Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls: Funding

The term ‘violence against women and girls’ needs to be clearly defined by the Government to ensure that rates can be measured by different organisations in a consistent way. (Conclusion, Paragraph 7)

We recommend that a new standardised definition of VAWG, to be used across government, police and the third sector, should form part of the Government’s VAWG strategy. We further recommend that the Government reports annually to the Committee on the level of VAWG reported against this definition. (Recommendation, Paragraph 8) Collaboration and funding gaps

Assessing the Home Office’s previous work, we are not convinced that it has the capacity or imagination to deliver on the Government’s target to halve VAWG in a decade. The Government needs to be more transparent about the work that cross-government groups are undertaking in order to build confidence and trust in the Government’s ability to work in a coherent way to tackle VAWG. (Conclusion, Paragraph 12)

We recommend that minutes of cross-government groups that have been set up to tackle VAWG should be published as soon as practicable after their meetings. (Recommendation, Paragraph 13)

Mapping of where central and local government are spending money to tackle VAWG should lead to reduced duplication of services as well as fewer gaps in the services funded. Each local authority should annually map, and update, their funding provision in the interests of transparency and accountability, and to deliver more effective spending of public money. Central cross-government mapping of funding for VAWG should be undertaken and annually updated. (Conclusion, Paragraph 17) 23

We recommend that local authorities, police and crime commissioners and mayors conduct mapping exercises to identify where they allocate funding to tackle VAWG. We recommend that the Government publish alongside the VAWG strategy its cross-government mapping of where funding to tackle VAWG is being targeted, and provide annual updates. (Recommendation, Paragraph 18) Measuring outcomes of services

We are unclear how the Government is assessing the interventions that are shown to work, as we do not see a link between the data required and the effectiveness of a service. This gives us little confidence that funding is being directed to what works. (Conclusion, Paragraph 22)

We recommend that the Home Office establishes, as soon as practicable, a cross-government audit to identify which data it is necessary to collect for evaluation purposes. The findings of this audit should be used to establish more consistent reporting metrics across government, to both reduce the burden to funding applicants and ensure that these metrics are better linked to the effectiveness of the funded services. (Recommendation, Paragraph 23)

We are concerned that current value for money criteria are skewing funding decisions in favour of larger providers who are better able to meet existing value for money assessments. There needs to be a reassessment of value for money criteria for funding in relation to VAWG. Services to tackle VAWG are not commercial services; this should be reflected in the balance between value for money and outcomes for service users. It should also be reflected in the balance between quantitative data and qualitative data. (Conclusion, Paragraph 25)

We recommend that the Government re-assesses the value for money criteria for VAWG funding awarded to local authorities. They should be weighted towards qualitative data to ensure that the impact on people’s lives is a more significant factor than cost. (Recommendation, Paragraph 26) Allocation of funding

Short-term funding can severely limit the impact of VAWG services. We welcome the steps that the Minister has taken so far to improve the decision making process, and the consequent considerable reduction in the underspend, but there is scope to be bolder and go further. (Conclusion, Paragraph 29) 24

We recommend that longer term funding for VAWG services, for three to five years, should be the norm, unless there are extenuating circumstances. This should be accompanied by an evaluation of the effectiveness of long-term funding. (Recommendation, Paragraph 30)

There needs to be certainty of funding for ‘by and for’ services. These services deliver significant positive benefits for their users, which they would not be able to access elsewhere. (Conclusion, Paragraph 36)

We recommend the establishment of a national ringfenced pot of money for ‘by and for’ services. This pot should be designed so ‘by and for’ services apply for funding using a standardised bidding process to minimise the administrative burden. (Recommendation, Paragraph 37)

In the long term, funding for prevention is vital if the Government’s target of halving VAWG in a decade has a chance of being met. Currently there is insufficient funding of prevention programmes, in part because of the difficulties in measuring impact. This difficulty should not be a barrier to funding prevention programmes; the Home Office needs to find a way of supporting interventions that will be most effective in the long term even within a system that is geared towards the short term. (Conclusion, Paragraph 41)

We recommend that the Government partners with universities and the third sector to fund and promote research into the effectiveness of different prevention measures, including research into primary prevention. The Government should inform the Committee of its proposals for acting on this recommendation within six months. (Recommendation, Paragraph 42)

If there is not additional funding to invest in primary prevention the Government will not meet its target to halve VAWG in a decade. If the Government is to have a chance of meeting its target, it needs to be creative—for example in tackling online VAWG—in assessing how it can invest in prevention work with the whole population. (Conclusion, Paragraph 46)

We recommend that the Government ringfences money to invest in primary prevention in future Spending Reviews, based on the evidence produced by commissioned research. (Recommendation, Paragraph 47) 25