Methods
To inform this needs assessment, we gathered information on a range of issues related to VAWG from a variety of sources. This included experts by lived experience, professionals working in the field, and individuals who may encounter victim/survivors in the course of their work, even if their role is not specifically focused on DVA.
We held a number of in-person engagement and insight workshops, and commissioned Solace and Hopscotch to run sessions with specific population groups. We also partnered with the Woman’s Trust to co-facilitate a session that had a large focus on mental health and DVA. These organisations’ involvement ensured a safe, neutral space, drawing on specialist expertise and an independent perspective - separate from the Council - which helped foster openness. These organisations are skilled at building trust with women and girls, and their culturally sensitive, trauma-informed approach enabled open, honest conversations with women from diverse community backgrounds about their views and experiences. Verbal consent was acquired before discussions commenced, and all information was anonymised. For the council run sessions personal data was not collected. Notes were shared with participants afterwards to check for accuracy and opportunity to amend, clarify or retract.
During these sessions, participants were asked about their awareness and experience of available services, perceived barriers to access, the effectiveness of services, and suggestions for addressing local challenges.
In addition, to help address gaps, we have drawn on insights from existing reports and recent, related engagement activities to supplement the primary data collected. Some of these are Camden specific for example, the reports by the Camden Women’s Forum (CWF) 2020 and The Winch 2022 on causes, manifestations, and systemic nature of violence against women and girls of colour in Camden. Where there is paucity of Camden specific data, relevant regional or national insights such as specialist service GALOP 2023 insight report on LGBT+ DVA survivors’ access to support, or health sector professionals insights gathered and reported by Crossing Pathways 2025.
New insight sessions/focus groups
Victim/Survivor and community group insights
Listening session with Camden Voices Against Abuse (CVAA) co facilitated with the Woman’s Trust
3 x focus groups with Solace service user groups
2 generic refuges in Camden borough
1 multiple disadvantage refuges in Camden borough
4 x consultations with women from the following communities or using the following services
Hopscotch Women’s Centre: Bangladeshi Older Women’s Group
Kings Cross Brunswick Neighbourhood Association (KCBNA): Somali Women’s Group
London Irish Centre
Women at the Well
Professionals’ and practitioner insights
Camden Safety Net practitioners’ insight session
DVA Navigators practitioners’ insight sessions
Grace House – Women’s homelessness and multiple disadvantage supported accommodation – insights workshop
2 x insight workshops for Council, NHS and VCSE professionals on DA and mental health
1 x insight discussion with Children and Learning practitioners
Reform Discovery findings (as part of Children and Learning National Reform deep dives)
GPs’ focus group
Money Advice Team insight session
Drive, Restart and Team Manager of Camden Perpetrator Programme – practitioners’ insights sessions.
Existing Camden specific insights
Camden Women’s Forum report 2020
Women’s Safety Survey 2024
The Winch report 2022: Qualitative research on VAWG and Women and Girls of Colour
Youth Assembly findings 2024
Women’s Homeless Forum
Existing Insights – regional or national
Crossing Pathways 2025 – Health sector professionals
Galop 2023 report: LGBT+ domestic abuse survivors’ access to support
Further insight and engagement opportunities
It was not possible to engage all relevant stakeholder groups during this initial version of the needs assessment due to timelines and resource constraints. As such, further engagement and insight gathering will occur iteratively and be added to the Council’s repository of insights. Several stakeholder groups are planned as an update to this needs assessment and/or for inclusion as part of strategy development to ensure their voices are represented. This includes (but not limited to):
An online staff engagement survey with questions on knowledge and skills, awareness of services, perceived gaps and barriers, enablers, and the common beliefs or attitudes encountered in their work.
Engagement with health visitors and maternity colleagues
Camden LGBTQ community and groups
Limitations
Whilst we made efforts to carry out engagement and use existing insights that represented a wide range of voices, we acknowledge that for this version of the needs assessment some perspectives and experiences may not be fully reflected. Furthermore, it is worth highlighting that the insights gathered are mainly related to DVA rather than other aspects of VAWG.
While participants highlighted examples of effective practice and dedicated professionals, the nature of focus group discussions means that people are often more inclined to speak about challenges, gaps, or areas of concern. The findings presented here therefore reflect that emphasis and should be considered alongside the positive experiences that were also shared, even if they are less prominent in this summary.
Summary of qualitative findings
The insights begin with a summary of key themes across all stakeholder discussions, followed by a thematic analysis of each session for this needs assessment, and then insights from other sources.
Cross-cutting themes from all new stakeholder engagement
While each stakeholder group offers distinct and tailored perspectives, the following themes emerge as the most prominent across the stakeholder insights.
Prevention and a public health approach to addressing VAWG
Stakeholders called for stronger prevention and earlier identification and intervention by the system/professionals, including school-based education on healthy relationships, early identification of DVA in health and housing settings, and perpetrator rehabilitation programmes.Gaps in support for victim/survivors who don’t meet certain service criteria
Survivors whose cases do not meet certain criteria e.g. high-risk thresholds for DVA often face limited or no ongoing support once immediate danger has passed or post-separation abuse. This gap leaves many without help during the crucial recovery phase, when trauma and practical challenges may intensify. There are gaps in identification and support for other, often hidden forms of VAWG such as ‘honour-based’ abuse.Mental health
All groups identified a shortage of DVA-informed mental health provision, especially for victim/survivors with complex trauma or dual diagnoses. Services are often short-term, generic, and difficult to access, with long waits and high thresholds. Victim/survivors stressed the need for sustained, relationship-based, trauma-informed care.Support for children
Stakeholders repeatedly called for consistent recognition of children as direct victim/survivors of DVA, with expanded access to therapeutic services and school-based interventions. Intergenerational trauma and the use of children by perpetrators as a form of control were key concerns.System-induced trauma
Victim/survivors and professionals reported mistrust of, and harm caused by fragmented services, repeated retelling of their story, punitive housing environments, and inconsistent or unsafe interventions. These experiences compounded trauma and, in some cases, undermined recovery.Housing and benefits
A lack of safe, suitable, and local housing options is a persistent barrier. Forced relocations disrupt support networks, particularly for women with children. Hostel environments are often unsuitable and not trauma-informed. Housing First models, where available, were praised but are rare. When Universal Credit is paid directly into claimants’ bank accounts, it can increase the risk of financial control in cases of DVA, or lead to rent arrears where claimants face multiple disadvantages and associated poor spending habits.Equity and intersectionality
Cultural stigma, institutional bias, and lack of cultural competence can hinder access to support - particularly for migrant women, women experiencing multiple disadvantage, with no recourse to public funds (NRPF), disabilities, neurodivergence, or language needs. Many services remain inaccessible or unwelcoming for marginalised groups, including those experiencing homelessness, those with dual diagnoses and other disadvantage.Training and skills
There is strong demand for mandatory, trauma-informed, culturally competent DVA training for all frontline professionals, particularly in policing, housing, healthcare, and education. Training should go beyond basic safeguarding to address disclosure, trauma impacts, and victim-blaming attitudes.Service navigation & information access
Victim/survivors and professionals need clear, up-to-date service maps, referral pathways and service criteria. A centralised directory, accessible in multiple languages and formats, was widely recommended to reduce missed opportunities and victim/survivor burden.Accountability, justice and perpetrator programmes
Low prosecution rates, premature case closures, and minimal perpetrator consequences undermine trust in the justice system. Victim/survivors often feel judged or dismissed by police and CPS. Perpetrator programmes play an important role in challenging harmful behaviours and attitudes, holding perpetrators accountable, and breaking cycles of abuse alongside other protective measures for victim/survivors.Funding & workforce stability
Short-term contracts, low staffing capacity, and insecure employment for specialist VAWG roles reduce continuity of care and service effectiveness. Responding to and supporting those with direct trauma can impact staff wellbeing, which can be addressed by clinical supervision and reflective practice.Multi-agency coordination
Poor communication and unclear referral processes across sectors and geographies can lead to gaps, duplication, and missed opportunities. Stakeholders called for joint case-sharing meetings, embedded specialists, and system-wide accountability.
Whilst the finding presented here placed greater emphasis on difficulties - the nature of focus group discussions meant that people were more inclined to focus on challenges, gaps or areas of concern - it is important to note that positive experiences where also shared. Where those with lived experience and professionals reflected on what has enabled prevention and response VAWG and DVA, several enabling factors were highlighted:
Trusted and supportive relationships with professionals and institutions – Where victim/survivors have felt safe, respected, and believed by frontline services and practitioners they were more likely to seek and have a positive experience of support. Services such as Camden Safety Net and Domestic Violence and Abuse Navigators, and services giving appropriate mental health support, were described as life-saving.
Safe accommodation options – Access to hostels, refuges, and other forms of temporary housing can be life-saving, providing immediate safety and space to rebuild.
Effective multi-agency collaboration – Where there has been coordinated responses between police, health services, housing, schools, and specialist organisations ensure victim/survivors do not fall through gaps in the system.
Youth engagement and positive role models – Youth workers and community mentors play a crucial role in prevention by offering alternatives, support, and guidance to young people.
Skilled and trauma-informed staff – Practitioners trained to identify vulnerability, understand intersectionality, and respond appropriately can intervene earlier and more effectively.
