Violence Against Women and Girls - Independent Strategic Review of Funding and Commissioning of Services: report

Chapter 11 - A New Model of Funding

In this chapter we set out our proposed new model of funding, which flows from the evidence we collected, and which will deliver on the aims of the Review.

The principal aim of the Review was to develop a more consistent, coherent, collective and stable funding model that will ensure high quality, accessible specialist services across Scotland for women, children and young people experiencing any form of VAWG.

As set out in our Terms of Reference, we wanted the Review to be consistent with other key strategies and developments already agreed by the Scottish Government such as the National Advisory Council on Women and Girls, Baroness Kennedy's report Misogyny - a Human Rights Issue; the recommendations in the National Taskforce for Human Right's Leadership's report; the principles to inform a Framework on Commercial Sexual Exploitation; the Scottish National Action Plan on Human Rights (SNAP) 2; and the Review of Adult Social Care.

A highly relevant and encouraging example of a thorough change programme of the scale that we are calling for, including support for organisations' 'scaffolding', was found in The Promise. Scaffolding, for both The Promise and our new model, means making sure that the organisations providing services have all the help they need to do the best job they can. Our vision, too, is complex and will be similarly implemented over the longer term.

The Scottish Government's forthcoming Human Rights Bill was also in our thoughts, potentially world leading legislation which will elevate Scotland's standing internationally as a human rights integrated nation. The key actions set out in the second Scotland's National Action Plan on Human Rights (SNAP 2) are also wholly consistent with our recommendations and there is significant read across the two sets of recommendations, reinforcing the need for alignment and resourcing in the delivery plans for SNAP 2 and acting on the direction from this Review. As set out in earlier chapters, we have developed a model of services, based on evidence provided to us throughout the Review process and aimed at ensuring consistency and increasing accessibility. We have sought also to address the current problems with VAWG funding described in Chapter 3.

This aspect of the Review was particularly challenging to develop given the current lack of reliable information about either the costs of VAWG or the amount spent on it in Scotland. Addressing this knowledge/data gap must be prioritised as part of the work towards implementing our proposed new model of funding. Many jurisdictions in Europe and further afield are also grappling with this problem and recommendations flowing from GREVIO (the independent expert body responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Istanbul Convention) show that countries generally need to do better in terms of clear allocations across budget lines and multi-level governance arrangements, including different levels of government and funding of different types of organisations, in relation to VAWG.

It was clear, however, from our scrutiny of the Scottish budget (see Chapter 9, Budgeting for VAWG), that Scotland is not allocating as much as it might think it is, never mind anywhere close to what is needed. We were able to find useful examples of how close and similar neighbours are engaging and creating new models of funding and oversight.

Ireland, for example, is proposing establishing a central agency to oversee implementation of the Istanbul Convention and funding for VAWG up to 60bn Euros by 2026.

And in Spain, ministerial departments allocated the sum of €340 million in 2017, mainly for awareness-raising activities, research, prevention campaigns and the telephone helpline. Spain's Budget Act for 2018 included an additional €200 million to finance measures to be taken under the State Pact against Gender-based Violence.

Scotland is not an outlier in relation to the cluttered funding landscape and burden on civil society/NGOs to find and access funds while still maintaining services. There is also a consistent emphasis internationally on the need for clear data on need and provision. The NACWG recommendations on VAWG, data and on intersectional gender budgeting are fully consistent with our recommendations.

It is, however, very clear that there is a significant gap between the current funding and the funding which will be required to provide our minimum core services to all who need them. If we are truly committed to living up to the necessary demands on governments of the Istanbul Convention, UNCRC, CEDAW, ICESRC, and other human rights instruments, and to act meaningfully to eradicate VAWG, that gap will need to be filled.

A Future Funding Model: Key Components

A future funding model must ensure that:

• services are informed by need and experience, and locally responsive to the range of needs, funding a diversity of provision across VAWP and relations across multiple local partnerships and providers;
• human rights standards and principles are met, and allocation and spending decisions are structured in line with the Istanbul Convention requirements, and the direction set by SNAP2 in relation to human rights budgeting, the UNCRC and ICESCR;
• resource allocation is clearly identified across spending lines in Scottish Government, local authority and other provider budgets so that spending on prevention and services for women, children and young people across all policy and service areas, e.g. health, education, justice, housing and accommodation, prevention, advice and helplines, and other forms of support is demonstrated; and
• gender analysis is embedded in resource allocation, spending decisions, service design and evaluation of outcomes, and that the starting point for resource allocation is prevention of violence and the provision of appropriate services for women, children and young people.

