The Effect of Domestic Violence on Children in the United Kingdom - Essay Example

The Effect of Domestic Violence on Children Introduction Children can be profoundly affected by domestic violence, whether or not they experience it ‘directly’ or as observers (Humphreys, p. 6; Humphreys et al., p. 3; Mullender et al., p. 207). As many as one in three women experience domestic violence and at least half of that group have children under the age of 16 living with them (Mirlees-Black, 1999). Also, between a third and a half of children whose mothers experience domestic violence are aware of the violence (The Cabinet Office, 1999). Finally, children who live with domestic violence are also at a significantly increased risk of abuse and, in some cases, death (Parkinson & Humphreys, p. 149). However, the legal and policy response to these problems has operated upon a presumption that service provision for women who experience domestic violence is also sufficient to meet the needs of children and young people (Mullender & Morley, p. 2; Parkinson & Humphreys, p. 147; Humphreys et al., p. 2). The invisibility of children who experience domestic violence stems from an apparent reluctance on the part of researchers to conduct child-focused qualitative research on this issue (Mullender et al., p. 2). Consequently, few studies have engaged with children and young people about their experiences of domestic violence (but see NCH Action for Children, 2004; Hague et al., 1996; McGee, 2000; Mullender et al., 2002, Gorin, 2004). This is despite significant efforts in family and social policy research more generally to involve and consult directly with children and young people about their views and experiences (Hallett & Prout, 2003; Smart et al., 2001). Refuge Accommodation As a national umbrella organisation, The Womens Aid Federation of England and Wales (WAFE) have been at the forefront of refuge provision for women and children who flee domestic violence. Refuges frequently accommodate women and children fleeing domestic violence not just from their local area but also from outside the area (Ball, p. 35). WAFE supports 270 refuge organisations and manages 567 safe houses across England and Wales (WAFE, 2001). However, the number of refuge places available today still falls short of the recommendation of the 1975 Select Committee on Violence in Marriage that there should be one family refuge place per 10,000 of the population (WAFE, 2001). Refuges have long struggled to attract enough central or local government funding to survive. Consequently, they have historically been funded from a variety of sources. These include local authority housing departments and social services departments, charities and trusts, housing associations and housing benefit (Ball, p. 39). The majority of funding costs for refuges are spent on wages for a mixture of full, part-time and volunteer staff. Estimates suggest that 19.8% of refuges have no full-time staff, 75% of refuges employ part-time staff, 16% employ part-time staff only and 20.5% employ sessional staff (mainly to work with children) (Ball, p. 23). Refuge Provision for Children and Young People A Womens Aid survey indicated that 18,569 women and 23,084 children and young people were accommodated in refuges during 2003/2004 (Toren, 2004). This demonstrates that children, rather than women, are the primary users of refuge service provision. The majority (84%) of these children are either under five or between the ages of five and 11; 11 to 16-year-olds account for just 16% of the total (Toren, 2004). Refuges provide crucial emotional and practical support for children and young people in the form of childrens play activities, counselling sessions for women and children and day trips. Eighty per cent of WAFE-affiliated refuges in England have childrens workers, or a family support worker who fulfils a similar role, and the majority of refuges also organise structured play activities for children. However, we found that these sessions were often organised in an ad-hoc manner, dependent upon when childrens workers, who were often employed part-time, were available. The children and young people identified childrens workers as instrumental and valuable in helping them to deal with the effects of domestic violence. Paula (aged 11) felt that the child support worker in the refuge had helped her the most and, when asked why, said: Shes really nice and we just used to stay in the playroom for ages. Similarly, Esmie (aged 6) and Marcus (aged 8) said that the refuge staffs were particularly helpful to them By playing in the playroom and having lots of fun with us. Jack (aged 11) expressed how crucial it was for him to have someone to talk to and help to explain how he was feeling: I dont know. I cant really explain it to a teacher or I cant explain it to my mum… so I wanted to explain something and get some ideas off someone to help me through it. Despite the value of these workers to children and young people, the lack of ongoing funding to sustain such posts is a problem shared by all refuges. However, provision varied hugely across refuges. Significantly, only 40% of funding for childrens workers came from Local Authorities. Charitable sources and The Childrens Fund provided the remainder (Dahms, pp. 9-10). As this funding is of a temporary nature (usually lasting from between one and three years), refuges have no choice but to make relentless applications for funding to a variety of charitable and local government sources. Moreover, the demands on the time of childrens workers