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.
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.
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 — 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):
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.
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.
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…
 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
Three little words could determine the fate of thousands of women and children experiencing domestic abuse.
And not in a good way…
Three little words – sent out by National Government – but interpreted by Local Government – will affect whether or not women and children can escape domestic violence.
The three words are slipped in – almost as if they were an afterthought – in the Home Office information on the Domestic Abuse Bill 2020.
A statutory duty will be placed on Local Authorities in England to “Assess the need for accommodation-based domestic abuse support for all victims in their area, including those who require cross-border support”.
There are at least three major problems with this:
Specialist accommodation-based domestic abuse services are mostly used by non-local women and children. Whilst other types of support services and temporary accommodation may be frequently accessed by local women who need to leave their previous accommodation, refuges are distinctively – and vitally – accessed by women and children who cannot remain local because of the risks they face.
Pie charts of Help-seeking strategies to Women’s Refuges and Other accommodation services
The proposed duty could therefore easily have the effect of undermining and reducing the provision of women’s refuges, and switching local authority funding to other accommodation – including non-specialist, low-support, mixed accommodation.
Many women and children affected by domestic abuse seek help from non-accommodation services. However, the proposed duty is silent on this; ignoring the fact that tens of thousands of women and children need specialist one-to-one and group support in their local area because of the violence they have experienced. There have been urgent calls for the Government to address this major gap, but no response as yet.
The proposed accommodation duty could therefore easily have the effect of cutting these vital non-accommodation services by switching local authority funding to the only services they will now have to provide.
Local Authorities are not well-placed to assess the need for accommodation-based domestic abuse support in their area because cross-border support isn’t a minor role for these services; it is the key option they provide for women and children experiencing threats, abuse and violence. Most women who go to these services do not go via their Local Authority at all – they cross borders as part of secret journeys, frequently facilitated by voluntary sector agencies that they trust to keep their relocation secret; and not referred by statutory agencies. For every cross-border statutory referral, that a Local Authority might know about and assess, there are more than double these which do not come to the notice of a statutory agency.
Graph of self-referrals and referrals and the three help-seeking strategies
Simply put, Local Authorities know very little about women’s cross-border help-seeking, and they have a perverse incentive to under-estimate it in their needs assessment of what services they will provide.
If the National Government really wants to “help transform the response to domestic abuse, helping to prevent offending, protect victims and ensure they have the support they need”, it must take national responsibility for assessment, funding and provision of specialist services for women and children who have to cross borders due to domestic violence; and it must require Local Authorities to provide the range and capacity of services needed by women and children who stay put or remain local.
 Analysis by Janet C. Bowstead using data from Department 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
Whilst the Government has made clear that anyone is allowed to leave home to “avoid or escape risk of injury or harm”, there is much else that is needed to make it possible for anyone to escape domestic abuse and get somewhere safe. Let alone the practicalities and support needed in the longer term.
Just thinking about the journeys of escape – the essential journeys – when women and children need to escape domestic abuse, how do they actually travel?
Because the journeys are very secret, not much has been known; but a new article has just been published from this research about different means of transport.
Public transport is extremely important – especially for longer distances – as the graph shows; however two-thirds of the journey stages were by private transport.
And, in the sample of women interviewed for this research, the largest category of transport was the private car of friends or family.
So – at this time – it is not just a problem of that initial escape due to:
Increased surveillance from the abuser at home
Risk of being questioned about how essential your journey is
Difficulty accessing over-stretched support services and refuges
Less public transport
It is also a problem that you cannot connect in the same way with others – friends and family – who could help you with both the actual journey, but also to plan how to make the journey safer and reduce the losses for you and your children.
This might be the initial essential journey away from an abusive partner; but it will also be all the further literal and emotional stages of your journey after that first step.
It shouldn’t be too controversial a statement to highlight that violence against women is not just an individual problem – causing fear, harm, injury – but a human rights violation. A violation that does not just harm the individual woman, but harms society, community, nation and humanity – every time that abuse is not responded to with justice.
against women does not just need a response from welfare services to individuals;
it needs a response from justice services in the widest sense. It needs a willingness to tackle the causes
as well as the consequences of the abuse.
is the thinking about linking the International Day for the Elimination of
Violence against Women (25th November) with International Human
Rights Day on the 10th December via the internationally-recognised
“16 days of activism” each year.
international level, the United Nations highlights that “violence against women
has come to be recognized as a violation of women’s human rights and a form of
gender-based discrimination”; and the latest report
from the Special Rapporteur on
violence against women, its causes and consequences details the international
legal framework on women’s human rights and violence against women.
you will struggle to find much recognition of women’s rights as human rights in
the priorities of the UK Parliament. During
the Second Reading of the Domestic Violence Bill on 2nd October 2019
only three MPs mentioned human rights:
MP Theresa May talked about an individual abuser controlling a woman “until
that individual’s rights as an individual human being were taken away from
Angela Crawley highlighted that “should the Bill fail adequately to
promote equality, including for those with insecure immigration status, it
would risk violating our existing human rights obligations.”
Debbie Abrahams focused on public services for both men and women stating “That
needs to be a human rights approach, and those services need to be
A human rights approach requires a less piecemeal approach. It can’t be an afterthought or add-on. It needs to go beyond a brief statement on the Domestic Violence Bill by the then Home Secretary Sajid Javid that “In my view the provisions of the Domestic Abuse Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.”
As the Special Rapporteur  states “At present, at the international normative level, the right of women to be free from violence is recognized as an international human rights standard but, in practice, gender-based violence against women and girls continues to be tolerated and has become normalized in many societies.”