These principles outline a framework for a future funding model which the Scottish Government and partners should commit to as underpinning the recommendations of this Review. They do not remove the need for immediate review of funding allocations and an uplift in public resources allocated to VAWG. In addition to the need for immediate resourcing, there must also be a commitment to revisiting mechanisms such as ring fencing and top slicing which previously

protected designated funds for VAWG services. The removal of these protections for designated funds has had a significantly detrimental effect on local service funding, especially in rural areas and in relation to specialist services. It has also increased the lack of transparency of resources allocated to VAWG services, which contributes to under-funding and poorer scrutiny.

Our proposed model of funding returns the primary responsibility for funding VAWG services to local areas, closer to where the impact of funding decisions will be felt and regaining local accountability. There are a number of constituent parts in our model, and different roles for the Scottish Government, local authorities and their statutory partners, and the third sector, as detailed below:

Scottish Government

There will be no national, competitive fund for essential services, as currently in place provided by the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government will continue to fund national work and services e.g. helpline/s and will run a competitive fund for innovation. This fund will be open to a wider range of organisations than the minimum core services, but applicants will require to demonstrate that they work to a gendered analysis and their proposed project is consistent with Equally Safe. In addition, the Scottish Government will fund national prevention work, including campaigns and the establishment of the Istanbul Convention Implementation Observatory (see Chapter 8), which will have a role in providing leadership around data, research and evaluation to inform and drive prevention activity, some of which may be regionally based or bespoke for particular areas.

The Scottish Government will have responsibilities to provide funding for a range of national work including national co-ordination of CEDAR, MVP, MARAC, MATAC and VAWP (with the Improvement Service), and of ASSIST/court advocacy services as well as the national offices of Scottish Women's Aid and Rape Crisis Scotland.

They will also lead and fund the work to develop 'by and for' services and continue their role in the development of services for women selling and exchanging sex.

Local Authorities and Their Statutory Partners

Local authorities and their statutory partners will receive funding for local VAWG services from the Scottish Government through their grant, ring-fenced to be spent to deliver the minimum core services, with a requirement to report on spend and impact. Part of the role of the Istanbul Convention Implementation Observatory will be to monitor this spend and ensure it is being used for the purposes for which it is granted.

Services to be funded include all those identified in Chapter 4, Minimum Core Services, which are all required to meet the standards set by the Istanbul Convention and UNCRC in particular. Funding will be provided through collaborative commissioning arrangements as described in Chapter 10 Commissioning & Tendering. Underpinning this distribution of funding will be local needs assessments, carried out by VAWPs (who will receive early resources from Scottish Government to enable them to develop into fulfilling this enhanced role). Survivors will be involved in these local needs assessments.

As part of strategic engagement through VAWPs there is focus on developing /committing to whole systems, collaborative approach. Funding shouldn't be limited to ring fenced allocation from Scottish Government.

VAWG Services

Services will be provided by organisations which meet our definition of specialist services in Chapter 4, Minimum Core Services, to meet local demand identified in needs assessments. Funding will be provided through collaborative commissioning arrangements as described in Chapter 10, Commissioning and Tendering.

Immediate Priorities for Funding

We recognise that our recommendations will take some time to be implemented. DES funding will remain in place until March 2025, providing much needed security for third sector services in particular. However, urgent action is required to establish the foundations for this new model of funding now, including funding for VAWPs to enable the development of the infrastructure which we will need to have in place during the process of development towards the new model of funding. Included in this should be funding to support the development of local needs assessments, in which Public Health should have a role.

In addition, urgent priority for funding should be given to reducing waiting lists for VAWG support services to ensure that victims/survivors can get help to recover when they need it and to ensuring CEDAR is available in every local authority.

A national VAWCYP core dataset and evaluation methodology whould be developed.

Statutory Underpinning

Our model of funding rests on our recommendation that VAWG is placed on a statutory footing, as is the case with Child Protection and Adult Support and Protection. This will ensure all the parts of our model work together effectively and will drive consistency and high standards across service delivery in every part of Scotland.

