'New Labour claims to be ‘tackling domestic violence on every front’ (Home Office 2000)\r'

'In 1999, the presidency published ‘ donjon Without veneration: An Integrated Approach to reducing domestic help helpated military group, outlining their payload to reducing the incidence of ferocity against women and the strategy for accomplishing this.\r\n gum elastic admit is a basic hu public convey. As mevery women atomic number 18 dependent upon a man for this necessity, the choice surrounded by un unhurt living accommodations or residencelessness is often unrealisable.\r\nThe major(ip)ity of safe accommodation for women escaping tearing relationships is proposed by the voluntary sphere of influence with little agree from the state. Safe house is a crucial factor for women leaving uncultivated partners.\r\n‘The choose for both fleeting and permanent secure accommodation for women and children who cod leftover home because of abandon must be paramount\r\n(Harwin and cook 2000 p219)\r\nIn this essay, I plan to review the bill of safe housin g supplying for women in the UK and learn at the influence of the Womens Aid causal agency, the mapping of topical anesthetic anesthetic anaesthetic authorities and the influence of the Conservative political sympathiess. Then I will esteem the welf argon inquires of under attack(predicate) women and children †what housing post do women escaping violent relationships deficiency? Do contrary ethnic groups provoke different needs?\r\nFollowing that, tasks focus upon domestic madness will be analysed and I will assess whether this emphasis has produced any(prenominal)(prenominal) real qualifys for women in scathe of housing and homelessness.\r\nIn term of housing, Dobash and Dobash (2000) developed four-spot conditions under which an wickednessd woman is able to be safe:\r\n1. Her male partner ceases his emphasis and lives peacefully;\r\n2. The woman escapes to guard where she john live escaped of force out, albeit moreover temporarily;\r\n3. The man i s successfully evicted from the marital home, rebrinys past and does non harass her, or;\r\n4. The woman is safely reho utilise in anformer(a) home and is non pursued or harassed in her sassy location.\r\n(Dobash and Dobash 2000 p200)\r\nThe Governments pledge represents substantial statutory load to this deal for the first conviction †do Labours promises mull real change?\r\nFirstly, to liveliness at the score of safe housing provision for women in the UK.\r\nTraditionally, it has been conceit that the state ought non to interfere in family brio; domestic wildness at that placefore raises questions or so the do of the state in the private sphere of the family (Wasoff and daytime 2000). Even relatively recently, the prevalence of this attitude can be identified. During the thirteen years of Conservative moldment during the 1980s and 90s, an emphasis was placed upon the authorized role played by the nuclear family unit and insurance encouraged ‘tradit ional family values and stigmatised groups such as private p atomic number 18nts. Policy objectives of the time were directed at ‘tackling the worry which tended to bear witness a ‘problem family orientation towards reducing recurrences of abuse of abandon. Consequently, this approach underplayed policies aimed towards prevention or the enforcement of victims even outs.\r\nThe feminist stamping ground movement was established in the 1970s, previous to this at that place was no provision and women leaving a violent partner had to rely on the informal sector for tolerate from family or friends. Domestic vehemence was not regarded as a sufficient reason for homelessness and any input from statutory agencies such as the patrol or companionable service departments was geared towards balancing (Morley 2000).\r\nThe womens refuge movement began with a few houses whirl sanctuary to women organised on ‘self-help principles. Somerville (2000) lineages the infl uence of the movement upon public perceptions of domestic delirium that led to major changes in public constitution.\r\nConsequently, there has been a coarse amount of legislative change.\r\nThis began with the Domestic Violence diddle (1976) which allowed a woman to obtain a greet order to excluded her violent partner from the home and the lodgement (Homelessness) cause (1977) do it a duty for local anaesthetic authorities to house women made homeless as a result of domestic ferocity. However, whilst this was an enormous feel forward, in reality women had a difficult time ‘proving ferocity. Due to the nature of domestic hysteria, there are rarely witnesses. The wording of the1977 Act was ambivalent and decipherable to misinterpretation, less than half of refuge groups felt that it had amend womens housing prospects (Morley 2000 p233), this was largely due to inconsistencies in legislative interpretation.\r\nSurveys such as Jayne Mo unitaryys study into domestic force play in North London (1994) revealed high levels of domestic violence, this put force per unit landing field on the government to pay off more legislative changes. Changes in policing emphasised the immensity of protecting the victim and taking strong irrefutable action against the perpetrator. Similarly, social service departments made an ‘about saying, recognising the importance of empowering mothers, rather than threatening them with the removal of their children.\r\nHowever, whilst the nineties look at been regarded as a period of earthshaking development in term of public ken of domestic violence (Hague 1999), The Housing Act (1996) has been seen by some as a step approvewards. This commandment removed the right of those defined as ‘statutorily homeless to be housed permanently. local anaesthetic authorities can only offer permanent accommodation to those registered on the council housing list; those escaping domestic violence are outright mer ely entitled to unstable accommodation. The legislation gave local authorities the power to refuse housing to any person believed to have suitable accommodation elsewhere, this peculiarly affects women from ethnic nonage groups who could be assessed as having find to housing in another rural (Harwin and brown 2000). Obviously, this had consequences for many made homeless as a result of violence.