Will compulsory 'joint working' actually work in tackling VAWG?
Image by Pexels at Pixabay
This morning, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) published their report on the policing response to violence against women and girls (VAWG). The report was commissioned by the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, following the murder of Sarah Everard in March this year.
Key findings included the following:
Cases of VAWG are being closed by the police without charge;
There are gaps in the recording of data on VAWG;
Dealing with the police is a postcode lottery;
Agencies need to work more closely together in protecting women and girls;
Violence against women and girls needs to be prioritized.
My first reaction to this was, “No shit, tell us something we haven’t already heard hundreds of times”. However, this report had used terms that stood out to me: mandatory and statutory. These terms mean that something is required by law, in other words, its compulsory and there’s no getting out of it.
Among the report’s recommendations,
the introduction of a new statutory duty for partners to work together to protect women and girls;
the development of a statutory framework for wider partnership working, which we suggest could have the same intent and focus as the frameworks in place for child protection in England and Wales; and
other work to better define and mandate joint working arrangements.
Campaigners and academics like me often use the words ‘mandatory’ and ‘statutory’ when we’re asked what needs to change if we are to tackle VAWG. We argue that those working with people affected by VAWG should have mandatory training. We argue that data recording and reporting around VAWG should be mandatory. Changes like these automatically result in a shift in priorities on the part of organizations. When an organization is compelled to do something by law, they’re a hell of a lot more likely to get it done.
It’s like when we you haven’t done your fire safety refresher training at work. You get hassled, you get nagged. If you still don’t do it, hello disciplinary proceedings. Why does this happen? Because it relates to something mandatory that your employer must do, the organization will get into trouble if they don’t. Wouldn’t that be great if that was the same for domestic abuse or stalking training for criminal justice organizations?
That’s not exactly what’s being proposed here.
It’s basically suggesting that we force organizations to work together. This isn’t a bad thing. I’ve seen too many examples of survivors being ping-ponged around the system, of some organizations not knowing what to do with them, of others not doing what they were supposed to be doing. Of there being no overarching nationwide guidance about processes and procedures.
The report points to the child protection statutory framework system as something that the VAWG approach should be modelled on. Fair point. VAWG is too big an issue for one organization alone, so it needs a whole system approach involving police, courts, probation, health, adult services, children’s services, education etc. The statutory guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children compels three organizational entities - local authorities, health (via the local clinical commissioning group) and police - to work together. The approach that these partners should take is also clearly laid out, and they are measured on their performance.
This is all well and good, but its not a panacea. Despite the child protection statutory framework, children are still neglected and abused. Children are still killed by their abusers. Roughly every ten days in England and Wales, a child under five dies as a result of a homicide[i].
Two women a week are being killed by their partners or ex-partners. If that figure was to be reduced by compelling joint working, that would clearly be a good thing.
But whilst compulsory joint working may be helpful, it won’t solve the problem altogether.
The report recommends that ‘statutory’ is applied to how organizations work in tackling VAWG. This is very different from what organizations do in tackling VAWG, and the core values driving these actions.
That requires change to everyday practices, which are underpinned by a system-wide ideology that condemns VAWG. The values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of all the individuals working with women and girls needs to be addressed. One way of doing this is through mandatory training on harms like sexual violence, domestic abuse, and stalking. Make training compulsory for all staff. Make it something that organizations must report on. Make it an integral part of performance measurement. Make funding conditional on it.
Everyone working with people affected by VAWG have been subjected to society-wide misogynistic myths and stereotypes about women and girls. For instance, with regards to domestic violence, “Why don’t victims just leave?”, “Drug and alcohol abuse causes domestic violence”, “Victims provoke their partner’s violence”, “Abusers are mentally ill”, “Domestic violence is about losing control”, “They’re both as bad as each other”. These are the kind of beliefs that serve to minimize domestic abuse, to justify it, and lead to cases being dropped. These are exactly the kind of things that can be tackled by expert-led training about the realities of domestic abuse. The kind of training that changes minds is the kind of training that saves lives. THIS is what needs to be statutory.
Some good may come of compelling organizations to sit around the same table when addressing VAWG. But it is vital that individuals within those organizations come to that table free of the damaging beliefs and attitudes that perpetuate the very harms they’re trying to tackle.
[i] Figures calculated from Office for National Statistics dataset.
