Preventing violence against women and girls - what works: evidence summary

What works to make environments safe?

According to the WHO (2019) framework on VAWG prevention, making environments safe is a priority. Environments include creating safe schools, public spaces (e.g. transport)^[46] and more. Based on robust available evidence, this report presents evidence on school-based programmes, as well as the Domestic Abuse Disclosure Scheme (DASA) in understanding what works to make environments safe.

Key findings

Interventions focused on modifying unsafe physical school environments:

• Strong evidence that the Shifting Boundaries programme (focused on classroom and physical environments) is effective in preventing VAWG.

Bystander interventions:

• The most robustly evaluated bystander interventions have been predominantly based in secondary school environments.
• There is evidence to suggest that some bystander programmes (e.g. MVP) are promising interventions to prevent VAWG.
• There is variation in the evidence of programme effectiveness between different bystander intervention programmes (e.g. some programmes have been more extensively evaluated than others)
• Bystander programmes focus upon changing attitudes with limited evidence of behaviour change as an explicit programme outcome.

Domestic Abuse Disclosure Scheme (DADS):

• Currently, the evidence base about the effectiveness of Domestic Violence Disclosure Schemes (DVDS) is limited to pilot evaluations (see Home Office, 2013; New South Wales Government, 2016).
• There are currently no evaluations of the domestic abuse disclosure scheme currently available in Scotland (Brooks-Hays, 2018).
• Consequently these interventions have been classified as inconclusive due to insufficient evidence

Interventions focused on modifying unsafe physical school environments

Classification: Effective (GBV/SV)

Background

The Shifting Boundaries school-based programme focuses on modifying unsafe school physical environments alongside classroom-based sessions (ScotPHN, 2019; DeGue et al., 2014; Taylor et al., 2011).

As Crooks et al. (2019) summarise, this two-part intervention aims to both increase knowledge of the consequences of abusive behaviour, while increasing faculty surveillance and awareness of unsafe areas in the school environment.

According to Taylor et al (2013:64), within middle schools^[47] in the USA this curriculum for the classroom-based elements of this intervention involved six sessions that focused on:

• the laws and consequences for perpetrators of dating violence and sexual harassment
• the social construction of gender roles
• healthy relationships
• the definitions and applications of ‘personal space’ and boundaries

The building-based interventions within the Shifting Boundaries programme include:

• use of building-based restraining orders^[48]
• higher levels of faculty/security presence in safe/unsafe ‘hot spots’ mapped by students
• posters to increase dating violence and sexual harassment awareness and reporting

This building-based element of the intervention aims to develop students’ respect for personal boundaries; both within the school building context and through classroom curriculum (Taylor et al. 2013).

Available evidence

High-quality evaluations of the Shifting Boundaries intervention indicate that there were reductions in perpetration and victimisation of sexual harassment, peer sexual violence, and adolescent relationship abuse (De Gue et al., 2014; Taylor et al. 2017). Through their randomised control trials (RCT) across 23 US middle schools, Taylor et al. (2017:94) report that:

for most of our examined outcomes^[49], providing the Shifting Boundaries program to the 6^th grade^[50] only in middle school does just as well in terms of peer violence and dating violence outcomes as a more saturated process of treating multiple middle school grades.

In this context, Taylor et al. (2017) conducted research where ‘full saturation’ involved conducting the intervention with grades 6 to 8; school ages 11 to 14.

While their results showed that providing the Shifting Boundaries (SB) programme to one grade (6^th, with children aged 11-12) did as well at preventing peer violence and adolescent relationship abuse as treating multiple grades, their results also showed that additional saturation led to sexual harassment reductions (Taylor et al. 2017). In particular, “schools that delivered SB to 6^th and 7^th graders (compared to just 6^th graders) reduced sexual harassment victimization 6 months post-treatment” (Taylor et al. 2017:79).

Similarly, previous evaluations of the Shifting Boundaries programme by Taylor et al. (2013:64) showed that:

The building-only and the combined interventions were effective in reducing sexual violence victimisation involving either peers or dating partners at 6-months post-intervention. This was mirrored by reductions in sexual violence perpetration by peers in the building-only intervention.

However, there are limitations attached to the self-reporting of violent acts or incidents^[51] within these evaluations^[52]. Taylor et al. (2017:94) acknowledge that “students may not be able to recall the timing of a violent act or may have deliberately under-reported or over-reported certain behaviour”.

They suggest, however, that these limitations are mitigated through the confidentiality of the surveys, and this approach has “become an accepted modality of collecting data on the subject matter of adolescent relationship abuse and sexual harassment” (Taylor et al. 2017:94).