in refuges often mean that the needs of children and young people to talk with someone were not fully met, particularly at evenings and weekends. There was also limited time available for in-depth counselling work on an individual basis, which children in our study said they would value (see also Fitzpatrick et al., pp. 60-61). One young person said: In my experience it was hard because the workers were helping my mum but because I was under 16 they dont really talk to you about violence, so I think if people in refuges would talk to you it would help-even if the kids havent been hit it doesnt mean they dont need help. (Jade, aged 15) Recently, refuges have also been under increased pressure in relation to the services they provide for children and young people, as a direct result of the introduction in 2003 of The National Day Care Standards for under 8s. These standards are designed to achieve good child-to-staff ratios and enough space in which to conduct activities with children. Under Chapter 14 of The Care Standards Act 2000, any person who provides day care for a child for over two hours on particular premises (which are deemed not to include a childs home) is subject to minimum standards in relation to the suitability of the premises, persons and level of staffing. Every premise must also be registered with Ofsted. Refuges were initially told they would be exempted from these standards, but this position was later reversed (Dahms, p. 2). Womens Aid have found that 22% of all respondent refuge organizations cannot meet the National Standards and that frequently their play sessions have been reduced to under the two-hour limit (Dahms, p. 7). In addition, the requirement of two staff to be on site at all times when providing services to children has also proved problematic. Research conducted prior to the introduction of these standards found that children and young people already felt that access to playrooms in the refuge was inadequate due to a lack of available staff members to supervise the children (Fitzpatrick et al., p. 61). Meeting these minimum requirements has meant that the day care services which most refuges offer to children, and which children themselves value, have worsened and have either been discontinued (so as not to exceed the two-hour maximum and thus avoid the provisions of the act) or reduced significantly. Furthermore, the Supporting People Programme, introduced in April 2003 as a new needs-led inter-agency framework for housing-related services for the vulnerable (ODPM, p. 1), seems to have impacted negatively upon services for children and young people. It clearly acknowledges the relationship between domestic violence and housing (ODPM, 2002) and will fund any work conducted with the mother to support her children in the refuge, in order to ensure that she and her children are safe and secure in that accommodation. It also recognises that access to housing-related support for mothers can be aided by providing crèche facilities for their children. Despite a Government consultation document which proposed the introduction of standards for refuge accommodation, services and outreach work, and recommended the provision of specialist support for children, including appropriate living/play space and activities (DTLR, 2001), the Supporting People framework does not address this (ODPM, 2002). It suggested that such services could be funded from other sources. Significantly, for children and young people, despite Supporting People recognising their needs, it will not support therapeutic or direct work with them in their own right (ODPM, p. 26). This policy approach has been criticised on the basis that children are acutely aware of any lack of service provision and of the reasons behind this (Mullender et al., p. 215). The lack of physical space in refuges and the difficulties of living in a confined space with other families have long been recognised (Binney et al., p. 30-32). Despite dramatic improvements our research found that children and young people still identified these issues as problems (see also Fitzpatrick et al., p. 57). As Ronnie (aged 12) said: The refuge is hard to live in cause of all the people here. In addition, large families can often be difficult to accommodate in refuges due to housing benefit rules, which will only fund one room, rather than a lack of physical space. One refuge worker commented on the situation in her refuge: … [I]f we have a large family weve got a connecting door that wed open up a full suite for one family so there would be three bedrooms and two bathrooms and one kitchen. However, weve come up against a problem. At the moment were finding it hard for housing benefit to pay for two accommodations for one family. Even in a modern purpose-built refuge, there can be problems, as the following refuge worker notes: I mean the kids get the rough end of the deal every time. Theyre uprooted from their friends and all their toys and stuff and they have to come and play in probably one of the smallest rooms in the building. We have twice as many children through the door as weve had women. All of the refuges involved in our study had also made efforts to make a playroom or activity space available. However, most were designed to meet the needs of younger children. None of the refuges visited had separate spaces for teenagers to relax and do homework, which both younger children and teenagers themselves believed was important to their comfort and well-being. Although refuges try their best to cater for teenagers, with trips out and some