law

Who? – what? – where? – and why are we still not getting there?

Support services are vital to enable escape and recovery after domestic violence and abuse. We’ve known this for countless decades.

But it’s not one size fits all.

And it matters where services are, what they provide, and for whom.

Specialism and diversity are crucial – and to provide rights-based services from a position of empathy and peer support and understanding.

We’ve known all this for a long time.

Then there’s accessibility – is there a suitable space in a service – when you need it? This may be in a moment of crisis, but it may be about timeliness in the longer-term – when you are ready to make the best use of that type of support. Some of the need is for accommodation-based services – notably refuges – for those who relocate due to the abuse; but there is also a wide range of needs for those who stay put, and for resettlement away from the abuse.

So this is all about types of services, eligibility, location and capacity; and this research has developed evidence-based recommendations for service provision – on an ethical basis:

Eligibility
Type
Holistic
Independence
Capacity
Accessibility
Location

Technical papers are available here and here.

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 was meant to improve the dire shortage in the services needed, not least through Part 4 which requires local authorities to provide safe accommodation. Now the MHCLG has published the results of a 3-year evaluation of how well this is working….

It’s a patchy picture…

Some increase in the scale or range of safe accommodation, but also an increase in the number of survivors who were not being supported. Some increase in support for children in safe accommodation, but very variable levels of support across the country.

And the focus – yet again – on what happens within local authorities, neglected the considerable scale of help-seeking across borders – between local authorities[i].

So – yet again – it is a missed opportunity to begin to address this glaring gap in both knowledge and response. Tens of thousands of women and children cross local authority borders due to domestic abuse, yet the needs assessments and the service responses largely behave as if they don’t.

The report provides nine conclusions, recommending that “MHCLG should…” or “LAs should…”, or “Services should…”, but when it comes to the final point about cross-border relocation, the language suddenly weakens to “LAs may want to consider…”

“9. As many victim-survivors move across areas for safety, LAs may want to consider co-ordinating with neighbouring authorities on their needs assessments, strategies, commissioning or monitoring and evaluating delivery and outcomes. Doing so can offer information and insight on a larger scale and may bring efficiencies in shared effort, although it may not have the granular detail of those focused on a single LA.” (MHCLG, 2025, p. 17)

Worse than that, it only suggests this as something that LAs may want to do for efficiency – not because it is what survivors desperately need and deserve. That – by right – they should be enabled to go as far as they need and stay as near as they can.

And it lets national Government off the hook – leaving the responsibility on local authorities to consider doing the right thing, rather than national Government requiring a functional infrastructure of services and service accessibility for survivors of domestic violence and abuse, when and where and in the form that they need and deserve.

[i] (MHCLG, 2025, p. 81) MHCLG. (2025). Evaluation of the Domestic Abuse Duty for Support in Safe Accommodation. Part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act (2021). Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

The wilful ignorance of a policy mismatch

Government often talks about evidence-based policy.

– and calls for further evidence and research from those who argue that policies or laws need to be changed.

But part of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 is a classic example of Government ignoring existing evidence – evidence that was presented to them in the consultation on developing the Act – and setting law and policy up to fail.

– to fail the tens of thousands of women and children who cross local authority boundaries to escape domestic violence and abuse.

As this research shows, the harms and losses caused by the perpetrator of domestic violence and abuse are often further compounded by how the state chooses to respond:

the services it does/doesn’t provide
the capacity and location of those services
the eligibility for those services – which often focuses on location

Despite the evidence Government received on the domestic violence journeys across local authority boundaries, it chose to devolve the duties in Part 4 of the Act to provide services and safe accommodation to Tier 1 local authorities. It chose to create a mismatch between the scale of service responses, and the functional scale that women and children actually need – and deserve.

In a new podcast conversation, the problems and harms that follow from this are explored – including the cliff-edges created at local authority boundaries that women and children frequently fall off.

And the problems are rendered invisible at the national scale by the lack of data that crosses these boundaries. Both needs assessments and provision decisions are confined within local authorities, and the data that used to exist England-wide (and which is used in this Journeyscapes research) is no longer aggregated nationally and made available for research or to inform policy. It is a wilful ignorance of the impact of devolving service responsibilities to the wrong scale.

As the podcast highlights:

“the losses and the harms that are caused by the abuser in intimate partner violence, are being compounded by the losses and the harms which are caused by the state.”

What can employers do (including about the abusers)?

Relocation disrupts so many aspects of anyone’s life.

Even if it’s a chosen and planned relocation, there will be changes and admin: things you can no longer access, as well as positive new opportunities.