Moderating factors

Potential facilitators

Taylor et al. (2013) note that:

• combining classroom and building-level interventions is more effective in reducing sexual harassment and violence than classroom intervention alone
• the building-only Shifting Boundaries intervention can be implemented with very few extra costs to schools

Although Taylor et al.’s (2017:95) results show that combined classroom and physical environments can be effective in reducing violence among children aged 11-14, they suggest that their results raise further questions about whether such programmes should “work with even younger groups to invoke a true primary prevention effort to reduce abusive behaviours in peer and dating relationships”.

Potential barriers: further research

Ellsberg et al (2015:1557) also highlight that Taylor et al.’s evaluation of this programme did not report results separately by the sex of the victim-survivor or perpetrator, therefore it is not clear whether the effect of the programme was similar for boys and girls^[53].

Moreover, Lundgren and Amin (2015) highlight that additional research is required to explore the effectiveness of school-based interventions, such as Shifting Boundaries, using violence as an outcome measurement.

Bystander interventions

Classification: Promising (GBV/SV)

Background

Bystander^[54] approaches aim to shift: "gender inequitable attitudes, beliefs and cultural norms which support abuse, and ultimately increasing pro-social bystander behaviour^[55] to prevent it" (Gainsbury et al. 2020:2). The origins of the bystander approach developed in the USA in the 1990s by Jackson Katz centred on aims to “counteract a specific characteristic of male peer culture…the reluctance of men to interrupt each other’s sexist behaviours or challenge their sexist beliefs” (Katz et al., 2011:690). Such counteraction sought to interrogate gender norms and “elevate certain prosocial characteristics (speaking out, intervening in instances of abuse over silence and conformity)” (Katz et al., 2011:690).

Adopting a bystander approach involves understanding individuals as potentially empowered and active bystanders with the ability to support and challenge their peers in a safe way, rather than being understood as potential victims-survivors or perpetrators. Within the Mentors in Violence Prevention (MVP) programme, males and females are not looked at as potential victims-survivors or perpetrators but as empowered bystanders with the ability to support and challenge peers^[56]. MVP programmes are conducted using both single-gender and mixed-gender groups. However, there is evidence to suggest that prevention programmes indicate a greater impact on male participants who took part in single-gender groups (Williams and Neville, 2017). Williams and Neville (2017) note that facilitating both single- and mixed- gender groups (e.g. through dividing and then uniting classes) could be useful in capturing the benefits of both approaches^[57].

Bystander approaches also seek to challenge and engage with the victim-perpetrator relationship. Programmes that adopt a bystander approach recognise that VAWG can be prevented and responded to (Gainsbury et al. 2020). For example, bystander programmes aim to make young people more sensitive to warning signs of sexual assault, encourage bystander responsibility for intervening, change individual attitudes (e.g. through creating empathy for victims-survivors), alongside building skills for taking action (Kettrey and Marx, 2019).

Berkowitz^[58] identified four stages that must be present for bystanders to act; notice the behaviour; interpret it as a problem; feel responsible for taking action and have the skills to act. This can be a helpful model when assessing the evidence for bystander approaches.

Available evidence

It is important to note that existing evaluations of bystander interventions predominantly focus on attitudinal change, rather than the reduction of violence as an explicit outcome. This focus is, in part, due to the difficult nature of measuring GBV. As noted by Public Health England's review of evidence for bystander intervention to prevent sexual and domestic violence in universities (2016:6):

The process of achieving behaviour change is complex, encompassing multiple levels or stages and requiring time. There is limited evidence that short one-off interventions have the capacity to change behaviour.

However, as explored below, available evidence emphasises how prosocial attitudes and behaviours among peers is one way of reducing this violence; with bystander behaviour being seen as an important precursor to preventing GBV. To reflect this understanding, the MVP programme presented below continuously reassesses and evaluates material and approaches to reflect the social norms and context of programme participants.

This section considers examples of Bystander Programmes in Secondary School Settings: Mentors in Violence Prevention (MVP), the Green Dot programme, and Bringing in the Bystander. This focus reflects the evidence that: “bystander approaches have been recognized as promising prevention strategies for violence prevention” (Coker et al. 2019:154).

Mentors in Violence Prevention (MVP) programme

Adopting a bystander^[59] approach, the MVP programme was developed in the USA in the 1990s and focuses upon changing individuals’ attitudes and behaviours relating to violence (Katz, 1995). MVP programmes are most commonly undertaken within schools and university campuses (Crooks et al. 2019). Within Scotland, the MVP programme has been school-based^[60] to date.

According to Katz et al. (2011:697): “the MVP program is a peer-driven, prosocial bystander model that offers a forum for student exploration and discussion”. Through a peer-to-peer learning approach, MVP involves training peer mentors^[61] to deliver sessions. As Williams and Neville (2017:4) highlight:

The fact that ‘mentors’ are in the same social group as ‘mentees’ (i.e. high school pupils) is designed to qualify them as representative of prototypical group norms^[62], and therefore credible messengers of information regarding how to feel and act.

