Inching forward on domestic violence
The ‘co-ordinated community response’ and putting it in practice in Cheshire
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 7844159 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Gill Hague (University of Bristol, corresponding author), Sue Bridge (Cheshire West and Chester) |
| Year | 2008 |
| Volume | 17 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 185-199 |
| Publication date | 2008-09-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Gender Studies (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0958-9236 • E-ISSN: 1465-3869 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/09589230802204134 |
| OpenAlex | W1985789809 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 8 |
| References cited | 9 |
Violence against women is at the sharp end of gender oppression. In combating domestic violence specifically, 'co-ordinated community responses' are now widely recognised as the best way forward, bringing together all relevant organisations to build pro-active, preventative projects with the key involvement of women's domestic violence services. The Cheshire Domestic Abuse Partnership in the UK is conducting pioneering work along these lines. From 2000 to 2003, this project was funded and evaluated through the Home Office Crime Reduction Programme. This paper builds on the material from the evaluation, supplemented with an analysis of recent developments until 2007 which have maintained the initiative at the forefront of domestic abuse work. Thus, the article is a discussion paper, rather than an evaluation report (available elsewhere). Using a gender analysis of power and control to understand domestic abuse, the Cheshire project melds together data monitoring, improved policing, training, outreach to abuse survivors, and domestic violence projects in schools, in an active mix under mature multi-agency leadership. Its central focus, deriving from the principles of the women's activist movement, is the empowerment of abused women. The Cheshire initiative has much to teach us about how to move forward in making women's and children's lives safer. The team evaluated five large projects overall, of which Cheshire was one. Dr Ravi Thiara from Warwick contributed to the fieldwork in Cheshire and Dr Ellen Malos was also part of the original team there. Notes 1. The methods used in the evaluation included: (1) collection of all police data and data from the Data-Monitoring Project across all agencies in the county throughout the evaluation; (2) analysis of data on incidence, arrest rate, charge rate, prosecution and conviction collected from the Police and the Data-Monitoring Project; (3) comparison of these data at time periods throughout the three years (including baseline and final data); (4) three data-sets of interviews with key stakeholders and local agencies; (5) three data-sets of interviews with project members; (6) data-set of in-depth interviews with abuse survivors using the Outreach Service and mobile phones/alarms; (7) four in-depth case studies of women's experiences of services; (8) 'before' and 'after' questionnaires on education productions in schools; (9) three qualitative project surveys of survivors' views; (10) observation at project and team meetings, project management meetings etc.; and (11) collection of all documentation and document content analysis. Specifically, overall outcomes were assessed through systematic collection of all police and agency data (more than 21,000 cases overall) and comparison with baseline data, plus comparison with police statistics on reporting, arrest, charging and repeat incidents. Data-monitoring was assessed through Data-Monitoring Project data (n = 14,000), documentary analysis, and three sets of key stakeholder and project interviews phased across the evaluation (n = 84). Camera use and target hardening were assessed through comparison of arrest and charging data in cases where cameras were used (n = 90) or were not used (n = 402), through the data-sets of (a) survivor (n = 22), (b) key stakeholder (n = 20), and (c) project (n = 64) interviews and comparison of outcomes for women with and without mobile phones. The Outreach Project was assessed through the triangulation of data from the survivor interview data-set (n = 22), the three key stakeholder (n = 64) and project interview data-sets (n = 20), statistics collected from the Data-Monitoring Project and the Outreach Project, and the three project qualitative surveys of service user views (n = approx. 200). The Education Project was assessed through the CDAP by before and after questionnaires to students (n = 960) and teachers (n = 95) participating in productions, statistical analysis on each production, and the three sets of key stakeholder/project interview data-sets
Attendance · Criminology · Domestic violence · Empowerment · General partnership · Oppression · Outreach · Poison control · Political science · Politics · Public relations · Social science · Sociology · Suicide prevention · Community Health and Development · Engineering · Homelessness and Social Issues · Intimate Partner and Family Violence · Law · Medicine
Building the Evidence for Family Violence Policy Reform
Enacting Entangled Practice
Domestic violence and multi-agency risk assessment conferences (Maracs)
Learning From Each Other
Domestic Abuse and Elder Abuse in Wales
Women’s Refuges and Critical Social Work
Interviewer
Key agent and survivor recommendations for intervention in honour-based violence in the UK
Is Anyone Listening?
Children's Perspectives on Domestic Violence
A Review of Collaborative Partnerships as a Strategy for Improving Community Health
What Works in Reducing Domestic Violence? A Comprehensive Guide for Professionals
Battered Women’s Multitude of Needs
An Examination of the Effectiveness of Domestic Violence Coordinating Councils
Women, Violence and Social Change
A Multi-Level Analysis of Community Coordinating Councils
| Citations per year | 0.62 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2013 - 2021 (9) |
| Highly cited | No |