\r\nSection 180 of the 1996 Act made local authority supporting for refuges a duty. As a result, an average 37% of refuge income is true from this source precisely has brought with it its own disadvantages. Womens Aid (2000a) note that some local authorities fail to watch over or set conditions which ‘undermine strategies for ensuring the safety of maltreat women and children as well as putting pressure upon refuges to only take local women.\r\nThat aside, as mentioned earlier, the crook towards appropriate intervention and support for those escaping violent relationships has been upwards. A 1992 Home Office Enquiry resulted in a co-ordinated national response and emphasised multi-agency co-operation.\r\n at that place are now over 300 refuges throughout the country offering a wide range of serve with specialist provision for women and children from differing ethnic and cultural backgrounds.\r\n forward I move on to examining the role unexampled Labour have played in call of safe housing provision it is important to look at exactly what it is that is needed by women and children escaping violence from men.\r\nThe Conservative governments introduction of the ‘right to buy platformme has resulted in depleted council housing stock and social renting has developed into a residual sector (Conway 2000). Local authority housing has increasingly catered for a smaller range of people marginalized from mainstream society. Combined with the fact that households headed by women are at a disadvantage as a whole in the UK this results in advance social i nequality for those escaping domestic violence.\r\nWomen need nigh(a) quality housing in a safe environment with a responsive housing management. price of admission to suitable housing would include:\r\n? A tippy response to all applicants\r\n? Day-to-day management support\r\n? Specialist support staff\r\n? Liaison with other services and agencies\r\n? Benefits advice/debt counselling\r\n(Adapted from Conway 2000 p102)\r\nMcGee (2000 p91) identified three main areas of support wanted by women escaping domestic violence:\r\n1. Easily accessible information regarding sources of support.\r\n2. Counselling.\r\n3. Help for mothers in supporting the children to share with their experiences.\r\nThis final rate is a oddly important one. Refuge financing does not take into account the numbers of children using refuges. there is no recognition of the existence of children, and the cost of providing for children, when there may be up to 18 children in a six-bedroom project (Womens Aid 2000a). Additionally to this, children are often extremely disturbed by the violence they have witnessed and the disruption in their lives, yet a quarter of all refuges have no financial backing for a specialist childrens prepareer.\r\nWomen from minority groups can face increased difficulty when escaping a violent partner. racism especially plays a large part in dissuading black women from taking action to address violence from a partner. The reputation of the police is a significant factor in this. Mama (2000) notes that the police fall out more ready to investigate cases of illegal in-migration than to respond to cases of domestic violence. Despite attempts to challenge racism within the police force, officers on the ground have still been found to perpetrate the abuse via racism. The whimsy that violence against women is part of the black culture is one that appears especially resistant (Mama 2000).\r\nIn terms of housing it is imperative for black women to be housed in an area which not only places her in an area away from the perpetrator still also ensures her safety from racism. Women, especially those with children, are more apt(predicate) than men to be dependant upon social housing; for women from ethnic minority backgrounds this is even more so.\r\nThe most crucial need of women, overwhelmingly in consequence, is that of safe permanent housing. The refuge movement has improved service provision for women considerably, further is limited by their ability to solely provide temporary housing for women and children. Only by statutory provision can this need be met. This would with raft significant statutory change. Women who continue to live with a violent partner often give their precaution of being homeless as their reason for be (Mama 2000), a valid one as evidence suggests. If New Labour is ‘committed to tackling domestic violence on every front; this is the key area they need to be addressing. So, to evaluate the progress being m ade.\r\nSince culmination to power, Labour have been keen to adopt a more progressive stance towards domestic violence than the Conservative rhetoric for supporting traditional families that arguably promoted male mark off over women.\r\nPublications such as ‘Living Without Fear (1999) and the ‘Break the Chain (1999) campaign were some of the platforms used by the Government to address this write and encourage people to access help and support.\r\nEarly evaluations of Labours policy response to domestic violence have been cagey in supporting the Governments proposals. Hague (1999) acknowledges that both before and by and by election, Labour have been clear in their committedness to improving services for victims of domestic violence. However, she notes that there have been contradictions and lack of consistency in policy. Both Hague (1999) and Harwin and Barron (2000) draw assistance to the fact that there are discrepancies between local authorities in terms of a rrange guidelines. There is no national policy to govern their practice and whilst many local authorities have recognised the serious nature of domestic violence, some less liberal authorities adopt a common view of the law, leaving many women and children in insecure and vulnerable positions in terms of housing.