We envisage this new legislation as distinct from, but closely related to, current statutory frameworks as referred to above. It will:

• establish access to our minimum core services as a right in law for women, children and young people (as called for by over 80% of respondents to our Call for Evidence). Drafting of the legislation will ensure that there is no scope for narrowing the minimum core services offer
• place VAWPs on a statutory footing, with standards relating to membership, a prominent location in local planning structures and processes , resourcing for full time staffing and an independent chair. VAWPs will also have a role in commissioning of services locally alongside other partners, including victims/survivors, and be responsible for carrying out local needs assessments to determine the range and balance of services required in their local area. Moving into this new role may be a phased approach as some areas already meet these standards and others will require time to develop before they are ready to assume these responsibilities
• place MARACs and MATACs on a statutory footing too, with standards for operation, resourcing and chairing which will apply consistently across all local authorities. Differences in operational practices between MARACs and MATACs at present mean that some are functioning more effectively than others.

Taken together, we are confident that the above recommendations will return the local accountability which, we were frequently told, has been lost over the years of VAWG funding since 2000 (see Chapter 3). Local authorities, and their partners in the statutory and third sectors, and the key services they fund or provide, are all partners in the delivery of Equally Safe and vital to its success. Decision making at a level closer to where services are accessed should be better fitted to local circumstances and more able to respond flexibly to local variations in demographics and other needs – the well-established principle of subsidiarity. This links to the community empowerment agenda, actively involving people in decision making rather than having decisions made for them, and the current SG priority of 'place' in policy making and service design. A further important benefit is that this changes the dynamic for survivors of VAWG, who may have had little agency over their own lives.

Rights in law are worthless if funding is not provided to ensure they are realisable, including for monitoring and evaluation, and maximising available resources is an express requirement of international human rights treaties.

We note with concern the Scottish Parliament's Criminal Justice Committee's scrutiny of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 in which experiences of women and children in criminal proceedings in domestic abuse cases were described as "unremittingly grim."

A further example of this is the recent report by the Domestic Abuse Safe Accommodation National Expert Steering Group that the duty placed on local authorities in England under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 to provide safe accommodation to victims/survivors is not working in practice.

Application and Monitoring Processes

We were provided with a great deal of evidence during the Review of the difficulties caused by current application and monitoring processes. To some extent, this will reduce over time as organisations receive funding to deliver the minimum core services through collaborative commissioning (see Chapter 10).

An application process will still be required once funding for services has moved to a collaborative commissioning model, as will monitoring to ensure that funding is being used appropriately and is delivering best value.

Monitoring processes will become simpler and less onerous and time consuming for organisations, as they will no longer be dependent on funding from a patchwork of providers, all with different monitoring regimes and timescales, to fund their core services. Other funders in this area such as Trusts, Comic Relief etc will continue to have their own processes, but specialist organisations will be able to choose whether or not to seek additional funding from these sources.

Staff Recruitment and Retention

We heard from service managers about current difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff. Much of this can no doubt be attributed to the current short-term nature of funding and the lack of career progression opportunities. Pay scales which offer progression and are matched with the responsibilities of each post, should be established across VAWG funding, and work undertaken to ensure that experienced staff have opportunities to progress to jobs with higher skills without having to leave and take their skills, knowledge and experience out with the sector.

Increases in Funding/Waiting Lists

Many years of at best flat-level VAWG funding have hollowed out the sector and left it compromised in its ability to respond effectively at a time of rapidly increasing costs and demand for services. We recommend that, following the fundamental uplift we are proposing, funding should increase in line with increased costs linked to the retail price index year on year.

Waiting lists for vital services seriously impact on women, children and young people seeking help and support. We were told that there were differing approaches to waiting lists by VAWG organisations and that some had used SG funding creatively to develop different models of support as a way of dealing with increases in demand for their services. We recommend that different ways of managing waiting lists are examined, which may include a trigger point mechanism whereby additional funds are released if waiting lists reach a certain point.

Length of Funding Periods

As might have been expected, there was strong support for funding periods being longer than at present, to provide security for staff and opportunities for service planning and development. We understand the difficulties in achieving this caused by the Scottish Government's allocation of funds from the UK Government's Treasury on an annual basis. However, we consider that this issue needs to be addressed urgently and that future funding for VAWG minimum core services, allocated by local authorities through collaborative commissioning, should be agreed for at least an initial three year period, with the option of two further years thereafter. This is intended not to be prescriptive, and longer term arrangements might be suitable in some areas e.g. as in the example of City of Edinburgh Council referred to in Chapter 10 on Commissioning & Tendering, which has provided funding for five years with an option of a further five.

