaborate and accompanying it with full, ring-fenced funding for community-based services will enable the government to deliver its aim of ‘improving support for victims of crime’ and ensure that every woman and child receives the support and protection they need.  

6. Refuge is seeing some early indicators that the part 4 duty has reduced community-based services commissioning in some areas. This could be due to the funding shortfall between the £125 million allocated by government for the duty and the estimated £181 million required to meet the need for accommodation-based services[8]. It is possible that as some domestic abuse services, but not others, are covered by a statutory duty, local authorities are viewing community-based services as less important or optional which risks leaving certain groups of survivors without the support they need. Domestic abuse takes many different forms, including emotional, economic, and tech abuse, and survivors have different needs and experiences. Both accommodation-based services and community-based services are essential, and survivors often use both services at different stages in their journey. For many survivors, seeking justice through the criminal justice system or fleeing to refuge are neither viable nor desirable options and it is vital that survivors have access to a holistic service offer. To safeguard against a ‘two tier’ system of support, it is vital that community-based services are given the same statutory underpinning as accommodation-based services. The duty to collaborate should therefore be extended to a duty to assess the need for and commission community-based services.

7. Refuge supports the proposal to require relevant public authorities to prepare a joint local strategy regarding their victim support functions, informed by relevant needs assessments. In Refuge’s experience, commissioning often works best when local authorities work with health providers and PCCs to pool funding and identify need. However, without being backed by a sustainable funding offer, public authorities will be unable to commission specialist victim support services at a level that meets the need identified. It is therefore vital that the duty to collaborate is strengthened to include full, ring-fenced funding for specialist domestic abuse services, estimated by Women’s Aid Federation England to be £226 million per year[9].  

8. Refuge welcomes the ambition to ensure that in carrying out needs assessments authorities consult services supporting victims who experience additional barriers to accessing generic support services. Specialist services for ‘by and for’ minoritised women are often disproportionately disadvantaged by local commissioning and funding processes. These services are far less likely to receive statutory funding than generic providers and often find it harder to engage in commissioning processes due to limited resources[10]. Although official statistics rarely disaggregate data for multiple characteristics, we do know that Black and minoritised women are more likely to experience domestic abuse, and that disabled women are twice as likely to experience it[11]. Ensuring sufficient provision of services specifically designed to support these survivor groups is therefore vital. Refuge recommends that ‘by and for’ services are explicitly defined within the duty to ensure that services supporting survivors with complex needs, such as Deaf and disabled survivors, LGBTQ+, Black, Asian and minoritised, and migrant women are included.  

9. Commissioning guidelines for the duty must also recognise the gendered nature of domestic abuse and explicitly define community-based services as specialist services whose primary purpose is to support survivors, provided by expert staff with an in-depth, specialist knowledge of VAWG. Women are disproportionately represented amongst victim-survivors of domestic abuse, with more than 1 in 4 (27.5%) women experiencing domestic abuse at some point in their lives, compared to 13.8% of men. The duty most cover all forms of community-based VAWG services including outreach, floating support, advocacy (including IDVAS and ISVAs), support for children and young people, and therapeutic support services to provide a holistic service offer that meets the needs of every survivor, no matter their background, locality or the type of abuse they have experienced.  

10. The proposed duty on local authorities, PCCs, and Integrated Care Boards to work together to commission support services for victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and other serious violence is a missed opportunity to ensure all survivors of domestic abuse have access to much-needed specialist support. To meet the needs of survivors and put community-based services on a sustainable footing, Refuge recommends strengthening this duty to require relevant public authorities to commission community-based domestic abuse services at a level that meets local need and that the strengthened duty is accompanied by full, ring-fenced funding, estimated by Women’s Aid Federation England to be £226 million per year[12].  

The Victims’ Code

11. Refuge welcomes the draft Bill’s commitment to enshrine the principles of the Victims Code in primary legislation. In Refuge’s experience, the vast majority of the Victims Code is currently not adhered to by the police and other criminal justice agencies. Victim-survivors are often not informed about their rights under the code, including what support and information they are entitled to receive and when they might be able to challenge decisions. There is also an inconsistent awareness of the code amongst the key agencies supporting victim-survivors. Putting the essence of victim-survivors’ rights under the code into legislation is therefore a foundational step towards improving their experience of the criminal justice system.