This programme involves discussion of gender norms and stereotypes, the scope of violence, and the nature of leadership. A range of scenarios are explored; ranging from name calling and social exclusion to abusive relationships, and viewing pornography. Participants explore their own reaction to each scenario as well as the reactions of other bystanders. They consider a variety of possible actions in response to the scenario alongside the potential consequences of these actions (Public Health England, 2016). These discussions inform participants of both appropriate actions, while also empowering individuals to become “proactive bystanders in the face of GBV” (Williams and Neville, 2017:4). For example, Katz (2018) highlights an example of such a scenario with participants considering how women are objectified in the media. Here, deliberately provocative questions were asked about whether and/or how such objectification can lead to abuse or harassment. In this context, the answers were not provided. Rather, the MVP programme creates “space for dialogue that allows people to hear and express a range of viewpoints” (Katz, 2018:1755).

Evaluations of MVP programmes in secondary schools in the USA have found positive results in changing pupils’ attitudes and behaviours both in the shorter and longer-term (see Powell, 2011; and multi-year MVP evaluations here). MVP programmes have been shown to encourage participants to see forms of violence as being wrong and be more likely to take actions to intervene than students not exposed to the programme (Williams and Neville, 2017). For example, pupils felt that they would not be the only one to intervene having all undertaken a MVP programme. Mentees felt that they were more likely to intervene in a calm and non-violent way after the programme (Katz et al., 2011).

Moreover, according to a USA-based mixed-methods and multi-year MVP evaluation^[63], pupils who participated in a MVP programme demonstrated a statistically significant increase in knowledge and awareness of GBV; a decrease in sexist/inappropriate attitudes regarding violence against women; and an increase in confidence in the ability to intervene (Ward, 2002). Within a secondary school setting, Katz et al. (2011:700) conclude that while more research on the effectiveness of MVP programmes is required, MVP shows promise in addressing “a range of abuses and violence that occurs in the gendered social interpersonal world of adolescents”. Moreover, Katz et al. (2011: 697) note that MVP can help to “create school norms that mitigate against aggressive acts”. These results are promising, although evidence on the direct effects of this programmes upon reducing violent behaviours is limited, this may be due to the challenges associated with measuring violence.

Within a Scottish context^[64], a pilot qualitative evaluation was undertaken in three secondary schools using a version of the original MVP playbook and programme^[65], adapted by the Violence Reduction Unit. Notably, this is the first peer-reviewed academic evaluation of the MVP programme in Europe (Williams and Neville, 2017: 7). Qualitative evidence from the evaluation of this programme suggests that the peer-learning element of MVP was a strength of the programme as it “overcame the taboo of ‘snitching’ (to teachers) through provision of a network of accessible senior students” and the peer-to-peer element resulted in the reinforcement of social group norms against GBV (Williams and Neville, 2017:23). However, William and Neville’s (2017) qualitative study shows that while some male mentees said that their attitudes and behaviours had changed, female mentees felt that the boys’ behaviours and attitudes had not changed following this year-long programme (Williams and Neville, 2017:19). However, the authors do not reflect in detail upon why this was the case.

MVP Scotland’s (2020) recent annual progress report 2018-19 shows that there has been increases in Scotland for:

• Local authorities delivering MVP
• Local authorities with trainers
• Schools with trained staff
• Schools with mentors delivering MVP
• Number of mentors
• Number of sessions delivered by mentors

This report outlines feedback received by both teachers and students involved in school-based MVP programmes across Scotland. They highlight that:

• Following MVP, both mentors and mentees are more aware of the issues related to violence, gender based violence and bullying
• there is a positive increase in the percentage of young people who report that they would act if they saw particular behaviours occurring
• Electronically gathered pre and post training questionnaires to staff show a significant increase in staff (36% to 96%) who agree or strongly agree that they have the necessary skills to educate others about sexual harassment, dating violence and sexual assault (2020:24) following MVP professional learning
• These findings address the UNESCO guidance (2016)^[66] on preventing school-related gender-based violence that highlights the importance of staff training in ensuring schools are safe and supportive, and responding appropriately to gender-based violence

This evaluation has been conducted by Education Scotland, although it is not peer reviewed^[67]. However, there is promising evidence from peer-reviewed literature in both the USA and Scotland that draws similar conclusions to the findings presented within Education Scotland’s (2020) evaluation.

In addition, Hunter et al. (2018) conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of an MVP intervention programme within Scottish secondary schools in relation to sexting^[68] practices and willingness to intervene when witnessing bullying. This evaluation acknowledged that “sexting can be considered an important element of the sexual exploitation of young people” (Hunter et al., 2018:4). This report showed that:

young people were enthusiastic about helping peers who were experiencing aggression. They were particularly keen to directly intervene, either by stepping in themselves or by reporting incidents to adults. Additionally, girls were more likely than boys to endorse an intention to intervene (Hunter et al.’s forthcoming: 4).