A culture of safety and awareness – Proactive approaches in schools, workplaces, and communities help challenge harmful norms and increase understanding of rights, consent, and healthy relationships.
Positive male allies – Men acting as role models and active allies to women can challenge harmful behaviours, promote equality, and shift community attitudes.
Victim/Survivor and community group insights
Camden Voices Against Abuse (CVAA) listening & engagement session
As part of the Domestic Abuse and Mental Health deep dive, the Council worked with the Women’s Trust to listen to people who are experts by experience from the Camden Voices Against Abuse (CVAA) network to understand issues surrounding mental health and DVA, particularly in relation to support needed and access to support.
Participants requested a less formal session than a focus group, with limitations placed on collection of demographic data of those present. The session took place in April 2025. There were seven women with lived experience, all of whom had received support from Camden Safety Net. An additional participant submitted a written statement that was read out.
| Summary of key themes |
|---|
Role of GPs and other gatekeepers Gaps in mental health services System-induced trauma Children’s mental health and safeguarding Cultural and structural barriers Power of specialist and peer support Need for long-term, holistic, person-centred support |
Summary of key themes
Role of GPs and other gatekeepers
Victim/survivors reported that when GPs recognised DVA and referred to specialist services, the impact was transformative, but such recognition was inconsistent. Missed opportunities, over-medicalisation, and variable follow-up were common.
Gaps in mental health services
Access to DVA-informed mental health support was limited, with long waits, generic approaches, and a lack of specialist practitioners. Survivors stressed the need for sustained, trauma-informed care to address complex, ongoing trauma.
System-induced trauma
Poor, siloed service responses worsened victim/survivors’ mental health and safety. Repeatedly retelling traumatic experiences, unsafe interventions, and a lack of understanding of post-separation abuse compounded harm.
Children’s mental health and safeguarding
Children need to be seen as victims of DVA, yet specialist support felt inconsistent. The impact on children’s mental health and intergenerational transmission of risk, behaviour or trauma was a key concern. It was perceived that professionals often failed to recognise how perpetrators use children to exert control, placing undue responsibility on non-abusive parents.
Cultural and structural barriers
Cultural stigma, institutional misogyny, and lack of cultural competence made it harder for survivors - particularly those from marginalised groups - to access appropriate support.
Power of specialist and peer support
Specialist services and survivor-led peer networks provided validation, safety, and essential guidance through complex systems, often described as “lifesaving”.
Need for long-term, holistic, person-centred support
Victim/survivors emphasised that DVA has lasting effects beyond separation, requiring integrated mental, physical, and emotional support, alongside access to holistic therapies and prevention-focused approaches.
Discussion findings (summarised)
Role of GPs and other gatekeepers: Victim/survivors who took part in the focus group described a landscape of support for DVA victim/survivors that is both life-changing at its best and inadequate at its worst. When GPs or other professionals recognised the signs of DVA and made referrals to services such as Camden Safety Net (CSN), women described the impact as “transformative” and “lifesaving.” However, this experience was inconsistent. It was felt that often abuse went unnoticed - both by victim/survivors themselves, who may not recognise controlling behaviour as abuse, and by professionals, who failed to ask the right questions. In these cases, health problems were treated in isolation e.g. anxiety, depression, and sleep issues were met with antidepressants rather than targeted DVA support. In some cases, trauma responses were misdiagnosed as mental illness, further delaying appropriate care.
Follow-up after initial disclosure was equally variable. Some victim/survivors experienced regular, compassionate check-ins; others felt abandoned once they left the GP’s office. Opportunities to connect women with specialist support were often missed due to professionals’ lack of knowledge about available services.
Gaps in mental health provision: The picture given for mental health services highlighted gaps. Victim/survivors described a scarcity of DVA-specialist provision, long waiting lists of six months to three years, and a reliance on generic, non-trauma-informed approaches. Experienced practitioners were hard to access; victim/survivors were more likely to be assigned to trainees with limited understanding of DVA. Short-term, crisis-focused interventions left many women without the sustained support they needed to recover from complex, ongoing trauma. For some, key memories of abuse only began to surface two years after leaving the relationship, by which point the formal support had long ended.
System induced trauma: Participants spoke of “system-induced trauma” - harm caused not by the perpetrator, but by the very systems meant to help. Services worked in silos, with little information sharing. Survivors were forced to retell their experiences repeatedly, sometimes to staff who lacked DVA awareness, leading to unsafe or retraumatising responses. Post-separation abuse was poorly understood, and child safeguarding often placed the burden on the non-abusive parent while ignoring the ongoing risk posed by the perpetrator.
Children’s mental health and safeguarding: Children’s mental health emerged as a central concern. Participants stressed that children are not passive witnesses to abuse but victim/survivors themselves, with trauma akin to that experienced by soldiers. Yet specialist support for children was rare and inconsistent, and professionals often failed to recognise how perpetrators use children as tools of coercion and control. Intergenerational transmission of trauma, risk or behaviour was a concern.
Cultural and structural barriers: Cultural stigma, lack of cultural competence, and institutional misogyny compounded the barriers to safety and recovery. Marginalised women - including those without children, women with disabilities, and non-native English speakers - were especially at risk of being overlooked by services.
Power of specialist and peer support: Despite these challenges, victim/survivors highlighted the transformative power of the right support. Camden Safety Net, Panoramic counselling, and peer-led groups like Healing Our Past and Evolving (HOPE) Survivors Group provided validation, understanding, and a roadmap through the maze of services and legal processes. Peer networks, in particular, offered not just emotional solidarity but practical advice that could make the difference between safety and continued harm.
Long term holistic care: Above all, victim/survivors called for long-term, holistic, person-centred care. They stressed that the impact of abuse does not end with leaving the perpetrator, and that both mental and physical health are affected in interconnected ways. Chronic stress and trauma can lead to serious physical illnesses, adding to the cost - both personal and systemic - of inadequate support. Holistic interventions, from Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR) therapy to yoga and mindfulness, can play an important role, but are inconsistently available.
Participant recommendations
Embed victim/survivor voice into policy and service design.
Develop individualised, tiered DVA support across the risk spectrum and survivor’s journey.
Improve inter-agency communication and address system-induced trauma.
Provide mandatory DVA trauma-informed training for all frontline professionals.
Ensure family-centred approaches in cases involving children. This means that support engages and supports the victim/survivor, holds the person causing harm (DVA perpetrator) to account, and protects and supports any children in the family.
Prioritise prevention, early intervention, and long-term care.
Solace refuges survivor-led insights and needs
(Summarised from their full report)
Solace were commissioned by Camden Council to gather insights from victim/survivors to inform the needs assessment. They undertook 3 focus groups across their 2 generic refuges and 1 multiple disadvantage refuges in Camden borough in June 2025. The structure of these focus groups was reviewed and designed by Solace’s advisory group to ensure victim/survivor engagement throughout this research process. There was a total of 19 participants, and demographic breakdown of participants can be found in the full report.
Summary of key themes
Insights, opinions, and feedback on experiences, unmet needs and desired support
Meaningful and trusted support
Unmet needs and missed opportunities
Identifying barriers and gaps in existing services, interventions, and support mechanisms
Systemic barriers to access
Service fragmentation and inconsistency
Distrust
Discussion findings (summarised)
Meaningful and trusted support: Victim/survivors emphasised the value of compassionate, person-centred, trauma-informed support. Solace services were frequently described as a “lifeline,” especially when staff were empathetic and consistent. Emotional awareness workshops (e.g., ARISE counselling), yoga in refuge, gardening schemes, and in-house counselling were seen as validating and stabilising.
“Solace just knew what I needed. They gave me pyjamas when I had nothing.”
“I didn’t feel like a case number. I felt like a person.”
Participants valued a single point of contact, such as a key worker or GP, and praised safety measures like GP record protections and social worker safety plans.
Unmet needs and missed opportunities: Many expressed frustration over unclear processes, excessive signposting, and not recognising abuse until it became physical. A lack of proactive identification and support at early stages was repeatedly noted.
“I had no idea I was being abused until it got physical.”
“[The council] gave me a list of numbers but no help.”
Missed opportunities were cited in schools, GP visits, and police interactions, with calls for teacher training to spot signs such as behavioural changes or absences.
Systemic barriers to access: Barriers included immigration status, no recourse to public funds, and language issues. Women on temporary or spousal visas were denied refuge or legal aid, and some were told to pay for hotels. Lack of interpreters, family support, or digital literacy further isolated survivors.
Service fragmentation and inconsistency: Victim/survivors reported poor coordination between services, boroughs, police teams, and housing, leading to repeated retelling of trauma and lost cases. Lack of standardised training and handovers created emotional harm. Positive experiences with responsive services (e.g. Barnet SASS, GP flagging) contrasted with Camden.
Distrust: Some felt judged, blamed, or dismissed by professionals, facing disbelief from police and social workers. Victim/survivors described the emotional toll of repeated questioning, lack of perpetrator accountability, and perceived institutional gaslighting.
Mental health and trauma recovery: Victim/survivors wanted longer-term, specialist mental health support. While Solace therapy and ARISE programmes were praised, NHS access was often severely delayed. Some were misdiagnosed or dismissed. Mental health impacts on survivors with complex needs or neurodiversity often went unaddressed.
