The Changing Futures programme is a £91.8 million joint funded initiative between Government and The National Lottery Community Fund, the largest community funder in the UK. The programme funds local organisations working in partnership in 15 local areas across England to better support those who experience multiple disadvantage.
Over the last two years, MEAM has brought the local programme leads together for regular discussions about key aspects of the work. In this series of blog posts, we reflect on some of the topics covered, drawing on their insight and input from others in the Changing Futures programme and the wider MEAM Approach network.
In this blog we explore Violence Against Women and Girls, how it relates to multiple disadvantage, and provide a few examples of the challenges that local areas are seeking to resolve.
Violence against Women and Girls and Multiple Disadvantage: Challenges and Responses
It’s a basic reality that the needs of men and the needs of women who experience multiple disadvantage are different. Many women who experience multiple disadvantage have also experienced gendered forms of violence (Violence against Women and Girls (VaWG), including domestic violence, sexual violence and coercive and controlling behaviour. Naturally, women’s experiences are each unique and involve intersecting experiences, often rooted in multiple forms of systemic oppression.
In recent years, there has been more conversation on the topic and an improved response to these challenges, yet many women and girls struggle to be seen in a system that is often designed around the needs of men and silences, penalises or misunderstands coping behaviours or call for support. Due to their traditional social roles as care givers to children, women are disproportionately impacted by poverty, particularly those from racialised and marginalised communities. We’ve also seen trans women experience higher rates of violence related to their gender identity and struggle to access the little specialist support that is available. These challenges are played out in multiple ways in spaces of support designed typically for male clients and those that do not offer holistic services for women.
Systemic barriers that disproportionately impact women
One of the most pressing barriers is the lack of specific support for women within generic support services. Sex and gender identities inform how individuals interact with the system (and how the system interacts with them) and if services fail to consider these lenses within the services they provide, they risk perpetuating this exclusion.
Many service interventions misunderstand the nature of the trauma that women have experienced and how this effects their engagement with services and the wider system. This includes stress-responses and complex trauma (i.e., PTSD) and presentations to/within services in ways that are different to men (where and how women rough sleep is a good example of this). When we design services primarily with men in mind, access pathways and provision of services will naturally fall short in meeting the needs of women.
Many services struggle to properly support women as mothers. While not all women are mothers, when women do have children, services are not set up to help them in their parental role. e.g., appointments not being flexible for school duties, childcare having to be requested rather than being the norm. This complicating factor has the added effect of making the mother look less capable, which is particularly challenging when there is added scrutiny from children’s social care about the quality of parenting and the risk of violence within the home. With the risk of child removal elevated, women will often withdraw from other forms of support to reduce scrutiny from the state.
When domestic abuse/violence is taking place, the tendency of the system is to pull people apart, end a relationship and to treat people within the system as individuals. There is in general little widespread practice in working with couples, e.g., addressing complex relationship dynamics in a setting of active drug use. Outside of specialist domestic abuse support, many services have an expectation that the relationship has to end first before they are able to offer any support, and may pass judgement when that doesn’t happen, with frequent victim blaming and an expectation that it is the women’s responsibility to stop, report or flee violence, rather than the man’s responsibility to not perpetrate it.
There are also many instances of VAWG including sexual exploitation, modern slavery, trafficking, so called ‘honour-based’ violence and forced prostitution and survival sex which are missed more broadly in the system (outside of specialist services) because of a lack of focus/concern around these issues and curiosity about how it manifests. There is instead consistent pressure in the system to focus on singular activity and delivery of service.
From the group’s discussions it is clear that we need gender-specific responses to support survivors of VAWG who are experiencing multiple disadvantage, but there is a tension in doing so which is worth untangling. When gender-specific responses to VAWG and multiple disadvantage are created, they often come with conditionality. Individuals must meet a set of predefined criteria—such as distinguishing between ‘historic’ or ‘present’ experiences of VAWG and meeting a complex needs threshold before accessing support. These thresholds are there to protect the service and other service users, but this framework can feel arbitrary, resulting in some women receiving aid while others, despite similar needs, being left without support.