However, it showed that there were “few differences between the young people in schools which had implemented MVP and those that had not” (Hunter et al., 2018:4). However, one of the limitations of this research was the focus upon one time point as participants completed the survey (post-intervention). As such, it is not possible to compare the prevalence of sexting prior to engaging with the MVP programme, or compare across the MVP and non-MVP schools.

There are concerns within available literature that the effects of such violence prevention programmes may fade over time (Powell, 2011; White 2019). This highlights the importance of continued evaluation of programmes at various intervals (immediately after, short term of 3-6 months, or longer term of 12+ months) to understand their longer term effects. The view of some stakeholders is that the limited nature of funding can act as a barrier to conducting such longitudinal research.

Green Dot programme: addressing dating and sexual violence acceptance

The Green Dot programme is a theory-based bystander approach programme through which male and female participants work together in the same training groups to recognise situations and behaviours that could lead to violence or abuse. This programme does not foreground gender inequality; instead it adopts a gender-neutral approach through the use of terms such as power-based violence (Anitha and Lewis, 2018; Katz et al. 2011). ‘Degendering’ is discussed further within the potential barriers section below. As such, the theoretical underpinnings of this approach – through which violence is seen as power-based, rather than gender-based – is a distinguishing feature from other bystander programmes (e.g. MVP).

The situations discussed within the programme training are termed ‘red dots’. Participating students are trained by Rape Crisis Centre trained educators to identify active bystander behaviours – to be taken by individuals or collectively – that are referred to as ‘green dots’. Educators worked with high school staff to identify student leaders to undertake intensive 5 hour bystander training.

Coker et al.’s (2019) longitudinal evaluation of the Green Dot programme in Kentucky (USA) high schools focused upon whether this bystander approach-focused programme effectively reduced dating violence and sexual violence acceptance. Using a RCT of over 70,000 students over four years, they reported that this intervention was successful in reducing these forms of violence acceptance at both a school and an individual level. In particular, there were school level findings of significant reductions in dating violence and sexual violence acceptance in years 3 and 4 for both males and females (Coker et al. 2019:153).

This evaluation did not measure violence as an explicit outcome; reflecting the evaluation approaches of other bystander approach-focused programmes. It is, however, acknowledged that “changes in norms may precede changes in actions (bystander behaviors) and changes in effect (violence)” (Coker et al. 2019:154). Therefore, while changing attitudes may prevent or reduce VAWG perpetration more research is required^[69].

Coaching Boys into Men: bystander programme

The eleven week-long Coaching Boys into Men^[70] intervention focuses upon training coaches and high school male athletes from 16 US high schools. This intervention involves 60 minute training for coaches, and brief weekly scripted discussions of 10-15 minutes with athletes on ending dating violence. This programme has shown positive outcomes in reductions of negative bystander intervention behaviours and reducing abuse perpetration (Fulu et al. 2014; Miller et al. 2013).

Stoker et al. (2015:260) describe the RCT evaluation of this intervention:

The initial evaluation was composed of a self-administered pre-intervention, post-intervention, and 3 months post-intervention web survey. A subsequent study (Miller et al., 2013) evaluated program outcomes 12 months after the intervention.

As summarised by Stoker et al. (2015:260), Miller et al.’s (2013) evaluation of this programme 3-months after the completion of the intervention showed that:

• young men who participated in the CBIM intervention self-reported small to moderate increases in likelihood of using and actual usage of bystander behaviors relative to the control group.
• There were no statistically significant changes in ‘‘gender equitable norms’’ or the use of physically abusive behaviors among those in the intervention versus the control group.
• Full implementation of the intervention (i.e. only 60% of coaches performed all weekly sessions, as prescribed) was associated with better recognition of abuse.

However, Miller et al.’s (2013) evaluation of this programme 12-months after the completion of the intervention showed that:

• A total of 82 participants (28%) were lost in the intervention group and 69 (14%) in the control group
• There were no intervention effects detected for willingness to intervene, utilization of bystander behaviors, or endorsement of gender-equitable norms.
• Unlike at the 3-month follow-up, the participants reported no increases in violence perpetration from baseline to follow-up 1 year later relative to the control group.
• The intensity of the program dosage (i.e., the number of cards the coaches discussed with the young men) did not have an impact on any of the measures of bystander behavior^[71]

Fulu et al. (2014:23) suggest that, based on these results, “a brief programme with few resources, utilising coaches as key influencers, may buffer against the initiation of dating violence perpetration during a critical developmental period for youth”. However, the longer term impacts of this bystander programme are not as promising as the results at 3-month post-intervention.