12. If implemented effectively, enshrining the principles of the Victims Code in law will support survivors to better understand their rights and strengthen their ability to challenge the criminal justice system when these rights are not met. It will provide survivors with specific guidance on their right to be referred to support services tailored to individual need, which is often a decisive factor in whether survivors participate in the criminal justice process. It will also support their right to be provided with information about the investigation, prosecution, and outcome of their case. This is particularly important for survivors of domestic abuse as the police often fail to communicate vital information about the progress of domestic abuse cases, including updates that could escalate a survivor’s risk, such as their perpetrator being released on bail or released from prison. This can be incredibly traumatic and distressing for survivors who are left with uncertainty about the whereabouts of their perpetrator. The recent HMICFRS report into the police response to VAWG found that most victim-survivors are dissatisfied with the quality of police communication including the amount, type, and timeliness of communication from police[13]. This is a clear example of how enshrining the Victims Code in law could improve victim-survivors’ experience of the criminal justice system.

Lisa’s* story: The police did not inform Lisa that her perpetrator had been released on bail and when she asked why the bail couldn’t be renewed, she was told that there were no grounds for renewal because the perpetrator ‘hadn’t done anything for 48 hours.’ She wasn’t informed about the criminal compensation authority by the police officer assigned to her case and she didn’t know what the perpetrator’s charges were until she got to court; she thought he was up for one charge, but it was multiple. Lisa suffered extreme stress as a result of her experience of the criminal justice system. She described her experience as ‘soul destroying at times’ and said she remembered thinking ‘this is why people don’t go to the police’. 

*Survivor’s name has been changed for anonymity

13. Whilst Refuge supports enshrining the principles of the Victims’ Code in primary legislation, we are concerned this will not deliver for survivors in practice without corresponding responsibility and accountability mechanisms. For the Victims’ Code to be effective, it must be enforceable, and the Victims Bill must include incentives to drive agencies to consider the needs and rights of victim-survivors at every stage of proceedings. The proposals to place a duty on relevant criminal justice agencies (the police, the CPS, HM Courts & Tribunals Service, Youth Offending Teams and HM Prison and Probation Service) to collect data and keep under review their delivery of the code is welcome and will support better compliance, however it must be accompanied by clear accountability mechanisms. This data must include related demographic information about victims and witnesses, disaggregated along the protected characteristics and made publicly available in a standardised, analysable format.

14. To support the code to deliver for victim-survivors, Refuge also recommends that there must be a duty on relevant criminal justice agencies to raise awareness of the Victims’ Code with victim-survivors and frontline professionals. The principles of the code should be discussed at every step of a victim-survivors’ journey through the criminal justice process – by the police, criminal justice practitioners, witness care units and specialist services.

Improving survivors’ experiences of the criminal justice system

15. Whilst putting the Victims’ Code on a statutory footing has potential to strengthen processes to improve survivors’ experiences of the criminal justice system, it does not directly address the culture of disbelief and victim-blaming faced by survivors. Often police officers and criminal justice practitioners do not understand the dynamics of domestic abuse and therefore fail to properly investigate cases and minimise survivors’ experiences. This can be re-traumatising for survivors and can erode their confidence in reporting and pursuing justice. Research from the Victims’ Commissioner into rape survivors’ experiences of the criminal justice system found that the most important reason for non-reporting is a feeling that survivors will not be believed and that their credibility will be tested by representatives of the criminal justice system. This research found that only about half of survivors agreed that police officers treated them with sensitivity, respect, and fairness at the reporting stage[14]. In order for the state to prosecute and uphold the rule of law, it is paramount that survivors have the confidence to report crimes and to testify in court. It is therefore essential that staff in the criminal justice system are trained in the dynamics of domestic abuse and how to identify domestic abuse and know how to respond appropriately.