one-to-one counselling, their needs often seem to be neglected in comparison to those of younger children (Hague et al., p. 19). Many refuges simply do not have the necessary resources to cater for a few teenagers. Some of the children and staff interviewed in our research commented that the teenagers in the refuge did not want to spend time with the children in the playroom and were in need of a more grown-up room. Even younger children in refuges often feel that older children need their own space (Fitzpatrick et al., p. 58). In 1999, all refuges accommodating children had inside or outside play spaces, while 72% had both. However, only 16% had separate spaces for teenagers (ODPM, p. 19). Refuges also face additional pressures. The introduction of minimum requirements under The Care Standards Act 2000 (mentioned above) has also meant that playrooms are required to be of an adequate size. Under these standards, 32% of refuge playrooms are too small (Dahms, p. 8). The availability of outside play space for children can also be restricted in a refuge environment because of safety concerns. Refuges play a crucial role in keeping young people safe from further harm through rules on confidentiality and limited access to the refuge. However, the children and young people we spoke to found that these rules impacted upon their ability to play with their friends and maintain friendships. This often made them feel socially isolated. Dale (aged 12) expressed the common sentiments of many children who found it difficult to sustain new friendships when they could not go out freely or invite friends back to the refuge: [T]he most difficult thing was not being able to go out. Teenagers in particular find the adjustment to refuge life especially difficult and stigmatising. Penny said, [T]here was nothing to do … It was boring. Other children also highlighted problems with maintaining or making friendships. As a group, they often felt embarrassed about living in the refuge itself and also feel particularly isolated, since they are not allowed to bring their friends back to the refuge and there may be few teenagers in the refuge itself (Fitzpatrick et al., p. 58). In one case, Penny and her mother were forced to move on from one refuge because Penny had brought a friend back to the refuge. Teenage Boys A key issue identified in our study is the treatment of boys approaching or over the age of 16 (see also Fitzpatrick et al., p. 72). We found that the main concern in relation to this group was the inconsistency of admissions policies of many refuges across the country. WAFEs Code of Practice 2002 states that residents should not bring males over the age of 16 into refuges, but those boys may be accommodated up to the age of 18 if they are still dependent upon their mothers. However, this policy is contradicted by the individual policies of many refuges, which refuse to admit boys as young as 12 or 14. In contrast with this, some refuges do not impose a limit at all and determine access on a case-by-case basis. These policies on the admission of teenage boys are a response to concerns about how young men would affect the general atmosphere and security of the refuge, fears relating to the formation of relationships between teenage boys and girls and the lack of appropriate 24-hour supervision within the refuge. Furthermore, the presence of teenage boys within refuges is often viewed as undesirable because they may threaten the security of women residents by reminding them of the abuser they have left. A recent study has found that boys in refuges see these policies as unfair and sometimes take the view that they are being labelled as potentially violent men (Fitzpatrick et al., p. 72). Significantly, these policies seem to be influenced by a (highly contested) belief in the inter-generational transmission of violence, the view that boys will copy the violent, externalising behaviour of their fathers while girls will become victims and learn internalised responses (such as anxiety and depression) (Hester, p. 52). This also raises significant issues about where teenage boys can be accommodated if not admitted to refuges, which may result in their separation from their mother and siblings. Although none of the teenage boys we approached wanted to be interviewed for this research, one mother described the difficulties of living in a refuge with her younger children, away from her 17-year-old son: I used to phone [my son] up every night and he would say, Mum, I want to come down and stop with you, and I was telling [my friend] and she said, Well, Ive got a spare room. You can live [in the refuge] and your son can live here with me. Teenage boys who have nowhere else to go will often rely on the goodwill of family and friends, most often grandparents, who do not receive any additional financial support for this. In addition, if teenagers are living with relatives they may not be classed as in priority need for re-housing by a local authority housing department. Also, it is only when teenagers reach the age of 16 that local authorities have a duty to place them, in their own right, on the housing list for more permanent accommodation. However, if teenage boys are re-housed they are often re-housed in a flat on their own, with limited contact with their mother and siblings. This can often make teenage boys feel socially isolated, without any formal support to help them come to terms with what has happened. However, not all teenage boys leave the family home to either live with their mother and siblings in a refuge or