Impact on children and parenting: Abuse’s impact on children was a major concern. Gaps included limited therapy access (e.g., play therapy only for under-3s) and lack of parenting programmes. Forced borough moves disrupted schooling, especially for children with additional needs.
Supportive vs harmful responses: The difference between empathetic, responsive professionals and dismissive or judgmental ones was stark, reinforcing the need for trauma-informed training across all services.
Recommendations
Improve training and accountability
Mandatory trauma-informed VAWG training for police, social workers, housing, and healthcare staff
Stronger accountability and consistent case handling across boroughs
Create accessible and centralised information
Service directory for all Council departments
‘Personal passport’ to reduce retelling trauma
More out-of-hours/weekend support for emergency housing
Emergency funding for fleeing victim/survivors
Multi-language resources on Camden Council’s website
Housing and move-on support
Increase housing priority for refuge referrals
Address triggering aspects of move-on accommodation
Provide mental health checks during transition
Strengthen child and family support
Fund play therapy and support for all ages
Parenting programmes in refuges
Emotional coaching for mothers
Consistent Child & Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) and school-based mental health support
Peer mentorship for newly single parents
Address structural exclusion
- Ensure services are inclusive for women with NRPF, language needs, disabilities, neurodivergence, and children of abuse
Additional safety measures
- Enable GP record protections to safeguard victim/survivor addresses
Hopscotch victim/survivor engagement
(Summarised from their full report)
Hopscotch was commissioned by Camden Council to conduct a community consultation about VAWG in Camden from May to July 2025. Approximately 40 women were consulted across four sessions, from members of Hopscotch Women’s Centre Bangladeshi Older Women’s Group, King’s Cross Brunswick Neighbourhood Association Somali Women’s Group, the London Irish Centre, and Women at the Well.
Summary of key themes
Community understandings of abuse focus on physical, financial, emotional, sexual abuse, and coercion, highlighting varied awareness, cultural justifications, and challenges in recognition and discussion.
Subtle forms of abuse include in-law control and mistreatment, as well as emotional harm from infidelity and polygamy, often normalized within families and communities.
Hidden abuse includes honour-based violence, FGM, institutional neglect, harassment, stalking, and reproductive coercion, often normalized or silenced due to cultural stigma and fear.
Perceived exacerbators of DVA include jealousy, financial stress, and cultural differences, often seen as causes rather than symptoms of abuse.
Awareness of support services varies, with distrust in services/police common and community-based services preferred by some groups over formal VAWG organisations.
Barriers to support: Survivors face numerous practical, emotional, and cultural barriers that hinder their ability to access timely, confidential, and culturally sensitive support for abuse.
Discussion findings (summarised)
Community understanding of abuse:
Physical abuse was one of the most widely known forms of VAWG, including threats of physical violence. It was noted by one participant that physical violence might be justified by perpetrators as a form of discipline, and another noted that physical abuse is more likely to be recognised when it leaves visible injuries or is repeated.
Financial abuse was frequently raised by the participants although the views on how finances are implicated in abuse patterns varied, with some participants referring to finances as an exacerbator of other types of abuse rather than a source of abuse itself. Some participants noted that traditional gender roles and expectations can make financial control acceptable to some people. In addition, participants across cultural groups raised financial abuse as an intergenerational issue in different types of relationships (e.g. elderly family members abused by younger family members), including being combined with other abuse types (e.g. isolation under the guise of protecting the victim).
Psychological/Emotional abuse and control/coercion was recognised across the groups with participants giving various examples and noting that this type of abuse can be hidden or considered “normal problems of marriage” by some. Participants also discussed how faith and religion can be weaponised within a relationship. The Somali Women’s Group participants all agreed that some level of abusive/controlling behaviour by a husband towards a wife was normal and acceptable, even if they as women “take no notice” or think the behaviour doesn’t reflect the intention.
Sexual abuse was discussed, albeit less openly than other forms of abuse. Two groups did not mention sexual abuse at all during the sessions. The subject of marital rape was raised in one group, and participants noted that sexual consent within marriage is rarely discussed, and culturally sex may be seen as the “wife’s duty”. It was also noted that sex can be used as a way of controlling, punishing, and engendering fear.
Subtle forms of abuse: The Somali Women’s Group was the only group that touched on forced marriage, explaining that is it most evident when the female in the marriage is “too young” or they show resistance.
In the Bangladeshi Older Women’s Group and Somali Women’s Group there was a discussion about relationships with daughters-in-law, and how abuse can be perpetrated by in-laws. One participant suggested that some mothers-in-law may enact abusive behaviours in order to feel control because they feel powerless. Some members of the group felt this is an issue which is improving within the community, and there was disagreement as to if intergenerational households exacerbates or prevents the issue. It was also noted that for some “family interference in marriage is seen as normal”.
Some participants viewed infidelity and polygamous practices as abuse due to the impact it has on women. Some gave examples of emotional infidelity or second wives which have been kept secret and explained that the sense of betrayal is experienced as both emotional and material harm. Others noted feeling neglected when their husband is more focused on their second family or their extended family “back home”.
Participants in some groups spoke about the need to preserve family reputation and avoid shame by having some control over their children’s marriages, but participants did not see this as linked to honour based abuse.
Perceived ‘exacerbators’ of abuse: When asked what they perceived to be the causes and exacerbators of abuse within families and relationships, three key themes were identified
Jealousy
Finances and financial pressures
Differences between partners (e.g. different cultural backgrounds, values, norms, or traditions)
[Note: the term ‘exacerbate’ can feel inappropriate when discussing DVA, as it may unintentionally suggest that external factors cause or worsen the abuse itself, rather than acknowledging abuse as a choice made by the perpetrator – however understanding these situations can be important for addressing the context in which abuse occurs.]
Awareness of support services: Awareness of and willingness to engage with support services was mixed. There was considerable distrust in the police due to women not being taken seriously when disclosing VAWG, a lack of trauma-informed approaches, and police officers not being able to manage their emotions appropriately when responding to DVA situations.
Participants from Women at the Well and the London Irish Centre had a relatively good understanding of support services, being able to mention some by name. Participants from the Bangladeshi and Somali groups were less aware of VAWG-specific services and suggested more community-based sources of support as the first port of call. These two groups were aware of the support provided by the Council but were reluctant to engage with it.
Barriers to accessing support:
Practical barriers mentioned include:
Long waiting lists / not receiving support quickly
Digital literacy – not being able to get through on the phone or not aware of how to self-refer online
Language barriers result in difficulties advocating for themselves and receiving the support they’re entitled to
Access to information (e.g. lack of awareness that you can call 999 and then 555 to trigger emergency services to attend your location)
Lack of stable income and housing means leaving an abusive situation can feel too difficult
Lack of support networks can make it hard to seek help or leave an abusive situation
Substance use can be a barrier to accessing support and leaving an abusive relationship, especially if the victim/survivor is dependent on the perpetrator for the provision of substances
Emotional barriers mentioned include:
Fear that the perpetrator could find out about disclosures and abuse could escalate
A lack of trust in services being fully confidential, that they will be believed, or that they might be seen accessing services
A lack of adequate and accessible support for people whose mental health is impacted by VAWG
A lack of confidence and self-belief in their ability to move beyond the abuse
The risk of re-traumatisation or experiencing trauma responses when accessing services
Cultural / Social barriers mentioned include:
Victim-blaming, and the onus on the victim/survivor to provide evidence of VAWG
Concern about wider consequences such as social services removing their children
Fear of harm to self can stop people from intervening
Cultural norms mean abuse may not be recognised or is dismissed
Family modelling and upbringing can normalise abusive behaviours
Gender roles
Stigma from speaking out and how it can affect your status/reputation in the family or community
Lack of trust in the system resulting in a reluctance to seek support from VAWG services as it may not be worth the risk or they don’t believe they’d receive the right support
Recommendations from community members
Community: Participants at the London Irish Centre emphasised that women are more likely to turn to community members than professionals for support. They recommended increased funding for community activities and safe, trauma-informed spaces where women can build trust and access help, with better awareness of VAWG issues among facilitators.
Preventative education for young people: There was strong support for teaching young people about their rights in relationships, recognising abuse, and promoting respect. Such education helps them develop healthier relationships and better identify abuse in families. Hopscotch runs a school-based program in Camden, but participants stressed the need for wider implementation.
Better holistic support services: Across all groups, participants highlighted the need for more holistic support addressing intersecting issues like mental health, disabilities, housing, poverty, and financial challenges. These factors increase vulnerability to abuse, and current systems often fail to provide adequate support.
Rehabilitation: A participant suggested increased funding for rehabilitation programs for perpetrators, including those in prison.
Additional recommendation from Hopscotch Women’s Centre
Many participants felt uncomfortable seeking professional support, especially from the police. Somali and Bangladeshi women feared involving police due to family shame, while women at Women at the Well felt let down by systems and lacked trust in receiving proper help.
Enhancing community outreach through trauma-informed, culturally sensitive approaches can help build trust. Participants appreciated outreach that meets them in safe, familiar spaces where their concerns are heard. Outreach must be flexible and tailored to each community’s needs to create environments where people feel safe to open up.