Sarah’s* story: When Sarah reported her abuse to the police, she said they didn’t seem to understand her situation or believe her. On two occasions, she was advised to simply ‘leave the house’. When the police were called to her home, her perpetrator was always charming and quiet and would often hold their child when he was talking to them. One police officer dismissed Sarah’s abuse, saying ‘I am sorry you are not happy in your marriage’. This discouraged Sarah and she stopped reporting. The abuse escalated and, with the support of a Refuge caseworker, Sarah eventually filed new evidence of her abuse. Her perpetrator was prosecuted, and Sarah was granted a restraining order

*Survivor’s name has been changed for anonymity

16. Refuge recommends the Bill includes a statutory duty for all police and criminal justice practitioners who come into regular contact with survivor-victims of VAWG to undertake mandatory, trauma-informed training to ensure domestic abuse is understood as a crime and responded to appropriately. This training must be comprehensive and culturally competent and include training on the specific experiences of different groups of survivors, to enable police and criminal justice practitioners to equally support and protect all survivors and challenge institutional racism, misogyny and sexism in policing. It must be developed by specialist support services and cover all forms of domestic abuse, including tech abuse, to increase understanding of the dynamics and realities of domestic abuse and ensure all crimes are investigated and prosecuted fully.

Guidance about independent advisors

17. Refuge welcomes the proposal to establish a statutory definition for IDVAs and ISVAs. Serving as a survivor’s primary point of contact, IDVAs normally work with survivors from the point of crisis to secure their safety and support them to make informed choices about options available to them. This can include supporting survivors to pursue justice through the criminal justice system, helping them to access housing or supporting them to engage with mental health services. Advocates will also seek to ensure that survivors receive their entitlements under the Victims’ Code, as well as challenging other agencies where entitlements are not met and speaking on behalf of the victim. Research by the Victims’ Commissioner outlines the core functions of an IDVA as ‘a professional who can speak on behalf of the victim, if need be, articulating their needs and preferences through the criminal justice journey’[15]. Despite overwhelming endorsement from survivors, courts and criminal justice agencies frequently have a poor understanding of the role or value of support of professional IDVAs. For example, Refuge is aware of instances where IDVAs were not permitted into a court room or video-link room with survivors. Establishing a statutory definition for IDVAs and ISVAs will ensure these roles are recognised and respected by other agencies and that victim survivors receive appropriate support.

Cecilia’s story*: Support from an IDVA played a vital role in Cecilia’s decision to leave her perpetrator. Her advocate provided referrals to services when Cecilia was most in need, including mental health support. Cecilia’s IDVA followed up with the police for information on her case, challenged unfair practice, and played an instrumental role in securing a restraining order against her perpetrator.

*Survivor’s name has been changed for anonymity

18. Whilst guidance on the role and function of IDVA services is welcome, it is vital that this definition balances the key functions of the advocate role with the varied demands and specialisms IDVAs deliver. In particular, the definition must not exclude specialist ‘by and for’ services. Survivors from Black and minoritised communities already face additional barriers in accessing advocacy services as referrals are usually made through the police or other statutory agencies which these survivors are less likely to be in contact with. For example, information sharing between the police and Home Office often deters migrant women with no recourse to public funds from reporting their abuse. In 2020 HMICFRS, the College of Policing, and the Independent Office for Police Conduct published a report responding to a Super-Complaint by Liberty and Southall Black Sisters which agreed that data sharing caused ‘significant harm’ to the public interest and called for an overhaul of the laws and policies on police data-sharing with the Home Office[16]. Marginalised survivors are also less likely to be assessed as high-risk and eligible for an IDVA as this requires (a) survivors to be able to explain their experience to police, which creates barriers for women who do not speak English as a first language, and (b) the police to recognise their experience as abuse, which requires a level of cultural competency that officers often do not have. It is therefore vital that any definitions of IDVAs introduced by the Bill do not create additional barriers for these survivors to access support. A suggested, but not exhaustive, list of the role and functions to include in the definition includes:

• Liaising with the police on the victim’s behalf and ensuring that the needs and safety of the victims is considered every step of the way.