Self-Directed Support

Having been encouraged to be as creative as possible in carrying out the Review, we discussed the possibility of moving in time to a model of funding for VAWG services based on self-directed support (SDS) i.e. where a victim/survivor would be provided with funding to enable them to have choice and control over what kind of support they get, instead of having to accept what was generally on offer.

Self-directed support has been available for disabled people for some time and we are aware that there are significant issues around the management and delivery of resources, and of relationships between local authorities and beneficiaries. Nevertheless, we look to the aspiration of SDS as empowering individuals and so we are interested in the possibilities it could potentially open up to give women, children and

young people much more agency in choosing support which is the best fit for them. In the longer term, this could be considered as one of a range of alternative means of funding VAWG services.

Prevention

The importance of a strong focus on prevention was made clear to us throughout the Review. We entirely agree with all those who said that to us, and have given that a significant amount of thought. This includes what we learned about the work to challenge men's demand for commercial sexual exploitation and the six principles developed by the Scottish Government in relation to this area of VAWG.

As noted in Chapter 5, Prevention, we have been talking about the need for prevention for many years in Scotland. It is a key concept of the Christie Commission which reported in 2011, and yet we have never quite managed to move the dial on the funding balance with front line/crisis services. There has always been a sense that these two vital aspects of work to tackle VAWG are somehow in competition with each other, and that therefore spending more on prevention will mean cutting back on crisis services.

This is understandable, we are surrounded by evidence of the inadequacy of current funding to meet service demands. Waiting lists for essential services are one very pertinent example. Moving to a guaranteed offer of minimum core services should address lack of capacity issues and ensure services are there when they are needed, in addition to ensuring organisations have sufficient capacity through decent wages and career progression opportunities so they can maintain an experienced workforce and avoid the constant recruitment and training cycles which are currently such a drain on resources.

But we will never achieve our ambition of a VAWG-free Scotland without doing a lot more than we are currently doing about prevention. We are therefore recommending that a significant programme of prevention activity is established, with roles for the Scottish Government, local authorities and local services. This work has to build on existing knowledge around what works but recognise the limitations of current evidence. There should be commitment to commissioning pilots, robust monitoring and evaluation. This is the essence of a public health approach and therefore there will be a key role for Public Health.

This should include national awareness raising campaigns by the Scottish Government and in partnership with others, returning to ground which was so successful in the past, and making very visible the commitment to ensuring that Scotland ultimately becomes a VAWG free nation. As part of improving our human rights education, building a human rights culture is also how we envisage a future Scotlandin which we can take pride.

It should also include a reinvigorated training programme for all professionals. We heard a lot of evidence about inappropriate or damaging responses to presentations of VAWG and this must be addressed. We also heard examples of helpful responses, and there are clearly many professionals doing their best to offer support. That should be the default experience and it is not currently.

Work in schools, colleges and universities is also required as part of the prevention package, however we were told by a number of people we spoke to that one off sessions delivered by third sector organisations were of limited value in terms of changing attitudes and behaviour. MVP is now in over 50% of high schools and should be rolled out at pace to the others. As noted in Chapter 5, Prevention, Rape Crisis Scotland also has a prevention package for schools and its pilot 'Whole Schools' approach is being evaluated. An 'Equally Safe in Higher Education' toolkit has also been developed for universities. Rolling out effective resources nationally should be prioritised in the implementation of the Review's recommendations.

Perpetrator Programmes

Prevention should include a particular focus on boys and men. Although we were not charged with looking at perpetrator programmes, they are important part of the VAWG landscape and should be included in funding discussions and arrangements, and available in every area to a consistent model and standard.

As this work is difficult and highly specialised, and carries a high level of risk for the women, children and young people who were abused by the perpetrators, it is very important that the highest quality programmes are delivered, with all of their essential components. We have been told that this is now not always the case, which is concerning.

How Is This to Be Paid For?