Forced relocation – when the only way to escape domestic abuse is to uproot your life and go away – is usually massively disruptive… in terms of leaving behind or losing friends, possessions, college, work, school, hopes and dreams….

Work is a big factor for many women – whether they can be honest with their employer, whether they can expect any help or understanding. Large employers may be able to arrange transfers and support, so that a woman can retain or resume her career once she is in a safer place away from the abuse. All employers can do something to support – to reduce the risks from the abuser, and to reduce the losses and costs.

This has long been recognised by some employers, and is increasingly championed by organisations such as the Employers’ Initiative on Domestic Abuse (EIDA), which is free to join for all employers prepared to take effective action on domestic abuse.

This builds on decades of work by some employers, but patchy responses by others.

And it is notable that the focus seems to be primarily on what employers can do to “care for employees affected by domestic abuse”.

This is all well and good… but perpetrators are employees too. What are employers doing about perpetrators?

Often not enough.

EIDA talks about “providing education and support to help perpetrators of domestic abuse to stop” – but employers could often be more proactive about identifying perpetrators in their employ, taking action, and actively creating a culture where the attitudes behind such abusive behaviour are simply not acceptable. The most recent government report in 2021 found that whilst 66% of the employers who responded had a company policy on domestic abuse, only 20% addressed perpetrators.

Employers have had policy, procedure and guidance on responding to domestic violence and abuse for decades – but there’s still a lot that could be improved. An early example – from London Borough of Greenwich in 1997 – does give significant focus to the employer’s role towards perpetrators (not just victim-survivors). It offers guidance on assessing relevance and appropriateness of job duties, considering misuse of access to information, and issues of bringing the employer into disrepute.

Re-reading the guidance 27 years on highlights how many more recent employers’ initiatives still don’t focus enough on the cause of the problem: the abusers.

Local elections – what is local about domestic violence?

As we approach local elections in England and Wales on 2^nd May 2024, local and national politicians are setting the priorities for local authorities: for the funding they receive and spend – and the services they spend it on.

Where are responses to domestic violence and abuse in these priorities?

With many local authorities struggling to cover their statutory duties, such as social care and child protection, and facing loud criticism over bin collections and potholes, where do domestic abuse services fit into their plans?

These plans matter – from advice and information services, to specialist refuges and accommodation: all these are services that national government has devolved to local decision-making.

But domestic violence and abuse isn’t local. Not only are men violent and abusive to their women partners in every local authority in the country… but, to escape that threat, many women and children cross local authority boundaries to seek help and support – as well as safety.

The maps show the domestic violence journeys in one year to services for just five cities, as women (often with children) travel to or from Manchester, Newcastle, Plymouth, Southampton and Birmingham. They show women having to leave their local authority to get the help they need.

One year of domestic violence journeys to and from Manchester to services

One year of domestic violence journeys to and from Newcastle upon Tyne to services

One year of domestic violence journeys to and from Plymouth to services

One year of domestic violence journeys to and from Southampton to services

One year of domestic violence journeys to and from Birmingham to services

But women and children can only make such journeys if the services exist.

Local politicians may pledge to fund – or to cut funds to – domestic violence services, as part of seeking votes in the May elections. It’s a patchwork of separate – unconnected – decisions. And decisions that do not only affect local voters – but affect the tens of thousands of women and children who end up needing services somewhere else – not in their original local area.

It’s an ongoing mismatch between the scale of need and the scale of response – further cemented in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.

We need services everywhere, because perpetrators are abusive to their partners or ex-partners everywhere; but we need a network across the whole country – not at risk from hundreds of separate local cuts and local priorities.

Journeyscape or Journeybreak?

Domestic violence isn’t in any way a game, but it is important to use all kinds of ways to prompt discussion and thinking about the issues – and a new card ‘game’ aims to do just that. “Serious games” use the interactions and norms of games – from playing cards or board games to online gaming – to engage and inform in ways that other methods cannot.

Journeyscape or Journeybreak? is a card game about women and children’s journeys to escape domestic abuse. The game draws on the British Academy-funded research project “Women on the Move: the Journeyscapes of Domestic Violence” using examples of the pressure points women experience and the help or hindrance from people, policies, services and luck.

Relocation is only one possible strategy for women but tens of thousands of women and children relocate in the UK due to domestic abuse, often in multi-stage journeys over time and distance, and accessing a range of services and support. The game presents a simplified journey of multiple stages and stopping points, with the players gathering the points they need for the next stage, whilst also experiencing the ‘chance’ elements that can allow them to leap forward or fall back on their journey.

