Are Independent Charities Doing More for Victims of Domestic Violence than the Government?

Between 2012-13, Home Office statistics said that 76 women were murdered by a partner or ex-partner. Between 2013-14, the number of (reported) domestic violence cases rose by 10.7 percent. The number of cases of violence against women, as detailed in the CPS report, grows year on year, like a forest fire no one can contain.

Such a rapid rise of female domestic violence victims in this country speaks of major parliamentary neglect, but the political narrative that deals with the violence is loquacious. We all seem to be in agreement that violence against women is a vast, horrific problem, without ever quite getting to the root – or root system – of the problem. More and more, it seems like women's rights activists and independent charities aren't just the ones uncovering the reality of violence against women – they're the ones dealing with it.

In 2012, Karen Ingala Smith, activist and CEO of the independent charity nia, started her blog Counting Dead Women. On it, she lists every case of femicide in the UK. Not all the murders were committed by the partners or the ex-partners of these women. In fact, Karen found that, in 2012, 16 women were killed by their son. In 2013 it was 13 women and, at the end of September in 2014, nine. "It's important that we realise that the issue is not limited to women killed by their partners and ex-partners," she says.

"I started Counting Dead Women in January 2012 when, right at the start of the year, I noticed the large number of women killed by men – eight women in the first three days of the year alone – and was angry that connections weren't being seen between these instances of men's fatal violence." Official records will show if a woman has been killed by a partner, relative or child, but the sex of the murderer is never revealed. Smith's pioneering blog has now led to the development of The Femicide Census, which will launch next month in collaboration with Women's Aid.

Women's charities like nia play a huge role in highlighting the social problems that are at the core of violence towards women, with campaigns like Smith's serving to highlights the different types of violence towards women in the UK – the term "violence" does little to uncover the varying shades of menace that Polly Neate, CEO of Women's Aid, says is product of widespread sexism prevalent in modern British society.

"The abuse of women and children is underpinned by sexism, which is pervasive in terms of people's attitudes towards men, women and relationships. But also in the way many of our institutions have developed historically and work today". Listing the culpable institutions, she says: "the court system, health authorities, police, media, religious institutions, work, government, social services and economics".

The methods employed by women's charities to try and steer things in a different direction are vast. Nia, for example, is one of the only organisations with services built on feminist values. "As feminists we recognise that power imbalances exist between individuals and groups," says Smith. "Not just according to sex, but race, class and other forms of inequality, too. When we talk about empowerment, we understand that inequality limits choice and life chances. Our services are designed to address the results of these other forms of inequality, too."

Empowerment is a key word. Smith tells me that nia's research has shown that abused women are more likely to become abusive and commit crimes themselves, so they developed Safe Choices – a service that approaches young women likely to violently offend before they've done so.

British women at risk of domestic violence desperately need these services, but they're in trouble. Women's refuges – born of the 70s feminist movement – are the most successful way of helping women escape domestic violence, but, since 2010, 17 percent of them have closed. Many are struggling to stay running on limited funds. In Women's Aid's 2014 annual survey, they found that, in one day, 112 women with 84 children were denied access to a refuge and that 31 percent of refuge referrals are refused due to lack of space. As Yvette Cooper wrote in the Guardian last November, "Shockingly, the national network of refuges is starting to crumble before our eyes."

It was Cooper's former Labour government, though, that left a legacy of cuts to domestic violence services, and our current government that continues to put women at further risk of violence. Theresa May's March 2014 HMIC report warned of "alarming and unacceptable" shortcomings in the way police were handling domestic violence, with only eight out of 43 police forces responding to domestic violence "well".

In the face of failure at police level, services and refuges aren't just helpful – they're essential. They save young women's lives. So why are they in trouble?

The fate of our women's refuges is in direct relation to the localisation of services, which has made a competitive business out of funding bids with many councils forced to put their services to tender to local housing associations. It's important to remember that the government have, and do, put money into refuge services, but it's not without its controversies.

In November 2014, the government allocated £10 million of funding to women's refuge services, but as the grant was announced on 25 November 2014 with a final deadline of 16 January 2015, it doesn't leave much time for an average-sized charity to make a successful bid. Getting to the money isn't easy. In the meantime, localisation is letting women down every single day.