• Ensuring the victim is kept informed at each stage of the prosecution process.
• Working with prosecutors to support the victim.
• Making contact with witness care services at the court to ensure they are aware of any victim needs and to determine what support they can offer.
• Advising the victim of what special measures are available such as screens, video link and separate entrances.
• Attending court with the victim for emotional support.

19. Crucially, this definition must reflect the services IDVAs provide outside of the criminal justice system, such as helping survivors to access housing or providing emotional support. Refuge defines the primary purpose of the IDVA role as to “address the safety of victims at risk of harm from intimate partners, ex-partners, or family members to secure their safety and the safety of their children. This can include supporting victims by demystifying the criminal justice system and advocating on their behalf with other – often statutory – agencies.”

20. Refuge recommends that this guidance includes an extension of eligibility for IDVA services to all survivors of domestic abuse – not just those who are assessed as ‘high-risk’. This will provide additional pathways for minoritized survivors to access support and will create a principle that all victim-survivors of serious violent and sexual crime should be provided with dedicated, one-to-one support throughout their criminal justice journey. The current risk-based approach to IDVA provision is dangerous. Risk dynamics can shift due to ever-changing circumstances and behaviours of perpetrators, and static risk assessments are unable to adequately capture this. Additionally, we know that many victims of domestic homicides had been assessed as being at standard risk level, demonstrating the limitations of a risk-based approach. Adequate specialist advocacy support for all victim survivors is essential and guidance should therefore extend the eligibility of IDVA services to all survivors of domestic abuse.

21. Refuge recommends that commissioning standards for IDVA services are tightened to ensure they are delivered independently from local authorities. Hackney, Camden and Oldham are a few examples of local authorities that have in-house IDVA services. In our experience, IDVA services that are linked to local authorities can result in survivors being deterred from accessing the services for fear of the consequences. For example, the involvement of social services, being pressured into taking legal action against a partner or fear of being deported for survivors with no recourse to public funds.

22. As outlined above, Refuge welcomes the draft Bill’s commitment to enshrine the principles of the Victims’ Code in primary legislation. However, this is likely to put additional strain on already stretched services IDVA services as survivors become more aware of their rights and are empowered to challenge the criminal justice system when these rights are not met. Advocacy services already face unmanageable referral levels and caseloads. To enable IDVA services to meet demand and to expand the support available to all survivors of domestic abuse, additional funding is required. IDVAs operate within a wider network of community-based services that urgently need to be put on a sustainable footing. For this reason, Refuge recommends strengthening the duty to collaborate to require relevant public authorities to commission community-based domestic abuse services at a level that meets local need and include full, ring-fenced funding, estimated by Women’s Aid Federation England to be £226 million per year[17].

Conclusion

23. The Victims Bill presents a vital opportunity to meaningfully amplify survivors’ voices in the criminal justice system and ensure every survivor has access to the specialist services they need, at the point of need. Establishing a statutory definition of advocate services and enshrining the principles of the Victims’ Code in legislation are foundational steps towards improving survivors’ experiences of the criminal justice system, which Refuge welcomes, but without additional funding to support these proposals, or a duty to commission community-based services, it will fail to deliver for survivors of domestic abuse. Refuge recommends amending the draft Bill to:
1. Strengthen the duty to collaborate to require relevant public authorities to commission specialist domestic abuse community-based services at a level that meets local need and include full, ring-fenced funding, estimated by Women’s Aid Federation England to be £226 million per year.[18]
2. Include a duty on relevant criminal justice agencies to raise awareness of the Victims’ Code with victim-survivors and frontline professionals.
3. Ensure the statutory definition for IDVAs and ISVAs does not exclude specialist ‘by and for’ services.
4. Extend the eligibility for IDVA services to all survivors of domestic abuse – not just those who are assessed as ‘high-risk’.
5. Include a statutory duty for all police and criminal justice practitioners who come into regular contract with survivor-victims of VAWG to undertake mandatory, trauma-informed training.