Professionals and practitioner insights
Camden Safety Net staff
An informal focus group with Camden Safety Net (CSN) staff was conducted to gather insights based on their work with victim/survivors. The session was attended by 10 staff members in June 2025
Summary of key themes
Mental health (MH) support gaps
Existing mental health services are insufficiently equipped to provide the long-term, complex support survivors need, often leaving community services to fill the gap.
Housing and accommodation
Limited and inappropriate housing options, especially following local hostel closures and for those with complex needs or NRPF status, disrupt access to essential services and support.
Immigration and legal barriers
Immigration status significantly complicates access to DVA support, with many victim/survivors facing complex legal challenges and limited eligibility for services.
Barriers to effective professional support
Service thresholds and eligibility criteria leave many victim/survivors without ongoing practical and therapeutic support, particularly those with lower risk or complex needs like adult children abusing parents.
Discussion findings
Participants identified a range of systemic and practical barriers faced by victim/survivors of DVA in Camden, alongside the challenges experienced by professionals in delivering effective support.
Mental health support emerged as one of the most significant gaps. While there is access to a contracted counselling service, it offers only eight phone-based sessions, which are often too light-touch and unsuitable for victim/survivors with complex or long-standing needs such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Many of these individuals require face-to-face, long-term therapeutic support, yet local mental health services are frequently inaccessible. As a result, CSN caseworkers often find themselves providing ongoing emotional and mental health support well beyond their intended remit, keeping cases open far longer than necessary in the absence of follow-on services. The situation has been exacerbated by the apparent scaling back of services such as Victim Support, which no longer provides consistent post-crisis casework except in limited circumstances, often linked to police referrals.
Housing instability was another major concern. The closure of the local family hostel at England’s Lane has meant that many families are now placed in temporary accommodation outside the borough. This relocation disrupts victim/survivors’ ability to maintain connections to local networks and services, complicates practical arrangements such as getting children to school, and can hinder access to referrals, particularly for mental health support. Housing options for victim/survivors with additional needs, such as substance misuse issues or mental health conditions, are extremely limited. In many cases, funding constraints prevent access to suitable accommodation - for example, there is no funding provision for single women without children, and hotel accommodation is often unsuitable for those with mental health needs. Some specialist refuges cannot be accessed by Camden clients due to location restrictions, and respite room placements can take a long time to arrange.
Immigration and legal barriers were described as another acute challenge, particularly for victim/survivors with NRPF, work visas, or overstayed visas. While victim/survivors on spousal visas may be able to access some DVA provision, those without spousal visas or children face significant obstacles. Immigration cases are often highly complex, resource-intensive, and stressful for both clients and professionals. Solicitors willing to take on these cases are difficult to find, and voluntary sector funding options are limited and often conditional on strict eligibility criteria, such as the requirement for an imminent change in immigration status.
Professionals reported that balancing resources between high- and lower-risk cases can leave victim/survivors with less immediate risk without adequate support. Services with the capacity to provide ongoing assistance - such as the Asian Women’s Resource Centre or the Ascent Pan-London Floating Support Service - often have restrictive eligibility criteria, meaning that victim/survivors in hostels, temporary accommodation, or unsafe housing are excluded. Without a dedicated long-term pathway, victim/survivors can be left without help once the immediate risk is reduced, even though trauma symptoms and practical difficulties often surface or intensify at this stage.
Suggested service improvements
Housing
Increase safe accommodation options within Camden and Central London to preserve survivors’ social networks and reduce disruption
Broaden criteria for housing access (e.g., for survivors with substance misuse or complex mental health needs)
Mental health and long-term support
Develop long-term, community-based MH support accessible to all victim/survivors, regardless of immigration or housing status
Introduce ongoing floating support to help victim/survivors sustain independence (e.g., life skills, cost-of-living management)
Create a structured post-crisis pathway that bridges the gap between emergency intervention and long-term recovery
Support for children and families
Expand therapeutic services for children affected by DVA
Increase interventions for adult child–to–parent abuse, which can be severe and often linked to intergenerational trauma
Financial and practical assistance
Provide flexible funds to cover essential resettlement costs (e.g., carpets, appliances) that are currently unmet by statutory or charity provision
Provide some kind of floating support to assist with day-to-day tasks (e.g. filling in forms) that are more challenging or no longer possible due to impact of the DVA
Early intervention and prevention opportunities
Strengthen proactive responses from community safety/police in cases affecting neighbours or local safety, especially where victim/survivors are unwilling to press charges (for example, where adult children are perpetrators). This helps remove the onus on the victim/survivor to address the issue.
Address intergenerational DVA through targeted family interventions and mental health support - staff reported that parents experiencing abuse from adult children, often previously experienced abuse from their partner
Identify underlying abuse when clients present to services for other reasons (e.g. mental health crises, unexplained injuries)
Reduce risk of survivors returning to perpetrators by offering stability, safe housing, and emotional/mental health support immediately after leaving
Team support needs
- Access to regular clinical supervision to support staff dealing with high-stress, complex cases.
Grace House – Women’s supported accommodation staff group
An informal focus group with staff from Grace House, a specialist supported accommodation project for women impacted by homelessness and multiple disadvantage, was conducted to gather insights based on their work with victim/survivors. The session was attended by five staff members in August 2025.
Summary of key themes
Systemic distrust of the criminal justice system
Victim/survivors face deep mistrust of the criminal justice system, often rooted in prior negative experiences, stigmatisation and criminalisation.
Poly-victimisation and multi-perpetrator abuse
Multiply disadvantaged victim/survivors experience multiple forms of co-occurring VAWG and abuse, involving multiple perpetrators and wider networks of exploitation.
DVA services are inaccessible
Mainstream DVA and VAWG services, which focus on crisis-intervention and remote support, are not accessible to or accessed by multiply disadvantaged victim/survivors.
VAWG is experienced throughout lifetime
Women’s experiences of VAWG are ongoing and experienced through-out their life course, often first emerging in childhood. This is linked to inter-generational and familial abuse.
Mental health gaps and gendered pathologisation
Mental health support, including crisis support, is not accessible. Multiply disadvantaged victim/survivors experience gendered pathologisation.
Perpetrator invisibility
A lack of accountability mechanisms for perpetrators leads to repeated harm, with no meaningful consequences or interventions.
A relational approach is not systemically enabled
Large caseloads, low pay, limited progression opportunities, and vicariously traumatising work across the homelessness sector results in high staff turn-over that impedes relational work.
Support is not integrated
A siloed approach to support obstructs women with co-occurring needs from accessing support. This compounds VAWG risks.
Discussion findings (summarised)
Practitioners reported that mainstream DVA and VAWG services are unable to meet the needs of multiply disadvantaged and homeless victim/survivors. They noted that this is largely due to structural and resource limitations, such as the reliance on remote delivery. For residents who lack access to phones or who require more relational, face-to-face support, these models can be difficult to engage with. They expressed concern that limited adaptability within services can create challenges both for victim/survivors and for maintaining practitioner–resident relationships.
“When that IDSVA service does not have the flexibility to adapt to the resident’s needs, it can also impair our relationship with the resident - we are setting them to fail. The lack of flexibility and unfulfilled support is damaging.”
Additional barriers were identified within existing service models. Practitioners noted that the short-term, crisis-focused approach commonly used in DVA services does not always align with the ongoing needs of individuals facing multiple disadvantages, whose experiences often include long-term trauma and persistent forms of gender-based violence.
They observed that the predominant focus of DVA services on intimate partner violence does not always capture the wider range of experiences faced by multiply disadvantaged victim/survivors, including ongoing gender-based violence and trauma, as well as forms of abuse linked to substance use and criminal exploitation (for example, by drug dealers or pimps).
Practitioners also highlighted the challenges created by the lack of integrated provision across VAWG and substance use services. Survivors with overlapping needs often encounter barriers in accessing either type of support, reflecting broader issues of under-resourcing and fragmentation across service systems. These constraints make it difficult for services to fully address complex risk factors, despite the efforts of professionals working within them.
Services, such as the DVA Navigators, that can provide intensive, long-term and relational VAWG support were identified as essential, with one support worker sharing that “a number of our resident’s would have died if it was not for the Navigators”. Access to second tier advice and VAWG case consultation support, such as the support provided via the Safe Space model, was also identified as protective and strengthening factor.
Professionals noted that victim-blaming was pervasive and particularly pronounced for cases involving transactional sex and sexual violence, with victim/survivors often inappropriately accused of “putting themselves in harm’s way.”
Practitioners identified significant gaps in mental health support for multiply disadvantaged survivors, specifically for women with substance used needs, who are frequently told they must address their addiction needs until support can be provided. Practitioners noted that women often present with multiple, conflicting diagnosis, and saw this as suggestive of poor assessment and coordination. Practitioners highlighted that women were disproportionately likely to be diagnosed with personality disorders, such as emotionally unstable personality disorder, as opposed to a trauma-diagnosis, such as complex post-traumatic stress disorder. This was identified as gendered, and practitioners shared concerns that such diagnoses can lead to pathologisation, making services more reluctant to offer meaningful support.
Professionals noted that a fragmented mental health offer resulted in residents “falling through the gaps”. They highlighted that residents often struggle to access crisis and in-patient care, i.e., people experiencing suicidality, psychosis etc. Staff outlined the significant barriers that they experience when attempting to coordinate crisis support for residents, which can result in hostel support workers holding high-levels of risk in isolation. This absence of expert intervention leads to high levels of professional anxiety, with one staff noting that “sometimes we don’t know if we are harming or helping. We need professional input”.