Bystander programmes in university settings (e.g. Bringing in the Bystander)

Promising evidence considering the effectiveness of bystander programmes within university environments is emerging from USA universities according to A review of evidence for bystander intervention to prevent sexual and domestic violence in universities by Public Health England (2016).This report notes that:

Rigorous evidence (e.g. randomised control trials) is limited especially in regard to data concerning the primary outcome of violence reduction, which is an outcome that is extremely difficult to measure. However, more evidence is available for positive changes both in bystander behaviour and risk factors for sexual violence perpetration and victimisation as well as across a range of other outcome variables (Public Health England, 2016:6).

Kettrey and Marx (2019: 213) conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of bystander programmes^[72] in preventing sexual assault across the college years. They note that peers are important in preventing violence, and that:

victims may trust their peers to provide a valuable source of support after an assault has occurred, but just as importantly, peers have the potential to play a pivotal role in the prevention of sexual assault by intervening when they witness its warning signs.

In their review and analysis of fifteen bystander approach studies, their results show that “bystander programs have a desirable effect on bystander efficacy, intentions, and interventions” (Kettrey and Marx, 2019: 223). However, there is no direct discussion about violence reduction as a direct outcome.

According to the US National Institute of Justice, Bringing in the Bystander is a promising bystander programme that is often implemented in a university campus setting to college students. As De Gue et al. (2014:359) detail:

Bringing in the Bystander is a bystander education and training program that aims to engage participants as potential witnesses to violence (rather than as perpetrators or victims) and provides them with skills to help when they see behavior that puts others at risk, including speaking out against rape myths and sexist language, supporting victims, and intervening in potentially violent situations. Some positive effects were found across studies on risk factors for sexual violence; sexual violence behavioral outcomes have not yet been examined (Banyard et al., 2007).

Likewise, Banyard et al. (2007) found that the Bringing in the Bystander intervention group showed statistically significant improvements in knowledge of sexual violence, compared with the control group, at the 2-month follow up. Likewise, the intervention group showed statistically significant reductions in rape myth acceptance^[73], compared with the control group, at the 2-month follow up.

However, while evaluations have shown evidence of increases in participants’ self-reported likelihood of using bystander behaviours, results were less consistent for the sustained use of these behaviours (see Crooks et al. 2019). For example, results from an evaluation of Bringing in the Bystander conducted by Cares et al. (2015) on two college campuses:

• found evidence of sustained attitudinal change 12 months post-programme
• results differed by gender with male participants scoring lower than female participants despite significant changes in attitudes
• results differed by campuses (attitudinal changes were significant on one campus, but not the other)

Similarly, Fenton and Mott’s (2018) evaluation of an bystander programme with first-year law students in England showed that:

• prosocial bystander behaviour did not increase significantly from pre-test to post-test immediately after taking part in the program.
• rape myth acceptance, domestic abuse myth acceptance, and denial decreased significantly
• bystander efficacy, readiness to help, and responsibility increased significantly
• intent to help increased significantly

Overall, Storer et. al.’s (2016:256) USA-focused in-depth systematic review shows that:

bystander programs are promising from the standpoint of increasing young adults’ willingness to intervene and confidence in their ability to intervene when they witness dating or sexual violence, however, the utilization of actual bystander behaviors was less straightforward.

Likewise, a Public Health England (2016:7) review of bystander programmes in universities also highlights that USA-based evidence indicates that MVP shows promise as an approach to be applied within UK university contexts. They suggest that the programme’s effectiveness would be dependent on mitigating potential barriers and promoting identified facilitators (see Cissner’s evaluation of MVP at Syracuse University, 2009).

Other systematic and meta-analyses (see Annex B) show promising results regarding attitudes, with limited evidence regarding violence prevention or reduction as a direct behavioural outcome.

Bystander programmes in community settings

Gainsbury et al.’s (2020) research focuses on the effectiveness of bystander interventions for preventing and/or reducing domestic violence and abuse at a community level, rather than within education-focused environments^[74]. This research showed promising results:

Participant feedback consistently rated the programme highly and significant change^[75] was observed in the desired direction across behavioural intent, bystander efficacy, and myth acceptance scores and post and follow-up (Gainbury et al., 2020:1).

Through this experimental research, they show that: “bystander interventions can be a potentially effective strategic component of community-level primary prevention of DVA”^[76] (Gainsbury et al., 2020:10). However, they highlight challenges associated with this, and further, research:

we note the difficulty of establishing a peer group comparator for individuals who come together randomly as opposed to in a defined peer setting such as a university cohort (Gainsbury et al., 2020:9).

Likewise, they identify the need for further research to be conducted on community-based bystander programmes on GBV to evaluate their effectiveness.

Moderating factors

Some of the moderating factors presented below are applicable to all bystander programmes (e.g. limited evidence that short one-off interventions have the capacity to change behaviour). Where particular to MVP programmes – one of the most evaluated bystander programmes - this has been highlighted.