The examples of ‘chance’ – positive and negative – are taken from women’s accounts shared during the research, and the cards showcase women’s images from participatory photography groupwork carried out with Solace Women’s Aid. The cards are therefore an expression of women’s creativity and insights, and the game aims to highlight how journeys away from violence can be either stalled and thwarted by ‘journeybreaks’ or ‘journeyscaped’ by law, policy, services and support.

Journeyscape or Journeybreak? will be launched at the Social Research Association conference on 15^th June 2023 in London. It is part of the “Please Do Touch” gallery – emphasising the importance of in-person interaction with each other and with material objects: the value of actually being able to touch…

Journeyscape or Journeybreak? is a game for 2-4 players and could be used by groups of professionals involved in responding to domestic abuse, as well as individuals who want to understand more about women and children’s journeys.

If you would like a set of cards, please make a donation to Solace Women’s Aid, and then use the contact form of this website to send your postal address.

Staying Put – the problems of joint tenancies

Women experiencing domestic abuse should be able to stay put in their homes – whilst safely continuing their lives and connections with friends, family, work and education.

That’s obvious.

Tens of thousands of women and children relocate due to domestic abuse – but for many others, they try to stay put.

However, even if they could safely do this, they are often caught in the trap of a joint tenancy with the perpetrator of the abuse.

Perpetrators may use the joint tenancy as another tool of abuse. They may have originally used coercion to get themselves onto the tenancy, which the woman had in her sole name before. They may threaten to terminate the tenancy and/or continue to maintain control by refusing to remove themselves voluntarily from the tenancy. They may use their name on the tenancy as a means of continuing post-separation abuse – claiming that they could move back into the home. Survivors of abuse may find themselves trapped by the power of the perpetrator threatening to keep/end/keep/end the tenancy – never being free from the control and abuse.

The Government says in its Tackling Domestic Abuse Plan that it has the aim of “bringing victims and survivors more security if the right option for them is remaining in their own home”[1] but there are legal changes urgently needed to make this a reality for women with joint tenancies.

Currently, the legal procedures may be expensive and/or complicated[2] – with survivors often not knowing their options or rights, and finding themselves facing eviction, or being forced to relocate, with all the losses and uncertainties that follow from that.

A real option of staying put is needed.

To provide this, an alternative legal procedure has been proposed[3] – it was raised during the development of the Domestic Abuse Bill; though it was not included by the Government in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. It would provide a simplified legal mechanism for the transfer of a tenancy in the family court if a survivor of domestic abuse shares a joint secured or social tenancy with the perpetrator. It would recognise the tenancy rights within a joint tenancy, but provide a proportionate response to be able to promote the safety, stability, and housing security of the survivor.

Now it is being proposed again in response to the Government’s consultation on the impacts of joint tenancies on victims of domestic abuse. The consultation[4] is open until 10^th May 2022 – asking landlords, lawyers and individuals about what is currently happening, and what the Government should do about it. We’ll have to see how the Government responds this time….

Women fleeing domestic abuse are fleeing a human rights violation: they should be able to stay put, stay as near as they can, or travel as far as they need without any detriment to their lives.

[1] HM Government (March 2022) ‘Tackling Domestic Abuse Plan’ https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1064427/E02735263_Tackling_Domestic_Abuse_CP_639_Accessible.pdf

[2] National Group briefing on Joint Tenancies and Survivors of Domestic Abuse (2021) https://www.dahalliance.org.uk/media/11058/domestic-abuse-bill-joint-tenancies-qa.pdf

[3] National Group response to MHCLG’s New Deal for renting (2019), https://www.dahalliance.org.uk/what-we-do/national-policy-practice-group/our-national-group-responses-to-government-consultations/

[4] Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (15 February 2022) ‘Consultation on the impacts of joint tenancies on victims of domestic abuse’ https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-the-impacts-of-joint-tenancies-on-victims-of-domestic-abuse

Perverse incentives in (not) assessing need

How do you assess the need for domestic abuse support in a Local Authority area?

It is well-known how hidden domestic abuse is – that many women keep their experiences secret and never seek formal help. Others do seek help, but are turned away. Others do not disclose the violence or abuse until they are safely away from where the perpetrator might find them.

But over and above all that… assessing need in an area depends on what the word ‘in’ means…

Is it the women and children already in an area?
- but what about the many forced to move away because of the abuse…
Is it the women and children coming into an area to seek help?
Is it both?