A lack of accountability mechanisms for perpetrators and systemic barriers to accessing the criminal justice system were identified as key concerns. Practitioners outlined that this led to repeated harm, with no meaningful consequences or interventions for perpetrators of abuse.
Poor staff retention rates across the homeless sector were identified as a key operational risk and a barrier to delivering safe, contained services. Professionals highlighted the highly disruptive impact of this on resident’s – many of whom struggled to build secure, trusting attachments – and outlined how this undermined efforts to embed a relational approach. High staff turnover rates were linked to the need for improved working conditions within the homelessness sector, including the need to improve pay and leave entitlements – both of which are comparatively lower than equivalent Local Government roles – as well as opportunities for progression, and flexible working hours. Professionals felt that their labour was undervalued and under-renumerated, despite involving high levels of personal and professional risk and stress. Despite this, practitioners demonstrated a deep passion for their work and a commitment to the women that they support. Access to reflective practice, clinical supervision, and case-consultation support with expert practitioners were identified as protective and enabling factors.
Suggested system improvements
Housing
Expand Housing First provision, specifically VAWG specialist projects
Commission long-term housing support services, including long-stay accommodation and navigator support
Expand the provision of gender-informed supported accommodation
DVA and VAWG provision
Develop a full life-course VAWG and DVA offer
Increase the capacity of VAWG and multiple-disadvantage services, such as the DVA Navigators, and shift from short-term crisis-intervention models to long-term, relational approaches
Develop a universal VAWG offer for homeless women - “Every woman in the pathway should be allocated a long-term VAWG worker”
Embed VAWG expertise into homelessness settings through co-location and assertive outreach
Improve the capacity and capability of mainstream DVA and VAWG services to identify and respond to multiple disadvantage and homelessness
Develop a VAWG offer that integrates addiction expertise and addresses abuse linked to substance use and criminal exploitation, i.e., gendered violence from drug dealers, moving beyond a narrow focus on ‘personally connected’ DVA.
Mental health and trauma-informed care
Commission bespoke mental health services for victim/survivors impacted by multiple disadvantage and co-occurring conditions
Improve access to secondary and tertiary mental health care and develop accessible pathways into crisis support
Recognise the central role that gendered trauma plays in women’s mental health and wider needs
Perpetrator accountability
Improve pathways into perpetrator behaviour change programmes and disruption programmes
Strengthen the confidence and capability of professionals to embed the principles of perpetrator accountability into their work
Embed perpetrator intervention specialist into homelessness services via in-reach and case consultative support
Ensure greater accountability for perpetrators through more consistent prosecution and sentencing
Support for child-victims and family-focused work
Commission support for child victim/survivors and an integrated support offer for families impacted by DVA and VAWG
Address intergenerational DVA through targeted family interventions and mental health support
Develop training and resources focused on supporting victim/survivors of intrafamilial abuse
Team support needs
Access to regular clinical supervision and reflective practice to support staff responding to direct and vicarious trauma
Improve staff retention cross-sectorally through improvements to pay and working conditions, progression opportunities, and recognition for frontline staff
Reduced caseloads and an improve support worker to service user ratio, enabling more personalised, relational work
Camden Children and Learning staff group – Families and Early Help
An informal insight session was held with frontline staff in the Children and Learning department who often work with families affected by VAWG and DVA. Five participants attended on 20 August 2025. This included Family Workers a Family Service Manager, an Early Help Co-ordinator and a Family Systemic Psychotherapist.
Summary of key themes
Housing and safety
Lack of safe accommodation remains a key barrier. Decisions about housing for perpetrators often leave victim/survivors at continued risk, with limited local contact centres compounding safety issues.
Court and legal system challenges
Victim/survivors often lack independent legal advice, while inconsistent understanding of DVA in the courts leaves them vulnerable. Advocacy in legal proceedings is seen as particularly effective where available.
Perpetrator accountability and engagement
Staff highlighted difficulties in engaging perpetrators in meaningful change programmes, particularly where they are excluded from services or lack access to mental health support.
Recognising and Responding to Abuse
Sometimes abuse may not be fully identified, particularly when disclosure is limited, time is constrained, or opportunities for deeper exploration are missed. In some cases, patterns such as coercive control or post-separation abuse may be described as “parental conflict,” which can reduce the focus on potential risks and limit the support provided.
Mental health, trauma and systemic barriers
Unmet mental health needs - for both victim/survivors and perpetrators - affect safety and recovery. Where creative trauma-informed practice is applied, staff report stronger engagement.
Trust, culture and communication
Victim/survivors frequently distrust services, fearing child removal or judgement. Cultural differences, language barriers, and limited interpreter access can result in disengagement.
Children and young people
Staff identified challenges in supporting children as well as opportunities to strengthen early intervention around healthy relationships. Schools, GPs, and early parenting resources are identified as highly effective early intervention spaces.
Professional support and training
Safe & Together is regarded as “brilliant” when used consistently. Access to reflective spaces and group supervision strengthens staff capacity and confidence. Staff stressed the need for ongoing supervision, reflexive spaces, and stronger practice models to guide work with DVA cases.
Discussion findings
Housing and accommodation were described as central to both safety and ongoing risk. Victim/survivors face long waits for suitable housing, while perpetrators may remain in the home or be left without alternative accommodation, increasing the risk of further abuse. Participants also raised concerns about the limited availability of supervised contact centres, particularly outside of formal court proceedings.
Participants reported that legal and court processes are a recurring source of harm. Victim/survivors can lack access to legal advice, leaving them vulnerable to manipulation by perpetrators during proceedings. Professionals described how courts may grant perpetrators contact with children without fully considering the context of ongoing abuse. Participants felt that judicial misunderstanding of DVA dynamics, especially coercive control, often undermines safety planning. Independent advocacy within court proceedings was seen as critical but limited.
Practitioners reflected that abuse could be missed within social care, largely due to high thresholds for intervention, lack of time and support to explore underlying issues and if professional curiosity isn’t utilised. Furthermore, victim/survivors were seen as sometimes reluctant to engage with services, either because they feel judged or because they do not trust the system. This means that, even where abuse may be considerable, it is not always visible - particularly when families are hesitant to disclose or where the abuse is persistent but less obvious. Adult child to parent abuse was also discussed in this context, where hesitance to disclose was higher because of the dynamics/relationship between parent and child.
Participants emphasised the importance of embedding curiosity into conversations with families, and ensuring professionals are equipped to recognise both immediate and historic signs of abuse. Suggestions included developing a more standardised process for practice, with clearer mandatory actions, so that responses are not left to individual judgements of need.
The group also highlighted the value of practitioners having more time and scope to work with cases. This would allow professionals to explain the support available, reassure families about concerns such as the risk of children being removed, and build a fuller understanding of family circumstances. Challenges around information sharing and different models of practice were noted — particularly when families move across boroughs, or where another borough does not have the family open to children’s services.
For children and young people, practitioners identified gaps in support, particularly around access to specialist DVA therapeutic input where children are exposed to or experiencing abuse. Participants recognised the prevalence of intergenerational patterns of trauma, risk and behaviours, and therefore the importance of models of support designed to mitigate or reduce this risk.
Prevention and early intervention were valued. Creative approaches - such as resources in pregnancy and early childhood, and school-based awareness - were seen as important, but participants felt more structured provision was needed to build resilience and foster understanding of healthy relationships.
Mental health and trauma were highlighted as underlying and compounding factors. Victim/survivors with a history of trauma often present with poor physical and mental health, yet high thresholds in adult social care can mean these needs can be overlooked. Staff described how professional curiosity, time, and sensitivity to historical trauma can build trust, particularly when victim/survivors are hesitant to engage due to fears of child removal.
Staff also raised issues of trust, culture and communication. Many victim/survivors are reluctant to disclose abuse due to fears of child removal or feeling judged. Cultural norms and language barriers complicate disclosures, and the absence of in-person interpreters in sensitive conversations can undermine understanding. Participants described the need to work respectfully with cultural difference while remaining clear about safeguarding.
Participants described frustration with the systemic mislabelling of ongoing abuse as “parental conflict.” Staff explained that this framing obscures coercive control, minimises victim/survivors experiences, and hinders access to specialist support. Victim/survivors’ coping strategies are sometimes misunderstood as negative parenting, further embedding stigma.
Another theme was lack of effective perpetrator engagement and accountability. Staff reported it could be difficult to encourage perpetrators to join programmes voluntarily. Where mental health needs exist but thresholds for perpetrator services are not met, gaps remain unaddressed. This leaves families trapped in cycles where victim/survivors cannot fully separate or recover.
Finally, staff discussed professional support needs. Safe & Together was widely praised for improving conversations and challenging system manipulation, but participants wanted it embedded more consistently across children’s social care. Group supervision, reflexive spaces, and a clear practice model for responding to DVA were requested to reduce reliance on individual judgement and strengthen confidence in managing complex risk.
What works
Despite the challenges, staff identified several approaches and practices that are working well in Camden and could be built upon:
Safe & Together model – Highly valued for improving confidence, supporting clear conversations, and shifting accountability onto perpetrators.