As Williams and Neville (2017:29) note, the adoption of MVP programmes must involve evaluating the programme on an ongoing basis to “inform and update best practice and assess long term change”. Their research also highlights the need to:

• conduct a process of continual development/refinement for MVP programmes and scenarios within it
• ensure age and cultural appropriateness
• the embedding of MVP into participating school’s curricula and cultures
• enact flexible approaches to developing the programme within participating schools

For example, since 2017, the original MVP scenarios have been modified to reflect the language and culture of Scotland (Education Scotland, 2020). Consultations with young people and practitioners have led to the identification of new, relevant, topics for additional scenarios. In 2019 a new scenario on ‘sexual harassment’ was co-created with a group of Scottish young people. Mentors^[77] are encouraged to use current media stories to enhance learning.

Fixen’s implementation science framework has been used by Education Scotland to guide the delivery of MVP and increase programme fidelity^[78]. This has led to the requirement for two core mandatory sessions to be delivered before any scenarios to allow exploration of gender norms and the link to violence.

Across MVP literature it is acknowledged that more research is required into the effectiveness of this intervention in directly reducing or preventing violent behaviours (see Katz et al., 2011). Moreover, it should also be noted that “attitude change does not guarantee behaviour change” (Flood, 2006:28), and that caution should be taken when evaluating such programmes using focus on changing attitudes as the main measure (see also Annex B).

Moreover, Storer et al. (2016) note further research is required to understand longitudinal behaviour changes. Further research, they argue, must also focus on understanding the extent to which attitudinal and cognitive changes are translated into “sustained changes in intervening behaviour among all program participants, especially those most resistant to change (Storer et al., 2016:267). In this context, Storer et al. (2016) emphasise the importance of longitudinal research evaluations with “rigorously controlled designs”; comparing settings that use MVP with a comparable setting that does not (e.g. between participating and non-participating high schools or university contexts).

Evidence however, does suggest that attitude is linked to perpetration. Studies have found that men who hold negative gender role attitudes, alongside the belief that their peers find violence against women acceptable are more likely to be perpetrators of said violence (Schwartz et al. 2001). Conversely, those men who believed that their peers found such violence unacceptable were less likely to become perpetrators, even if they held those negative gender attitudes (McNaughton Reyes et al. 2015). Therefore the belief that peers found it unacceptable acted as a protective factor. It could therefore be argued that disrupting these beliefs could contribute to violence reduction (see Education Scotland, MVP progress report 2018-19).

Potential facilitators

The peer-led element of this programme was identified as a particular strength of MVP within secondary school settings (Ward, 2002; Williams and Neville, 2017). Broadly Katz et a al. (2011:697) suggest that:

school climates in which students view a range of aggressive behaviors as wrong, and where students are reporting they are willing to intervene in more serious behaviors, may help create school norms that mitigate against aggressive acts.

Gainsbury et al. (2020:2) identify the following potential facilitators for bystander programmes within community contexts:

• Longer programmes which are cumulative, sequential and delivered over time by well-trained facilitators are more effective
• A wide range of teaching pedagogies including emphasis on role-play for skills acquisition and use of socio-culturally relevant materials
• Mixed-sex groups are also appropriate for bystander programmes

Relatedly, A UN report (2015: 33) entitled: A framework to underpin action to prevent violence against women also highlights that:

there is emerging evidence that interventions that work with both men and women are more effective than single sex interventions (Fulu et al., 2014). As well as having better prospects for change this can help to prevent potential backlash from men that could otherwise occur.

This Public Health England (2016) review of bystander programmes within universities highlights the following criteria for effective violence prevention, they must be:

• comprehensive
• of sufficient length and duration^[79]
• underpinned by theory
• foster positive relationships
• delivered at the right time
• socio-culturally relevant
• evaluated for effectiveness (including monitoring for unintended backlash effects^[80])
• administered by well-trained staff

According to Kettrey and Marx (2019) there is evidence to suggest that bystander programmes are most effective in having an impact on desired outcomes if they are implemented as early as possible for college students within the USA to prevent sexual violence. They suggest that:

it is possible that implementing bystander programs before young people enter college may produce stronger effects than waiting until after college students have been integrated into the environment where they are expected to use prosocial bystander skills (Kettrey and Marx 2019: 224).

However, they also suggest that “timing of bystander program implementation seems to matter for fostering intentions to intervene, but not for encouraging actual intervention behaviour”.

Potential barriers

According to the results of Williams and Neville’s (2017) qualitative study, staff and mentor workload and a strain on time was identified as a potential barrier to the implementation of sustainable MVP programmes.

It is important to note that there is often “wide variation between different bystander programmes in the methods and means used to address outcome variables” which can in turn make it difficult to directly compare the efficacy of programmes (Public Health England 2016:37).

Assessing the effectiveness of bystander programmes at a community level can also present methodological challenges:

The issue of accurate quantitative measurement of violence against women in individuals or their communities is beset by methodological problems in addition to the common and general problem of attracting sufficient funding for robust evaluation (Public Health England 2016:40).