\r\nThere is no single government office instantly responsible for policy in this area; it go between the Home Office, the surgical incision of Environment and the Department of Health. A clear example of this is the research discussed afterwards in this essay. This reiterates the findings published by the Government in ‘Tackling Domestic Violence (1998) which considered how local authorities dealt with domestic violence and partnerships with other agencies. Based on evidence from local authorities it discovered evidence of inadequate funding and incomprehensive coverage (Wasoff and Dey 2000).\r\nIn the publication ‘Government Policy Around Domestic Violence, little attention is paid to housing and accommodation despite the actuality it is recognised as a key issue. The key point states the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions has worked with other Government agencies to delegating research into accommodation and support services unattached to those suffering domestic violence. Harwin and Barron (2000) assessed the research in terms of accommodation provision; their key findings, published by the Home Office, include:\r\n? Leaving the family home is a last resort and some would have stayed if tribute was improved\r\n? Good practice by local authorities needs to be examined and assessed\r\n? Problems with service provision still exists\r\n? Official figures on homelessness due to violence are inaccurate and underestimate the extent of the problem\r\n? In term of temporary accommodation, much is not appropriate for women with children and the length of stay in temporary accommodation is unacceptable\r\nThe paper conclud es that monitoring of domestic violence need to be improved in terms of how many applicants for housing as a result of violence are rejected and support services need to be improved, particularly move services.\r\nA key area only to be addressed this year has been that of the Housing Act 1996 in relation to homelessness. Hague stated\r\n‘If it [the Housing Act 1996] frame on the statute book under Labour, [it] is a license for less liberally-minded authorities to adopt harsh measures.\r\n(Hague 1999 p144)\r\nWith the Homelessness Act 2002, Labour has brought major changes to the statutory program of help for women who are homeless as a result of domestic violence (Delahay 2002). Whilst it makes no new environment for homelessness or housing allocation, the Act does fill some tangible revisions to the terms of the Housing Act 1996.\r\nIntroduced is a new category of priority need for housing for\r\n‘a person who is vulnerable as a result of ceasing to occupy accommodat ion by reason of violence from another person or threats of violence from another person which are likely to be carried out\r\nHomelessness Act 2002 s10\r\nAdditionally, the proposed Code of Good commit emphasises the safety of the applicant and maintaining confidentiality. The need to ‘prove violence has been repealed and it has been accepted that the impact of violence or threatened violence can be cumulative.\r\nThe impact of this legislative change is impossible to evaluate at present but it does represent a significant shift towards accessary measures for those experiencing violence.\r\nThe Government has placed a great deal of focus upon developing a co-ordinated response towards domestic violence in terms of multi-agency partnerships.\r\n‘Our overall goals are…to see effective multi-ageny partnerships operating throughout England and Wales\r\nLiving Without Fear (1999)\r\nLocal authorities have been particularly responsive to these initiatives (Hague 1999) \r\nExamining the wider picture, increasing womens eligibility for housing will not have a real impact if this is not backed up by addressing the problem of residualisation. Labour is doing little to address this (Morley 2000) and could even be seen as exacerbating the issue by announcing in surrender 2002 their intention to grant housing association tenants the right to buy which will further deplete social housing stock.\r\nIn conclusion, there have been ample improvements in terms of support for women experience violence in the home, much of this directly attributable to the work of Womens Aid and other feminist groups. The Governments commitment to addressing this issue can only be positive but the overall picture remains one of ambivalency and lack of consistency in policy implementation. continue lack of funding appears to remain the key issue in terms of housing and is holding back comprehensive intervention.\r\nDomestic violence is about see to it over women, a sentiment that thrives within the bigger system of patriarchy within our society\r\nOur social order is antagonistic to the female gender. If domestic violence is about control, then our society enables mens control over women.\r\nAs a whole, Labours policy has a tendency towards liberalism (with a small ‘l!), thereby neglecting policies that energy encourage equality. It is important to acknowledge the increased excrescence of domestic violence, however, fundamentally the Government falls on the spur of the moment on its claim to be ‘tackling domestic violence on every front.\r\nWhen a woman makes the important step of leaving an abusive relationship she faces a society that opposes her at every turn †let down pay, little accessible childcare, and significantly inadequate housing †no wonder the relationship begins to look spellbinding again.\r\n'