Without viable refuge options, many women are becoming homeless in order to leave partners, or end up staying with their abusers without an adequate support system they can trust will work in their favour. In 2014 the most high-profile murders of women – Maria Stubbings (who was, it seems, failed by the police) Clare Wood ("not protected") and Casey Brittle (the victim of "systematic failures") – took place in their own home. In 2015, we need a national response to refuge services in order for them to be effective. Otherwise, where can these women go?

"Changes to how domestic violence services are funded over the past few years mean that the vast majority of specialist domestic violence services are now funded through their local authorities," says Polly Neate, Chief Executive of Women's Aid. "Recent cuts to budgets and decisions not to fund specialist services in some areas are having a severe impact on their capacity and ability to help the women and children who need them."

It's crucial that women's refuges permit women to leave their borough in order to escape abuse, but it's not always possible. Some areas have been forced to cap the amount of non-local women they can take. Leeds, for example, has a limit of 20 percent. This obviously puts many women in an impossible position because, in order to escape, you need to have somewhere to escape to. To restart your life, you need to be able to move to another part of the country.

"Women and children escaping domestic violence often have to move across the country to escape persistent and manipulative ex-partners who are determined to track them down to further abuse them," says Neate. "That's why the national network of refuges was developed. They allow families to travel as far as they need to escape abuse."

In 2015, any kind of systematic addressing and preventing of violence against women will rely on government legislation that listens to female voices in diverse and disparate landscapes, from service users to refuge staffers. Some of the voices not being heard are those of trans women. Who knows better that many trans women don't feel they can comfortably access a women's refuge service than the trans woman who has avoided self-referring to a women's refuge because she doesn't feel comfortable? Who worries that she won't be accepted, or, more importantly, allowed to stay there?

I spoke to a woman who wishes to remain anonymous who explained that, in fact, the reality was very different to what she'd feared. "I visited a women's refuge for two days over Christmas. I was worried at first, thinking, 'Would I be welcomed?' In the end, I didn't feel awkward at all." And neither should she have. In the UK it isn't illegal to exclude trans women from spaces for women only, but women's charities work to the law: trans women are women.

In order to stop gendered abuse, we need to diversify the infrastructure designed to "tackle" domestic violence. Localisation disrespects women at government level. It operates under the cliché that domestic violence is a sort-it-out-on-home-turf problem, a case of local good will solving all. By localising funding, the government marginalise domestic violence as a regional issue, a case of frayed tempers and angry words.

We need policies that acknowledge and understand the nuances of service user's needs. "Refuges are so much more than just a roof over a head," says Sandra Horley, Chief Executive of Refuge. "We are in real danger of returning to the days of Cathy Come Home. Women experiencing domestic violence will be faced with a stark choice: flee to live rough on the streets with their children or remain with their abuser and risk further violence – or worse." She reiterates how ensuring the provision of refuges shouldn't be at the discretion of local authorities, saying, "Funding should be ring fenced nationally. Domestic violence is a national problem. It needs a national response."

Women's charities react to the intricacies of being a victim, or at risk of, domestic violence. You can't offer blanket care for something that isn't a blanket issue. The Emma Project, for example, is the only refuge with services developed specifically for women escaping violence who also have severe substance abuse issues. More than a third of the women being treated have also been exploited through prostitution and the service offers unparalleled expertise in this area. It is the only of its sort in the country. But women outside of Hackney – where the refuge is – can't access Emma, and most refuges have to turn away women with substance abuse issues by law.

Targeted multidisciplinary services are the key to successfully combatting violence against women. Gene Feder developed the IRIS model, which is now used by women's charities across the country. The scheme educates health workers on how to properly deal with domestic violence and the myriad after-effect. "As a GP, I knew that there was virtually no training about domestic violence at medical undergraduate and postgraduate level," he says. "So, together with colleagues in the DVA specialist sector, we designed a training and support programme for general practice." IRIS is now implemented nationally and delivered by independent voluntary organisations providing services to women.

What these initiatives do is recognise the power and control model which undermines women daily. It's their theoretical thinking and cutting-edge developments based on this model that have a proven track record of success in saving women's lives. Localisation of domestic violence services towards women and girls circulates a negative message to both women and men. Only when we penetrate the underlying core of domestic violence can we even think about eliminating it. What we need from the government is crystal clear: centralised action, and lots of it.

@gracelenabanks

More like this on VICE:

Does Domestic Violence Actually Rise During the Holidays?

I Was a Feminist Victim of Domestic Violence

Oscar Pistorius's Sends a Worrying Message About Violence Against Women