Research on MVP programmes has indicated that how participants utilise bystander behaviours in their everyday life is influenced by “a range of cognitive, situational, and environmental factors that may differ across settings” (Storer et al. 2016:266). In the context of looking at VAWG prevention in university settings, Anitha and Lewis (2018:8) suggest that:

a binary understanding of the problem as either systematic or individual prevents an understanding of the ways in which individual people act in relation to peer groups and how they form personal and institutional networks which both respond to and enact structural constraints.

Moreover, as Storer et al. (2016:266) highlight, the focus of MVP programmes upon individual-level outcomes: “may leave unchanged those factors within community and peer contexts that have the potential to constrain individuals’ ability to intervene”.

Some have considered a barrier of the Green Dot programme to be the degendered approach that it adopts. For example, Anitha and Lewis (2018) note that particular bystander programmes in the US, such as the Green Dot programme, have moved towards discourses of ‘power-based violence’, and away from gendered structural inequalities as forming the basis of this violence. However, this ideological shift towards ‘degendering’:

constructs the problem as that of particular (pathological) individuals who abuse their power, and the violence as ephemeral and power-based rather than rooted in historically persistent hierarchies of gender and sexuality (Anitha and Lewis, 2018:8).

As such, the theoretical and ideological underpinnings of intervention approaches are important in VAWG prevention and how it is undertaken. For example, Williams and Neville’s (2017) note that “while MVP is specifically designed to address GBV, participants in the current study expressed a desire for the programme to additionally cover other forms of bullying” (Williams and Neville, 2017:25). However, broadening this intervention beyond VAWG would need to account for critiques of any approaches that may be seen to ‘degender’ existing interventions^[81].

Domestic Abuse Disclosure Schemes

Classification: Inconclusive (DA)

Background

Domestic Abuse Disclosure Schemes have been adopted in England and Wales (2015), Scotland (2016) and New Zealand (2015)^[82]. These schemes provide potential victim-survivors of domestic abuse with the opportunity to ask about a new or existing partners’ previous convictions.

Known as the Disclosure Scheme for Domestic Abuse Scotland (DSDAS):

DSDAS aims to tackle and prevent domestic abuse by enabling the public to request disclosure from the police if they suspect their current partner may have an abusive past. Requests can also be made, on their behalf, by a concerned family, member, friend or neighbour (Police Scotland website, no date).

Likewise in England and Wales, referred to as the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme (DVDS), the College of Policing (England and Wales) detail that:

The scheme contributes to risk management by enabling victims to find out from an early stage about the potential for risk from prospective or new partners. This allows the victim to make decisions about the nature and extent of the relationship and put in place protective measures and access support if the relationship is to continue.

They also note that within England and Wales, DVDS – also known as Clare’s Law - is also understood to enable police to:

analyse patterns of requests under the scheme. This makes it possible for them to identify individuals who may be as yet unknown to the police but are attracting a volume of requests under the right to ask entry route which may indicate a cause for concern. It may also make it easier for them to identify serial perpetrators.

Within NHS Health Scotland’s Domestic abuse: what health workers need to know about gender based violence (2019:43) they note that:

If a disclosure is deemed necessary, lawful and proportionate, the person potentially at risk, or person best placed to safeguard that information, will receive the information.

Police Scotland are required to conclude via the 3 point test^[83] that disclosure is necessary to protect the person at risk from being the victim of crime^[84]. At all times, the power to both share and/or disclose information must be considered on a case-by-case basis. In the case of disclosure, Police Scotland work closely with other agencies in a multi-agency approach to help and support the potential victim-survivor (NHS Health Scotland, 2019).

Available evidence

Currently, the evidence base about the effectiveness of Domestic Violence Disclosure Schemes (DVDS) is limited to pilot evaluations (see Home Office, 2013; New South Wales Government, 2016). There are currently no evaluations of the domestic abuse disclosure scheme currently available in Scotland (Brooks-Hays, 2018). Consequently these interventions have been classified as inconclusive due to insufficient evidence (see Annex C).

The Home Office pilot evaluation (based on 4 geographical areas in England and Wales), results showed that:

the most common reported trigger for requesting a disclosure was the behaviour of a partner. Demographic information recorded by police suggests that the vast majority (98%) of applications requested information for women about their male partners, and most of these women were aged between 19 and 50. Almost two-thirds (63%) had children (2013:11).

Police Scotland data on the DSDAS shows that:

• In the 12 months to 31 March 2020, Police Scotland received 2,648 applications for disclosure, a 66% increase on the same period 2018/19 (1,596 applications)
• In the same period, 1389 disclosures were made to people indicating that their partner had an abusive past. This represents a 60% increase on the same period the previous year (865 disclosures)
• Since 01 April 2020 until 01 July 2020, Police Scotland received 817 applications for disclosure, a 21% increase on the same period 2018/19 (674 applications).
• In the same period, 440 disclosures were made to people indicating that their partner had an abusive past. This represents a 27% increase on the same period the previous year (346 disclosures).