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 requires Local Authorities (Counties and Unitary Authorities – and London as a whole) to “assess, or make arrangements for the assessment of, the need for accommodation-based support in its area”[1].

But how can they do that?

To take the example of one year of help-seeking to services and one local authority – Cambridgeshire:

The local authority should be able to count the number of women who manage to access formal services – women’s refuges and other types of accommodation – due to domestic abuse; and include that in their ‘needs assessment’. But that depends – of course – on them providing services in the first place…

And the majority – it can be noted – do not actually come from Cambridgeshire…

And then, what about Cambridgeshire women and children? – where do they go to access services?

Well, some ‘remain local’ – remain within Cambridgeshire – but many (and the vast majority of those needing women’s refuges) go elsewhere[1]…

So, should Cambridgeshire be including these as well in its ‘needs assessment’? – maybe if it provided more services they would have been able to stay in the County… maybe they wouldn’t…

Certainly, Cambridgeshire is very unlikely to have any data on all those who ‘go elsewhere’ as the whole point is that they are escaping the abuse – they are not going to wait and inform the authorities of their plans.

So, any local authority – like Cambridgeshire – is only going to be able to count those who come into its area if it already provides services for them to come to; and is unlikely to have any idea of the numbers of its women and children who flee elsewhere.

With the best will in the world, a very partial needs assessment is all that is possible… and there is a perverse incentive to reduce or limit service provision, so that there is less expressed need in your area – and therefore less ‘need’ to provide services for…

Is this what local authorities are currently doing? Given that the ‘needs assessments’ are not made public, it’s impossible to know…

But it’s clear that if you wanted to design a system to fail to meet domestic abuse accommodation needs, then this would be a good way to do it….

[1] Bowstead, Janet C. 2021. “Stay Put; Remain Local; Go Elsewhere: Three Strategies of Women’s Domestic Violence Help Seeking.” Dignity: A Journal of Analysis of Exploitation and Violence 6 (3): 4. doi:10.23860/dignity.2021.06.03.04. https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/dignity/vol6/iss3/4

[1] Domestic Abuse Act 2021 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2021/17/section/57/enacted

Drawbridges and Moats – the problems of local connection

Despite decades of recognition that domestic abuse forces journeys across local authority boundaries, and the further evidence of the scale of such journeys from this research, so many aspects of the system of services and support remain fragmented down to the local authority scale.

Local authorities can tend to operate as closed systems – like they are surrounded by moats to cut them off from everything else. As soon as you cross that boundary, everything changes – your rights to services, your place on waiting lists, your housing, schooling, college access, and so much else.

Government has further reinforced these boundaries – deepened these moats – by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 devolving needs assessments and strategies for safe accommodation to the local authority scale.

Yet tens of thousands of women and children have to move to a different local authority due to the violence and abuse.

And the problem isn’t just at the crisis point of seeking emergency accommodation – it continues when women try to find housing where they can resettle longer term, and find themselves caught out by residency requirements that they cannot fulfil. The drawbridge that let them cross to another place in emergency, is pulled up again when they try to apply for social housing, and they are turned away.

In 2018 statutory guidance was issued[1] because – to quote – “The government believes that victims fleeing domestic abuse should be given as much assistance as possible to ensure they are able to re-build their lives away from abuse and harm.”

But this clearly isn’t working.

Now the Government has realised that “domestic abuse victims are being denied social housing allocations in some areas because they have no local connection to an area” and identifies the need “to consider further measures beyond statutory guidance”[2]. The proposed solution for England is “to introduce regulations so that local authorities would be prevented from applying a local connection or residency test to victims who have been forced to flee to another local authority district in order to escape domestic abuse.”

But it wants to find out whether this is a good idea.

So there is a consultation at present[2] – until 10^th May 2022 – asking local authorities and individuals about what is currently happening, and what the Government should do about it.

Women fleeing domestic abuse are fleeing a human rights violation: they should be able to stay as near as they can, or travel as far as they need, without being forced any further, and without any detriment to their lives.

But many of the consultation questions are not concerned with enabling rights and support, but are concerned that any change should be strictly limited. Proposed limits include that exemption from ‘local connection’ only applies for a limited time period “after the victim has fled domestic abuse” or that the social housing is only being considered “for reasons connected with that abuse”. The consultation asks about limiting it in terms of the current accommodation (eg. refuge, temporary accommodation, private rented), in terms of moving to England from the rest of the UK, and in terms of the kind of evidence of domestic abuse that local authorities require.