As noted above, we are also acutely aware of the current financial landscape and the pressures on the Scottish Government and local authorities. COSLA provided us with a COSLA-Landscape-Report-Strategic-Review-of-Funding-and-Commissioning-VAWG-Services-for-distribution-042023.pdf">list of emerging workstreams and legislative developments being driven by the Scottish Government or the UK Government which are currently unfunded and will impact on VAWG services.

We know that there will be an increase in cost involved in reaching this level of service. We believe that there may be some savings to be made in current spend by better joining up across different policy areas.

Increased transparency around budgets and spending by the Scottish Government will also help to manage costs. And over the longer term, the significantly increased focus on prevention that we are calling for will work through into reducing costs as incidence reduces. All of which elements are consistent with current deliberations on public service reform and fiscal sustainability.

In the here and now, however, we anticipate that a phased approach will be taken, and that the journey from where we are now to where we need to be will not be made in one, albeit large, step. There will be a number of stages involved in the transition from national to local funding.

The question of what is reasonable in this context will be a balance between redistributing current resources in a period of fiscal difficulty and the requirement to move with pace to make the lives of women, children and young people experiencing VAWG safer and changed for the better. In other words, we do not expect implementation of our model to be 'kicked into the long grass' and to become ensnared in a web of exploratory pilots. We recommend that the Scottish Government and COSLA develop and publish a timeline for full implementation of our recommendations over a reasonable period, setting out short, medium and longer term goals. We also recommend that survivors are involved in the implementation process. We do expect to see the requirements of the international human rights treaties applied and to see government taking reasonable steps towards securing the maximum available resources for the progressive realisation of rights.

We anticipate being asked 'How can we afford this?' Our response is 'How can we afford not to do this, given the economic, personal and social costs, most of which are being borne by women, children and young people who are not in any way responsible for being abused?' This echoes the point made in the report on Adult Social Care and, as in that case, is truly a question of what kind of Scotland do we want to be?

There are recent examples of where resources have been rapidly found to respond to critical situations e.g. Covid and refugees fleeing the war in Ukraine. This requires political will and all partners working collaboratively together. This is what we expect to see in Scotland's response to VAWGCYP.

Similarly, the financial and political commitment that Scotland has, quite rightly, given to ending poverty, and supporting care experienced young people, needs to be applied to VAWCYP .

Clearly, our minimum core services model includes many aspects which are not universally available at present. As stated earlier in this chapter, we are confident both that savings can be made by focusing on the services we have viewed as essential and that prevention activity will, over time, reduce the financial costs of VAWG. In the meantime, however, a clearer position on funding is required.

VAWG costs Scotland a lot, as set out above. It is a transversal policy area and therefore costs fall on a number of areas of Scottish Government spend, including Health, Justice, Housing, Children & Families and Education. These areas all have an interest in VAWG, yet we found that there seems to be limited joined up working between them, and the work that they fund is somewhat ad hoc.

If, as we recommend, Scotland aims to work towards meeting Women Against Violence Europe's call, referred to in Chapter 9 Budgeting for VAWG, for 10% of the annual cost of VAWG to be provided in funding for services to tackle it, from the Scottish budget as a whole, a consistent approach to gender budgeting will be required, and will illustrate the funding deficit. Current financial circumstances may preclude reaching this funding level at this point, but this is a target that must be worked towards over the longer term. Ultimately, we want all women, children and young people experiencing VAWG to be able to access the full range of services we believe will make a difference, as set out in Chapter 4 on Minimum Core Services.

Conclusion

We believe that this proposed new model of funding will deliver on the remit of the Review. More importantly, it will provide stability to this vital sector and ensure services are available for all women, children and young people who need them, anywhere in Scotland. It will reset the focus on prevention and enable us to achieve the outcomes of Equally Safe.

This represents an opportunity for Scotland to fully integrate human rights conventions and protections on VAWG into our legislation, establishing us as an exemplar in this area.

We recognise that this is a stretching plan, and that it will have to be implemented over a number of years. It enables us to keep moving forward, and to avoid further regression.

There will be benefits for individuals, communities, services and the economy, as the damaging effects of VAWG are reduced and economic participation and contribution becomes possible for victims/survivors.

We are currently failing, despite our significant efforts over the past 50 years, to properly support victims/survivors and provide them with the services they want.

Our ambition, as set out in Equally Safe, is for nothing less than a Scotland where VAWG has ultimately been eradicated and where no-one has to live through these terrible experiences.

This is our chance to do better.