Imagine a world where there were enough refuge spaces for women and children escaping domestic violence. Where these refuges were situated all around the country – in all types of places – so that women could go to the right type of place for their needs.
Not too close – first and foremost you need safety
Not too familiar – the abuser might try and track you down
Not too far – so that you don’t feel that you have been forced into exile
Not too strange – the kind of place where you can start again
Imagine a world where you could escape if you needed to – and therefore
also knew that you could try and stay put (using legal protection and services’
support if necessary) if you wanted to…. because there would always be a
safety net if that didn’t work.
Imagine a support system that gave top priority to your rights and
needs – that was there to serve you.
A basic infrastructure that you have a fundamental right to access –
when and where you need it.
Not the current fragmentation – where local areas can decide whether or not to provide services – and restrict the services they provide to local women and children. Where you have to keep on proving that you really need help, and prove where you have come from – as if you are asking for some special favour rather than simply your rights…
If we really believe that “violence against women constitutes a violation of the rights and fundamental freedoms of women and impairs or nullifies their enjoyment of those rights and freedoms” then every state should ensure that women can easily access their right to escape violence. Every state should provide a comprehensive, fully-functioning infrastructure for women’s human rights.
 UN General Assembly. 1993. Declaration on the
Elimination of Violence against Women: General Assembly resolution 48/104 of 20
December 1993. United Nations, Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: http://www.un-documents.net/a48r104.htm
wouldn’t be very impressed if an arsonist now said they were going to be a
firefighter. Would you really believe
that someone wanted to put out fires – solve problems – when they had been
causing the problems in the first place?
there should be some hard questions asked about the Government’s announcement
of their commitment that domestic abuse perpetrators will no longer be able to
directly cross-examine their victims in family courts.
is one of 9 key measures in the draft Domestic Abuse Bill which has finally
been published. Leaving aside points about timing and
distraction tactics, we also need to remember that this is only a draft
Bill. There is a long way to go before
even the positive aspects of proposals could or might be enacted.
intention is to stop abuse perpetrators – only those who have been charged,
cautioned or convicted of a “specified offence” – from cross-examining their victims
directly in the family courts.
course, this is a serious problem – with perpetrators being able to continue
their abuse in the courtroom – as has been highlighted in numerous reports in
the past few years.
However, it only became such an issue because of the cuts in ‘Legal Aid’ – where previously individuals had legal representatives in such cases. So this high profile proposal that appears to commit to protecting women from ongoing abuse in the family courts, fails to mention that the problem was caused by the Government in the first place.
in the detail of the Domestic Abuse Bill documents you can find the
acknowledgement that the only way to prevent such cross-examination may be to “give the court power to appoint a legal
representative to undertake cross-examination of a witness in specified
circumstances” with the “Lord
Chancellor, by regulations, to make provision for the payment out of central
fund of sums to cover the properly incurred fees, costs and expenses of a legal
this is a complicated route – which may or may not happen – to provide the legal
representation that used to be available for domestic abuse survivors in the
family courts – until the Government cut Legal Aid…
Governments often find it easier to pass another law which claims to tackle a complex issue, rather than implement the laws that are already in place. And rather than develop and sustain the services and social infrastructure that are needed to make a real difference.
It looks like this is happening again in the UK. In February 2017 the UK Government – Theresa May herself – claimed “I believe that the plans I have announced today have the potential to completely transform the way we think about and tackle domestic violence and abuse”.
In March 2018 Theresa May pledged to “bring forward new legislation as part of my longstanding commitment to end domestic abuse”.
But the proposed Bill focuses yet again on the criminal justice system, with new definitions and the possibility of longer sentences for convicted perpetrators. It doesn’t focus on developing a society that prevents abuse and supports survivors. Many women who experience abuse go nowhere near the criminal justice system – often these are the tens of thousands of women (and children) who relocate every year in the UK.
If the Government wants to change the options and life chances of these women and children, it needs to ensure sustained funding for the specialist services all around the country that enable woman and children to rebuild their lives after abuse. We do not need a new law for that – we need everything from lessons on healthy relationships in schools, to refuges all around the country for women to escape to, to holistic and timely practical and emotional support.
This would need effective action by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, by the Department for Education, by the Department of Health and Social Care, by the Department for Work and Pensions – not a new law.
The Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill received Royal Assent on 10th May 2018, and so is now an Act of Parliament. Politicians of all parties welcomed the new law, saying it will “protect lifetime tenants who have to flee their home” (Heather Wheeler, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government) and “do a large amount of good for many domestic abuse victims across the country” (Melanie Onn, Great Grimsby, Labour). The debate in Parliament talked about removing a key barrier that prevents domestic abuse victims from leaving their perpetrator.
If so, that is to be welcomed.
But it is also important to know that various details and concerns have been left until the guidance is published.
One significant amendment that was not passed was about new housing association tenancies. Many women experiencing domestic abuse will move to a housing association property – including in areas where all the social housing is housing association and not council housing.
However, the Government limited the Act to local authorities, and said “housing associations will continue to have the freedom, which they have now, to offer lifetime tenancies wherever they consider it appropriate” (Heather Wheeler).
Some housing associations are developing good practice. For example, Gentoo, a housing association that provides over 29,000 homes in North East England, has recently produced a report showing how good practice by housing associations on domestic abuse makes financial as well as moral sense. But others are not so good.
So, what about housing associations? – we’ll have to wait and see… The Government has left it that “We expect housing associations to take very seriously their responsibilities for people fleeing domestic violence and abuse” (Heather Wheeler).