The consultation recognises the tensions between neighbouring authorities currently providing different levels of services, and pleads “We wish to see local authorities working together with neighbouring authorities”.

But nothing is proposed to make this happen.

Yet again, Government is not considering the larger scale over which tens of thousands of women and children travel – and is not taking national responsibilities – but is hoping that local authorities will make boundary-crossing work a bit better for a limited number, within limited circumstances.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/improving-access-to-social-housing-for-victims-of-domestic-abuse

Statutory guidance: Improving access to social housing for victims of domestic abuse

Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, 10 November 2018

[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-local-connection-requirements-for-social-housing-for-victims-of-domestic-abuse

Consultation on local connection requirements for social housing for victims of domestic abuse

Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, 15 February 2022

Women’s struggle to be free

Women and children’s journeys to escape abuse are often complex and multi-stage. From initially staying put, both the behaviour of the abuser and the support (or lack of support) of services and authorities may then force relocation.

Women’s help-seeking strategies may mean that they get the support and protection they need – involving a range of different services – or they might encounter closed doors, judgement and prejudice, lack of belief, misunderstanding, and service responses that make things worse.

This conference presentation video outlines the individuality of women’s domestic violence journey trajectories – as women try to get themselves and their children to a life free from abuse.

Video of conference presentation showing journey-graphs of women’s help-seeking strategies due to domestic violence revealing unique trajectories and ongoing housing insecurity.

The ongoing displacement is striking – both practically and emotionally – as is shown by the example of housing tenure, and ongoing housing insecurity.

These individual examples are taken from tens of thousands of domestic violence journeys – known and unknown to services and the state – and highlight the responsibilities on the state and those services to respond better: to journeyscape:

Through effective policies, laws, professional practice, and awareness
To build the infrastructure and map the terrain
To minimise the losses so women and children retain their rights and status
But not to determine the route that any woman takes

The principle should be that women – and their children – go as far as they need / stay as near as they can; and have a right to a life free from abuse.

The Scale of Services

Women and children forced to leave home due to domestic abuse need support and accommodation at the regional and national scale — not just the local scale.

And they need more than just a temporary roof over their heads — they need the understanding and respect of specialist domestic violence support. Such specialist support — of which women’s refuges are a key part — can never be taken for granted.

Refuges are under threat, not just from years of cuts to publicly-funded services, but from the very specific mismatch between the scale of funding and the scale of need.

Scale — in this case — is about geographical scale.

Women’s Refuges are still being planned and funded at the scale of local government; and yet it is primarily non-local women and children who need the refuge in any location.

The Domestic Abuse Bill proposes to keep this fundamental mismatch[1] — posing an existential threat to the future of women’s domestic violence refuges.

Local authorities are asked to assess the local need for accommodation services — without any recognition of the very different role of refuges compared to other accommodation services. And then, as an afterthought, they will be asked to consider the need for cross-border support…

Does this mean their women — travelling elsewhere for support — or women from elsewhere coming into their area for support? Or both?

Women’s strategy of relocating for safety shouldn’t be an afterthought.

This map shows just one year of women’s domestic violence journeys across borders to access formal services in England (so not any of the local services for local people)[2]:

One year of domestic violence journeys to services

What does all this cross-border travelling mean for any particular Local Authorities?

Let’s look at Brighton and Hove and East Sussex councils, which have just decided to stop funding their local specialist domestic violence organisation, Rise[3].

In one year, women and children come from different English regions and Scotland to access services in the two authorities. But — and local authorities generally do not acknowledge this — more of their local women go elsewhere to access help.

One year of domestic violence journeys to services in Brighton & Hove and East Sussex

One year of domestic violence journeys from Brighton & Hove and East Sussex to services elsewhere

So Brighton & Hove and East Sussex need services in the rest of the country more than they actually support women and children from elsewhere.

Are councils really going to be able — or willing — to include all this in their needs assessments?

And — if they don’t — there isn’t going to be anywhere for women and children to go…

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-abuse-bill-2020-factsheets/local-authority-support-for-victims-of-domestic-abuse-and-their-children-within-safe-accommodation-factsheet

[2] Analysis by Janet C. Bowstead using data fromDepartment for Communities and Local Government and University of St Andrews, Centre for Housing Research (2012) Supporting People Client Records and Outcomes, 2003/04-2010/11: Special Licence Access [computer file]. Colchester, Essex, UK Data Archive [distributor]. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-7020-1

[3] https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/19089879.rise-brighton-loses-13-million-seven-year-contract/

https://www.riseuk.org.uk/news/2021/latest-news-about-rises-funding