Trauma-informed and culturally sensitive practice – Curiosity, time, and skilled interpreters improve engagement and disclosure.
Knowledge and skills across system pathways – When professionals in different sectors and agencies, from identification through to support, have the appropriate knowledge and skills, this enables early identification of concerns and better and effective connection of families to support.
Reflective professional support – Group supervision and consultation that strengthens staff capacity to manage complex and emotionally demanding cases.
Recommendations
Early intervention and prevention
Develop resources to support healthy relationships from early life stages
Provide programmes for adult victim/survivors, child victim/survivors and perpetrators in parallel
Create standardised processes to reduce reliance on subjective staff judgement when responding to abuse indicators
Ensure those working in social care apply greater curiosity to hidden abuse indicators
Housing and safety
Increase safe housing provision for both victim/survivors and perpetrators to reduce ongoing risk
Expand access to supervised contact centres outside of court proceedings
Children and young people
Provide dedicated therapeutic support for children affected by DVA
Strengthen early education on healthy relationships in schools and youth settings
Improve screening and support for neurodivergent children in affected families
Legal and systemic responses
Expand access to independent advocacy for victim/survivors navigating court proceedings
Improve judicial and system-wide understanding of coercive control and ongoing abuse, reducing reliance on the “parental conflict” framing
Mental health and trauma support
- Improve mental health provision for victim/survivors, perpetrators, and families affected by trauma
Perpetrator engagement
Embed early referral pathways into perpetrator services alongside automatic CSN referrals
Broaden eligibility for perpetrator services, particularly where mental health needs are a barrier
Professional support and practice development
Embed Safe & Together consistently within children’s social care practice
Introduce a clear practice-based model for social work responses to DVA
Training on Adult Child to Parent Abuse (currently being planned at the Council)
Expand access to group supervision and reflective practice spaces
Perpetrator service providers
Two informal discussions were held with the staff for the commissioned perpetrator services (one member of staff from each service – Drive and Restart) and the lead commissioner for these services, and an additional informal discussion was held with the manager for Camden’s in-house perpetrator service which is under development.
Summary of key themes
Importance of co-location and relationship-building among perpetrator services and partner agencies
Holistic, trauma-informed support for victim/survivors as a core enabler
Challenges due to limited awareness and unclear referral pathways among social workers
Consent requirements delaying or preventing perpetrator engagement
Service gaps in long-term interventions and culturally appropriate support
Practitioner difficulties with fragmented systems and limited control over outcomes
Discussion findings
Strengths and enablers
Co-location and relationship building
Perpetrator services report that sharing physical spaces with partner agencies enables stronger professional relationships, better communication, and more coordinated responses.Holistic and trauma-informed victim/survivor support
Integrating victim/survivor-focused services alongside perpetrator interventions ensures that victim/survivors’ safety and recovery remain central while holding perpetrators accountable.Inter-agency collaboration
Regular contact and shared objectives between colleagues across services contribute to more consistent and timely support for both victim/survivors and perpetrators.
Systemic and awareness challenges
Limited awareness among social workers
Some practitioners are unfamiliar with the perpetrator services available, their scope, and referral procedures. This can result in missed opportunities for timely intervention.Referral uncertainty
A lack of clear guidance on eligibility and referral pathways can deter practitioners from engaging with perpetrator services.
Consent requirement barrier
Both Council-commissioned perpetrator services require the perpetrator’s explicit consent to participate. While this supports voluntary engagement, it can delay or block intervention where risk is high, but consent is not forthcoming.
Service gaps
Short-term focus
Current provision is weighted toward short-term interventions, leaving limited options for sustained behavioural change work.Culturally appropriate provision
There are insufficient targeted services for diverse cultural and linguistic communities, reducing accessibility and effectiveness for some groups.
Practitioner challenges
Unclear pathways
Practitioners report difficulty navigating a fragmented system with overlapping responsibilities and inconsistent referral routes.Limited influence over outcomes
Once a referral is made, practitioners often have little oversight or input into the intervention process or its results.System fragmentation
Lack of alignment between agencies and services can undermine trust and willingness to refer cases to perpetrator programmes.
Mental health and domestic abuse in Camden
Expert (by profession) insight group – Workshop 1
In February 2025 Camden’s Health and Wellbeing team brought together professionals from across Camden to explore how the borough currently responds to the mental health needs of DVA victim/survivors, and to identify where the system is working - and where it’s falling short. These included Council colleagues, NHS colleagues and those from VCS organisations. 33 people were in attendance.
Summary of key themes
Existing mental health and crisis services provide important support but lack DVA-specific resources and have long wait times
Fragmented and complex service pathways make it difficult for victim/survivors and professionals to navigate and coordinate care
Significant barriers to accessing mental health support, especially for high-risk and dual diagnosis cases
Need for integrated approaches addressing needs of victim/survivors and children, including clearer pathways and better multi-agency collaboration
Calls for improved training, service mapping, and embedding DVA expertise across health, education, and community settings
Strong consensus on adopting a trauma-informed, system-wide response prioritising victim/survivor safety, perpetrator accountability, and children’s wellbeing
Discussion findings
Mapping of existing services: Camden offers a wide array of support for women in crisis, from specialist services like Drayton Park Women’s Crisis House and Camden Crisis Sanctuary, to advocacy and navigation through CSN, Hopscotch Women’s Centre, and the Women and Girls Network. General mental health services such as iCope and Complex Depression, Anxiety and Trauma (CDATT) are also available, though many participants noted long waiting lists and a lack of DVA-specific support.
Complexities of pathways and service landscape: Victim/survivors often access help through primary care, hospitals, mental health services, and community hubs like children’s centres and voluntary sector organisations. However, navigating this landscape can be overwhelming. The system is fragmented, with unclear referral pathways and inconsistent coordination between services. Many professionals expressed concern that victim/survivors are expected to take on too much responsibility for initiating support, often while in crisis.
Barriers to accessing mental health support: Long waits, lack of flexibility, and limited understanding of the complexities surrounding DVA and mental ill-health were cited frequently. Dual diagnosis and high-risk cases - such as those involving substance misuse or housing insecurity - are often excluded from core mental health services. While services like CGL and Solace Women’s Aid offer targeted support, there’s a sense that these resources are overstretched and under-recognised.
Addressing needs of perpetrators as a preventative measure: Participants also discussed the importance of addressing the needs of perpetrators whilst holding them accountable. There was broad agreement that this is a critical area for development. Ideas included linking perpetrator pathways to housing and criminal justice systems.
Children exposed to DVA: While schools, health visitors, and safeguarding teams play an important role, the current system lacks a clear and consistent pathway for therapeutic support. Professionals called for better training, improved case recording, and more integrated working across services to ensure children’s needs are not overlooked.
Service improvements
Throughout the workshop, there was a strong appetite for change. Participants questioned whether as a system we make full use of the support available and suggested greater collaboration with charities, social prescribers, and what was seen as underutilised teams like North London Foundation Trust’s (NFLT) Camden Core Team.
A recurring recommendation was the creation of a comprehensive service map to help professionals and victim/survivors alike navigate the system more effectively and others suggested embedding DVA specialists in health and education settings, and piloting interventions that promote early identification and prevention.
Ultimately, the workshop underscored the need for a system-wide approach - one that places services where people are and prioritises victim/survivors’ safety and wellbeing. In summary, participants called for a joined-up, trauma-informed response that empowers victim/survivors, holds perpetrators accountable, and supports children to heal and thrive.
Expert (by profession) insight group – workshop 2
In June 2025, Camden convened the second Expert Insight Group (EIG) workshop on DVA and mental health. Building on the foundational insights from Workshop 1, this session brought together professionals from NFLT, third sector organisations, and non-statutory services to explore practical, solution-focused approaches to improving mental health support for victim/survivors of DVA.
The workshop focused on four key questions, each designed to elicit actionable recommendations that could inform Camden’s evolving VAWG strategy and the borough’s wider mental health and DVA response.
Summary of key themes
Raising Awareness: Building a shared understanding of support
Defining expectations: Embedding DVA awareness across services
Tackling barriers: Reimagining access and engagement
Designing ideal pathways: Meeting victim/survivors where they are
Discussion findings
Defining expectations – Embedding DVA awareness across services:
There was strong consensus that all professionals who may come into contact with victim/survivors - whether in healthcare, housing, education, or community settings - should have a baseline understanding of DVA and its mental health impacts. However, this must go beyond basic safeguarding to include training on trauma-informed language, managing disclosures (including from children), and avoiding victim-blaming attitudes.
Participants proposed the development of a specialist Making Every Contact Count (MECC) module focused on DVA and mental health. Reflective practice spaces, multi-agency case-sharing meetings, and culturally competent training - particularly for police and healthcare providers - were identified as essential components of a whole-system approach. Housing staff, often a key point of contact for victim/survivors, should receive specialist support through commissioned training and consultation services.
Tackling barriers – Reimagining access and engagement:
Victim/survivors face a range of systemic and structural barriers that prevent access to mental health support. These include inflexible appointment systems, tight referral thresholds, exclusion of those with dual diagnoses, and a lack of coordination between services. Participants called for a shift in culture, from one that closes doors after missed appointments, to one that exercises curiosity, persistence, and empathy.