Likewise, Hadjimatheou and Grace (2020:1) highlight that within England and Wales:

The DVDS has fast become established as a routine tool of domestic abuse safeguarding in England and Wales, with the number of disclosures made doubling from 3410 in the year ending March 2017 (Office of National Statistics 2017) to 6583 in the year ending March 2019 (Office of National Statistics 2019).

However, Hadjimatheou and Grace (2020:12) suggest that caution should be taken not to “conflate more frequent with better use of the scheme”. Their findings suggest that there “is significant divergence both in disclosures themselves, and in practitioner views about what constitutes a fair and effective disclosure”. As such, they encourage awareness that all disclosures may not be equally effective or fair, citing an example of different disclosure experiences based on different geographies. Consequently, they call for a national systematic evaluation of the DVDS scheme ensuring that feedback from specialist case workers and survivors are included.

It is worth noting that some controversy exists around Domestic Abuse Disclosure schemes. As Brooks-Hays (2018:28) highlights, victim-focused initiatives such as this scheme are controversial:

not least since they do not guarantee victim safety in domestic abuse cases (Duggan, 2012) and may even have the effect of exacerbating the situation for living with violence (Fitz-Gibbon and Walklate, 2016).

Moreover, there is some concern that “such disclosures place the onus of responsibility for stopping abuse back onto victim-survivors” (Brooks-Hays, 2018:28).

Moderating factors

Potential facilitators

According to the Home Office Pilot evaluation (2013:4), some effective practices and approaches were identified:

• practitioners highlighted the importance of having a safety plan^[85] in place following a disclosure
• practitioners and respondents receiving a disclosure also highlighted the importance of having a support worker attend a disclosure alongside the police, in order to give a potential victim immediate support
• Practitioners felt it was essential that there was sufficient support service coverage in place if the scheme was rolled-out more widely

Potential barriers

Critics of DVDS highlight several areas for further consideration in relation to these schemes (see Fitz-Gibbon and Walklate, 2017):

• challenges around low public awareness of the scheme – thus likely to limit broad engagement with it
• questions around whether there are other, more effective, measures that can be funded within the financial climate of austerity
• concerns around limited available support after the potential victim-survivor has received the disclosure^[86]

Likewise, in Greene and O’Leary’s (2018:55) review of existing DVDS (in relation to their Australian context), they argue that:

the use of DVDs, like sex offender registers, shifts responsibility for avoiding such abuse from the male perpetrators and society generally onto mostly female recipients of the disclosed information.

Moreover, Hadjimatheou and Grace (2020) argue that to determine what effectiveness in a DVDS is, this understanding must be investigated in more depth. They argue that:

Such an investigation should take the form of a nationwide, systematic evaluation of the DVDS of the kind that would combine the police perspective with specialist caseworker insights and, most importantly, feedback from survivors. The results would be formative to both practice and regulation in the UK and beyond (Hadjimatheou 2020:12).

Based on the Home Office (2013:4) evaluation of the DVDS pilot, Box 1 below indicates some lessons and recommendations from this research:

Box 1: Lessons and recommendations from Home Office (2013) DVDS pilot

Perceived bureaucracy of police process: police officers felt certain stages of the process were bureaucratic and lengthy, particularly conducting research on an individual’s offending history.

Public awareness and understanding of the scheme: practitioners felt that public awareness of the disclosure scheme was low with some confusion about what the disclosure scheme was for and how the process worked (misunderstandings were resolved once the process was explained).

Frontline police officer awareness of the scheme: practitioners suggested that not all frontline police officers knew about the existence of the scheme and it was felt that a basic knowledge for all was useful.

Overlap between disclosure processes: some practitioners identified a need for further guidance about how the DVDS overlaps with and complements other disclosure processes, such as Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements and the Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme.

Lack of understanding of the term ‘pressing need to disclose’: practitioners involved in decision-making forums felt that the term “pressing need‟^[87] was unclear and subjective, but reported that this had been overcome in practice^[88].

Delivery of Right to Know disclosures: Police officers felt it was difficult to practically manage the delivery of a Right to Know disclosure. Support services were concerned that this could place a potential victim at greater risk of domestic abuse if not managed carefully.

Lack of consistency in information given in disclosures: There were differences between pilot areas in the level of detail contained within a disclosure and what previous offences were disclosed, achieving some level of consistency across areas was felt to be useful.

Follow-up support for non-disclosures: There was a lack of consistency between pilot areas in the type of follow-up support given to those who were told there was no information to disclose, a set of “minimum standards” of support to provide for nondisclosures was seen as useful.