Source · Select Committees · Home Affairs Committee
Recommendation 5
5
Deferred
Mandate annual mapping and update of central and local VAWG funding
Conclusion
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
Government Response Summary
The government stated that individual departments are responsible for value for money and highlighted the upcoming Duty to Collaborate in the Victims and Prisoners Act, which will require local bodies to coordinate commissioning, but did not commit to annually mapping and publishing VAWG spending at either local or central government levels.
Government Response
Deferred
HM Government
Deferred
The responsibility of assessing value for money criteria rests with individual government departments, each of which is accountable for funding and supporting delivery in their respective policy areas where local authorities have a role. The Safer Streets Mission will continue to work across government to ensure strategic coordination. Specifically, the Duty to Collaborate provisions of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 will, once implemented, ensure a more strategic approach to local commissioning in England for victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and serious violence. It will require PCCs, local authorities, and Integrated Care Boards to collaborate when commissioning and, as part of this, consult on, produce, and implement a joint local strategy and needs assessment which demonstrates how they are fulfilling this duty. Funding provided by MHCLG to Tier One local authorities in England under Part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act is allocated using a Relative Needs Formula, which considers population size, levels of deprivation, and regional labour cost variations (via an Area Cost Adjustment). Additional funding is also provided to Tier Two authorities to cover the administrative costs of supporting their Tier One authorities, for example, through the provision of data and information. This is distributed on an equal-share basis, with adjustments for wage cost differences. To better understand the impact of this funding, MHCLG commissioned a three-year independent evaluation of how local authorities have implemented the duty. This included direct engagement with victims and their children to assess the difference that support in safe accommodation has made to their lives. The evaluation found that the duty has had a meaningful and positive impact—helping survivors feel safer, rebuild their lives, and improving support for children. It also highlighted opportunities to improve service coordination and value for money. Areas for further progress include strengthening qualitative outcome measures; embedding survivor voice in local decision-making; improving inclusive commissioning, especially of ‘by and for’ services; and enhancing cross-boundary collaboration to improve consistency and reach. MHCLG is considering these findings carefully. More broadly, any services commissioned across government supporting victims of VAWG will reflect outcomes focused on victim need. This will be a key part of the government’s VAWG strategy to improve support to victims and survivors to cope, recover, and move forward following their experiences. 3. Allocation of funding