Models such as AMBIT (Adaptive Mentalization-Based Integrative Treatment) and Team Around Me (TAM) were cited as promising approaches to wraparound support. A one-stop shop model, single points of contact, and proactive referral practices were recommended to reduce the burden on survivors and ensure continuity of care. Better data sharing, clearer referral pathways, and investment in specialist DVA provision - including within mental health services - were seen as critical to improving outcomes.
Importantly, participants emphasised the need to co-produce service models with victim/survivors and community-based organisations, ensuring that lived experience informs design and delivery.
Designing ideal pathways – Meeting victim/survivors where they are:
The final discussion focused on what “good” looks like in practice. Participants envisioned a system where victim/survivors are met with coordinated, strengths-based support - regardless of their risk level or life circumstances. This includes victim/survivors who remain in abusive relationships, those with complex needs, and families with children exposed to DVA.
CSN was identified as a trusted and approachable service that could expand its remit to support victim/survivors across the risk spectrum. Housing services, often a point of engagement for those who may not access specialist support, should be leveraged to signpost and coordinate care.
For children, systemic therapy models and trauma-informed school responses - such as those enabled by Operation Compass and Healing Together - should be embedded and expanded.
Across all pathways, the emphasis was on flexibility, cultural competence, and victim/survivors involvement. Services must be equipped to respond not only to risk, but to need, aspiration, and healing.
Strategic implications
The insights from Workshop 2 point to a clear strategic direction for Camden:
Embed victim/survivor-led, coordinated care pathways across services
Invest in trauma-informed, culturally competent training and practice
Develop clear, navigable referral routes from early help to specialist support
Strengthen cross-sector collaboration and shared accountability
Co-produce service models with communities and those with lived experience
Money Advice Camden (MAC)
Given the high proportion of clients with DVA support needs, MAC staff have developed a detailed understanding of the financial, housing, and systemic challenges facing victim/survivors. Insights were gathered over several meetings, including a dedicated focus group with advisers. While their primary remit is financial support and debt management, their observations touched on housing insecurity, benefits access, and barriers to effective inter-departmental coordination.
Summary of key themes
Housing challenges for victim/survivors, especially those with NRPF or debt
Debt as a common and ongoing consequence of DVA
Limited victim/survivor awareness of legal and financial rights, including immigration protections
Barriers faced by professionals, including slow referral pathways and insufficient training
Financial coercion risks associated with universal credit being paid to claimant rather than landlord where there is DVA
Discussion findings
Housing and accommodation barriers
Securing safe housing is particularly challenging for survivors with NRPF or existing debt. Limited options often force victim/survivors into temporary accommodation, which can be costly and unsuitable.
When a couple holds a joint social tenancy, it is common for the perpetrator to remain in the property, with the victim/survivor relocated elsewhere for safety. While intended as a protective measure, this can feel punitive to the victim/survivor, forcing them to leave their home and community.
Frequent moves between temporary accommodation units create instability, erode trusted professional relationships, and can result in inconsistent support across boroughs. These moves also generate further debt as housing benefit payments often cannot keep pace with the changes in address.
There is a risk associated with universal credit (UC) being paid to claimant rather than landlord where there is DVA in a household. The rent element is often a big proportion of the UC payment; so removing this from the claimants’ bank account can help limit the scope for financial control and make sure poor spending behaviours can’t lead to rapidly spirally rent debt.
Debt as a consequence of DVA
Debt is a significant and recurring consequence of DVA. Victim/survivors frequently incur debt during and after leaving an abusive relationship, particularly when placed in temporary accommodation and faced with the high costs of setting up a new home (e.g., furniture, appliances, moving expenses).
Financial hardship can be exacerbated by delays or complexities in accessing benefits, creating a cycle of debt that is difficult to break.
Awareness and access to rights
- Many victim/survivors are unaware of their legal and financial rights, including potential changes to their immigration status (such as visa amendments) or the ability to remove their personal details from public registers for safety reasons. Limited awareness of these options leaves victim/survivors more vulnerable to ongoing harm and financial exploitation.
Barriers for professionals
Referral pathways are often slow, unclear, or unresponsive, delaying access to essential support.
Non-DVA staff may lack adequate training to recognise and respond to less visible or ‘non-traditional’ abuse dynamics, such as financial control or immigration-based coercion.
Data-sharing restrictions, siloed systems, and poor cross-team communication hinder coordinated support. Improving access to shared systems and streamlining processes could significantly enhance the timeliness and effectiveness of interventions.
Service improvements
Whilst service improvements and recommendations weren’t explicitly discussed, the following were alluded to in the conversations.
Housing and stability
Increase access to safe, affordable accommodation for victim/survivors with NRPF or debt histories, ensuring options within or close to their support networks.
Review joint tenancy policies to prevent victim/survivors being disadvantaged when perpetrators remain in the shared home.
Reduce the number of disruptive moves between temporary accommodation units and ensure housing benefit processes can keep pace with address changes.
Debt prevention and financial resilience
Provide targeted financial advice and early debt intervention for victim/survivors during the transition out of abuse, including support with essential resettlement costs.
Develop specialist pathways to address DVA-related debt, including priority access to debt relief orders and rent arrears support.
Awareness and rights
Expand victim/survivor access to clear, practical information on housing rights, debt options, and immigration entitlements, including the process for removing personal details from public registers.
Embed immigration-related advice into financial and housing support services to ensure victim/survivors can act on opportunities to regularise their status.
Professional practice and coordination
Improve referral pathways to be faster, clearer, and more responsive, particularly for urgent cases.
Provide additional training for non-DVA staff on recognising and responding to hidden or non-traditional forms of abuse.
Enhance data-sharing and cross-team communication to reduce duplication, close information gaps, and improve coordinated support.
GP practice focus group findings on supporting patients experiencing domestic violence and abuse
This group discussion explored the current practices involved in the management of patients affected by VAWG, particularly patients experiencing or having experienced DVA and in relation to mental health. The aim was to understand the perspectives, experiences, and challenges faced by residents, as well as those of the health and social care professionals in relation to this topic.
The session was held at the Hampstead Group practice during their clinical meeting having a variety of healthcare providers present. Approximately 27 to 30 people were in attendance.
Summary of key themes
Clinical and contextual indicators of possible DVA, including physical injuries, behavioural patterns, partner control, and psychological symptoms
Importance of immediate risk assessment and prioritised same-day appointments following disclosure
Barriers in responding to disclosure, such as difficulties ensuring privacy and complex safeguarding issues
Existing support services and referral pathways, with gaps in mental health care and trauma-informed support
Need for culturally specific DVA services in the community
Practice-based strategies to enable safe disclosure and manage DVA-related mental health needs
Discussion findings
GPs in the focus group reported that DVA often presents indirectly through physical symptoms, stress-related health changes, and subtle behavioural cues. While immediate risk assessment and same-day appointments are standard in some practices, significant barriers remain - including lack of privacy when perpetrators attend consultations, experience perception of inconsistent local authority responses, and limited access to timely, trauma-informed mental health care. Housing insecurity, financial penalties for victim/survivors, and relocation away from support networks further undermine safety and recovery.
GPs regularly refer to CSN and Early Help but feel under-resourced to meet complex needs, particularly for patients with severe mental illness or PTSD linked to abuse. Participants stressed the urgency of more accessible, culturally specific services, better safeguarding pathways, and system changes to ensure perpetrators - not victim/survivors - bear the burden of leaving the home.
Key themes that came up in this discussion include:
Indicators of possible DVA
Participants identified a range of clinical and contextual clues that might signal DVA:
Physical health presentations: Unexplained or persistent injuries (e.g. chronic neck pain linked to past abuse)
Behavioural patterns: Frequent appointments, increased stress-related symptoms (e.g. smoking more, panic attacks, sleep problems)
Control by partner: Attending appointments accompanied by a partner who speaks on their behalf; restrictions on leaving the home
Psychological indicators: Flashbacks, heightened anxiety in response to triggers, palpitations
Responding to a disclosure of DVA
Immediate risk assessment: Establishing urgency and involving police where necessary, as disclosure often coincides with periods of heightened danger
Same-day appointments: At some practices (e.g. Hamstead Group Practice), receptionists are trained to prioritise patients disclosing abuse
Barriers encountered:
Variable or unhelpful responses from local authorities, including perceived “pushback” from council services
Difficulty ensuring private conversations when the perpetrator attends with the patient
Complex safeguarding issues with ex-partners, particularly where there are shared parenting arrangements - some mothers fear children being placed under a protection plan due to prior negative experiences
Support offered and gaps in provision
Current referral pathways:
Camden Safety Net
Early Help (generally positive feedback, particularly for non-statutory family support)
Advocacy role: GPs often need to push for social care involvement, especially where threats are present but physical harm to children has not yet occurred
Mental health service barriers:
Long wait times (e.g. iCope up to 12 months)
Reduced capacity of local mental health teams to manage complex DVA-related needs such as severe mental illness (SMI) or PTSD.