The impact of broader system dynamics
In addition to these challenges, local areas report that they often see broader systemic issues which affect how women facing multiple disadvantage are supported . These include things like:
- Behavioural exclusion in a wide range of mainstream and gender-specific services, e.g., refuges with a no-alcohol policy or unable to support people with complex needs.
- Service gatekeeping, e.g., “three no shows and you have to be re-referred”
- Failure to appropriately manage information within a system, e.g., multiple service assessments requiring repetition of an individual’s history, which can be particularly traumatising if this involves child removal or child loss.
- “Harm-reduction” vs “abstinence” differences – which can cause professional disagreements and mixed messages for coordinated care.
- Financial pressures and lack of (specialist) services, which can lead to a feeling of “perpetual crisis”, get in the way of collaborative practice, and lead to some critical services not being delivered.
Local areas continue to see services missing key points of intervention for women and girls due to a lack of shared understanding and joint planning, a lack of understanding of the specific needs of women experiencing multiple disadvantage, and a system which requires evidence to illicit a response despite our knowledge that the very nature of VAWG means there is often little traditional evidence on which to make policy or commission practice. The wider challenge is in understanding how someone’s experience of VAWG intersects with multiple disadvantage, and coproducing services with experts by experience to build services by and for them.
Local Responses and Best Practice
Despite and because of these challenges, various local initiatives exist in Changing Futures areas to provide specialist support for women affected by VAWG and multiple disadvantage. The need to bridge the gap between service user and service, create a shared understanding, and work holistically are clear. Examples include:
- Women only spaces including specialist accommodation services that are tailored to meet individual needs.
- Women only lived experience forums providing safety, solidarity and community
- Specialist support roles integrated into statutory services, such as sex worker liaison officers, and Independent Domestic Violence Advisors (IDVAs) to advocate for people’s needs.
- A partnership-wide focus to refer to statutory processes, including DASH assessments, MARACs, and family support programmes.
- A focused effort to ensure that the strategic partnership is aimed at improving responses for women within broader systems and influencing policy through evidence-based advocacy, as well as systems change initiatives dedicated to addressing the needs of women experiencing VAWG within multiple disadvantage frameworks.
These specialist streams of work are predicated on collaboration with expert delivery partners, a commitment to build capacity and support system partners to secure specialist funding, and a clear integration with other services to avoid duplication. The continued exploration of perpetrator programmes and focusing on the subject of violence are essential to alleviate pressure and stigma felt by survivors and address the root causes of VAWG.
Rethinking Empowerment & Identity
In addition to the points already raised, a key theme of discussion within these initiatives is the evolving meaning of “empowerment,” and the role that services can play in reframing personal and system narratives. As mainstream services increasingly co-opt the term “empowerment”, its original significance can become diluted. There is a growing concern that women must fit into a predefined “victim vs. perpetrator” / “good vs bad” narrative to access support, reinforcing dominant structures rather than challenging them, and having to wait until things get “so bad you are seen as a victim” to elicit a system response. This raises an important provocation for multiple disadvantage services: what part do we play in how women and girls see themselves through our approach to mainstreaming support? Furthermore, we must critically examine how community, grassroots, and holistic initiatives are supported and the risk of them being co-opted by larger systems. How can we restore power to these spaces and the individuals within them? Conversely, where have we successfully balanced power and authenticity, and how can we share these successes across networks?
Conclusion
Addressing VAWG in the context of multiple disadvantage requires a nuanced and intersectional approach. While progress has been made in recognising the unique challenges women face, significant gaps remain in policy, service provision, and systemic understanding. Gender-specific responses highlight the need for both specialised and integrated models of support, tailored to local contexts. By critically engaging with how empowerment is framed, how identities are constructed within service provision, and how power is distributed within systems, we can work toward a more inclusive and effective response. The way forward lies in ensuring that women and girls experiencing multiple disadvantage are not only seen and heard but also genuinely supported in ways that recognise their full complexity and agency.
Notes
- Our use of the term “women and girls” is trans-inclusionary.
- We acknowledge that boys and men also experience various forms of violence, including sexual violence, harassment, domestic abuse, and struggle to report and access services due to gendered social stigmas, but in this blog we are predominately discussing men’s violence against women and girls.
- We use the word prostitution to differentiate it from the widely used umbrella term sex work; as it implies sexual exploitation.