Lack of immediate access to trauma-informed care
Housing and safety issues:
Concern that there was insufficient safe accommodation; slow housing processes can leave victims/survivors homeless
Concern around financial penalties for women entering refuges (still liable for rent/mortgage on family home)
Risk of relocation far from support networks, schools, and community ties
Perceived systemic bias favouring perpetrators who remain in the home
Cultural needs: More culturally specific DVA services are required in Camden
Practice-based support
Practices recognise the importance of discreetly separating patients from accompanying individuals suspected of being perpetrators to allow safe disclosure
Ongoing need for improved protocols and confidence in managing DVA-related mental health needs
Key themes across responses
DVA is often hidden behind every day clinical presentations
GPs feel under-resourced in terms of both mental health and housing support for victim/survivors
The risk period around disclosure is critical, requiring immediate, coordinated response
Systemic barriers (e.g. service capacity, housing processes, safeguarding thresholds) can delay or limit effective intervention
Culturally tailored and trauma-informed services are essential for better outcomes
Some participants noted a lack of clarity on available local resources (e.g. beyond Camden Safety Net) and insufficient mental health support pathways for DVA survivors
Existing insights
Camden Women’s Forum (CWF)
In 2020, the Camden Women’s Forum conducted an inquiry into DVA. The findings of the inquiry were shared with Cabinet in December 2021. The inquiry worked with the Healing Our Past and Evolving (HOPE) Survivors Group to undertake the inquiry and hear from survivors of DVA.
The findings shared in the report include:
Some communities experience barriers to information and accessing services due to cultural stigma and distrust of the system.
People with no recourse to public funds face significant barriers to escaping abusive relationships and reporting the abuse.
Victim/survivors would find it helpful if the process for reporting DVA was clearer so they know what the next steps are as they move through the process, and can manage their expectations in relation to the reporting process.
The experience of the legal and criminal justice systems for victim/survivors is exposing, disempowering, and results in them feeling blamed and interrogated. This can lead to a sense of regret and that the system protects the perpetrator more than the victim/survivor.
The system can create barriers to access through a lack of understanding and flexibility. For example, for some, the circumstances of their relationship can make it difficult to access services because they jointly own a property with their partner. However, after they have left the relationship they have no access to funds due to financial abuse, yet eligibility criteria exclude them from legal aid.
Some victim/survivors report being bounced between services and having to tell their story multiple times which adds to the trauma and a feeling of dealing with a bureaucratic process that does not treat them as humans.
The biggest barrier victim/survivors face is housing.
Children in families where DVA is occurring have difficulty sharing their experiences and the emotions they feel due to the family circumstances can impact future relationships.
There is a need for children to have a voice and agency, observe positive role models, and be aware DVA and services.
It is important for schools to understand that children experiencing DVA can express their emotions and the stresses they face through negative behaviours.
Camden Safety Net and schools were identified as key sources of support for victim/survivors.
The full report can be viewed here.
The Winch
In 2022, 36 interviews with victim/survivors, grassroot activists, youth workers, and charity staff were undertaken to investigate the causes, manifestations, and systemic nature of violence against women and girls of colour in Camden. Through these interviews relationships, safety and security, education, environmental and societal pressures, poverty, and institutional failures were all identified as key themes.
Trusted and strong bonds with institutions and community members, alongside safe spaces, effectively reduce vulnerability and aid recovery
Victim/survivors reported a fear of reporting due to stigma and mistrust of police
A lack of culturally competent safe spaces was noted, alongside the underfunding and closure of vital youth centres
Abuse can be normalised due to exposure to violence when young, and further desensitisation occurs due to toxic masculinity, cultural taboos, and social media
Youth work and role models are crucial for intervention
Gender stereotypes can hinder emotional expression and recovery
Victim-blaming and a lack of sexual health education are prevalent
Women get trapped in abusive relationships due to economic hardship
The criminalisation of and cutting of services for sex work has worsened conditions
Funding for charity organisations often fails to reach the most in need
Social services are under resourced and inconsistent in their approach / response
Hostile immigration policies significantly harm women who are refugees or asylum seekers
Schools and police often fail to provide adequate support to victim/survivors
Violence can manifest as DVA, sexual violence, discrimination and systemic neglect
Perpetrators are not only individuals, but also institutions and societal norms
Systemic violence that people experience is rooted in poverty, racism, sexism, and inadequate public services
The full report can be read here.
Galop
Galop is the UK’s LGBT+ anti-abuse charity, working directly with LGBT+ people who have experienced abuse and violence. They specialise in supporting victim/survivors of DVA, sexual violence, hate crime, honour-based abuse, forced marriage, so-called conversion therapies, and other forms of interpersonal abuse.
In 2023, they produced a report about LGBT+ DVA victim/survivors access to support, which surveyed over 2000 LGBT+ across the UK about their experiences of abuse and access to support.
Approximately 61% did not seek support from services following an instance of abuse by a family member of (ex-)partner
38% of survivors did not seek support from friends and family or other informal support after an instance of abuse
Trans, non-binary and gender-diverse+, and pan/queer survivors report high levels of concern about being mistreated by services or services failing to understand their identities.
They also undertook a mapping study of services in England and Wales in 2021 which found:
Most LGBT+ DVA services are victim/survivor support services, and based in London
The support is largely provided by LGBT+ ‘by and for’ organisations who often work beyond their geographical remit and their capacity to meet demand
LGBT+ specialist support exists within VAWG and generic DVA organisations, but it is limited – at the time of the report there were 3.5 FTE LGBT+ IDVAs based across 4 organisations. In addition, these services are less likely to adopt key indicators for LGBT+ inclusion relevant to the needs of non-binary and/or trans+ service users
No LGBT+ specific services for LGB+ and/or T+ perpetrators and/or perpetrator programme were identified
There is a lack of emergency accommodation / housing services for LGB+ and/or T+ people, in particular GB+ and/or T+ men.
The full reports can be found on the Galop website.
Women’s Safety Survey 2024
Between July and October 2024, Camden Council surveyed 272 respondents on their perception of safety, personal experiences, and views on what could be improved. The majority of respondents were female (96%), Camden residents (56%), between 40-64 years old (43%), and of White ethnicity (71%).
In general, people surveyed did not feel safe after dark (72%), had experienced harassment or abuse in Camden (64%), and reported changing their behaviour to increase their safety (e.g. changing route, avoiding headphones, and hiding phones).
Common issues faced by respondents include catcalling, intrusive staring, being followed, and aggression. Common reasons for feeling unsafe include poor lighting, secluded areas, and nightlife zones.
72% of respondents are aware of “Ask for Angela” but only 36% were aware of the Camden Safety Bus. 85% were in support of Public Space Protection Orders.
Community conversation on women’s safety
Approximately 70 participants took part in a Community Conversation about women’s safety in November 2024. The discussion identified 3 priority areas – public spaces, public venues, and reducing offending behaviour.
Better lighting, visible patrols, and early intervention would help prevent women feeling unsafe
Community engagement (e.g. inclusive forum meetings) and outreach including support for grassroots organisations are important
In order to address the diverse needs of women, people with lived experience need to be involved in designing projects and communications, and language barriers need to be addressed
Staff need to be able to recognise and respond to vulnerability
Public spaces should include designated areas where people can seek help
Reporting and a proactive safety culture need to be normalised through culture change
There is a role for men in reducing offending behaviour through education, mentoring, bystander training, and normalising accountability conversations
Intersectionality and accessibility must be central to all strategies and work
Building trust is essential and requires community-led, trauma-informed approaches, as well as clear communication and consistent follow-up
Youth Assembly
The 2024 Youth Assembly, which was attended by over 80 participants, was focused on young women and safety. During the conversation the importance of female-only spaces which enable women and girls to interact and take part in activities was noted. They felt these spaces should support confidence building, skill development, and a greater sense of safety.
They also identified four additional recommendations for action:
More CCTV in alleyways, back streets, estates, and poorly lit areas
Free self-defence classes for women and girls
Empathetic, trauma-informed post-assault support in a women-only environment
Improved street lighting in alleyways and public spaces
Crossing Pathways – Health professionals
In March 2025, the Home Office commissioned a comprehensive evaluation of the UK health sector response to DVA. The project was informed by engagement with 90 survivors.
The key findings were:
DVA costs the health service approximately £2.3 billion a year
Health professionals are uniquely positioned to identify and respond to DVA
Victim/survivors identified the need for trauma-informed care that can account for intersectional needs
Nearly 9,000 staff have been trained, resulting in high confidence and understanding among trained professionals
Challenges include short-term funding which undermines service continuity, recruitment issues due to low salaries and burnout, a lack of private spaces and independent and/or specialist roles to enable access
Cultural barriers noted include the need for trauma-informed and DVA aware cultures in the NHS.
Significant savings were identified when clinically-based DVA specialists intervened – up to £2.7 million per case – alongside improved health, safety, and wellbeing outcomes for survivors
The full report can be found online here.
Women’s Homelessness Forum
Forum participants worked with Council officers to explore the intersection of VAWG and women’s homelessness, with a particular focus on Camden, and shared the following insights:
VAWG is a major driver of homelessness for women
Women’s homelessness is often hidden and under counted due to flaws in administration and methodologies
Women’s individual experiences can be obscured by the use of refuges and due to family homelessness
Many women facing homelessness experience multiple, compounding issues including mental health, substance use, and insecure immigration status. Services are generally unable to accommodate and respond to complex, overlapping needs.
Women who are experiencing homelessness have limited access to VAWG services, and services they can access are generally lacking a gender-informed, trauma-informed, and intersectional approach, and often fail to meet their long-term needs