other temporary accommodation or to move into individual accommodation. Some choose to stay with the perpetrator in order to carry on with their schooling and maintain their social network. Bearing in mind the strong correlation between domestic violence and child abuse (Humphreys & Mullender, p. 5), the safety of these vulnerable young people remains an issue. Two of the young people we interviewed had older brothers who had remained in the family home. This had created a considerable amount of tension between the sons left behind and their mothers. Jack was one of these children. Jacks mother and father had been married for 21 years before Jack and his mother finally left, after experiencing four years of abuse. Jacks 14-year-old brother, Sebastian, decided to stay with his father so that he could remain in the same school. Jack and his mother had stayed with relatives before moving into council housing in rural Warwickshire. They had only seen Sebastian a few times since they had left home. Jack missed Sebastian but still used him as a confidante about the domestic violence and his parents separation. This separation from his brother is significant because, apart from mothers, siblings are the most important source of support for young people experiencing domestic violence (Mullender et al., 2002). Thus, we gained proxy accounts of the lives of these boys from their younger siblings and mothers rather than from the teenage boys themselves. Nevertheless, we did gain a useful insight into the experience of being a teenage boy in this situation and these findings illustrate the importance of research which engages with teenagers who experience domestic violence if we are to identify and cater for the specific needs of this group. Conclusion The research findings presented above suggest that further child-focused domestic violence research is needed. This requires an innovative and flexible methodological approach which is integrated into the research design. The difficulties caused by issues relating to access and consent are surmountable with careful planning and training. The key housing-related findings identified by the children and young people interviewed in this research project demonstrate not only the problems with providing services for children without consulting them but also the benefits for children and service providers alike when young people are listened to. Housing law and policy still rarely consider the needs of children in their own right, although this is improving. Refuges are amongst the best service providers to children who experience domestic violence. However, they are still primarily aimed at mothers even though children are the majority of refuge service users. The most concerning issue in relation to research in the area of domestic violence is the lack of information regarding specific groups, such as teenage boys. References Ball, M. (2004) Funding Refuge Services: A Study of Refuge Support Services for Women and Children Experiencing Domestic Violence, WAFE, Bristol. Binney, V., Harkell, G. & Nixon, J. (2001) Leaving Violent Men—A Study of Refuges and Housing for Battered Women, Women’s Aid Federation of England. Dahms, N. (2004) ‘One year on: The status of children’s services in refuge organisations since the implementation of National Standards for Under 8’s Day Care’, WAFE (website) (accessed June). DTLR (2001) Guidance on Support Provision for Women Fleeing Domestic Violence: Consultation Paper, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, London. Fitzpatrick, S., Lynch, E., Goodlad, R. & Houghton, C. (2003) Refuges for Women, Children and Young People in Scotland—A Research Report, Scottish Executive, Edinburgh. Gorin, S. (2004) Understanding What Children Say: Children’s Experiences of Domestic Violence, Parental Substance Misuse and Parental Health Problems, National Children’s Bureau, London. Hague, G., Kelly, L., Malos, E., Mullender, A. & Debbonaire, T. (1994) Children, Domestic Violence and Refuges: A Study of Needs and Responses, WAFE, Bristol. Hague, G. & Malos, E. (1994) ‘Children, domestic violence and housing: the impact of homelessness’, in Children Living with Domestic Violence, eds A. Mullender & R. Morley, Whiting and Birch, London, pp. 122–139. Hester, M., Pearson, C. & Harwin, N. (2000) Making an Impact: Children and Domestic Violence—A Reader, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London. Humphreys, C. (2000b) Child Protection and Woman Protection: Links and Schisms: An Overview of the Research, Women’s Aid Federation of England, June. Humphreys, C. & Mullender, A. (2000) Children and Domestic Violence, Research in Practice Series, Devon, Dartington. Humphreys, C. & Parkinson, P. (1998) ‘Children who witness domestic violence—the implications for child protection’, Child and Family Law Quarterly, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 147–159. Humphreys, C., Hester, M., Hague, G., Mullender, A., Abrahams, H. & Lowe, P. (2000) From Good Intentions to Good Practice: Mapping Services Working with Families Where There Is Domestic Violence, The Policy Press, Bristol. McGee, C. (2000) Childhood Experiences of Domestic Violence, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London. Mirlees-Black, (1999) Domestic Violence: Findings from a New British Crime Survey Self-Complete Questionnaire, Home Office Research Study no.191, Home Office, London. Mullender, A., Hague, G., Imam, U., Kelly, L., Malos, E. & Regan, L. (2002) Children’s Perspectives on Domestic Violence, Sage Publications, London. Mullender, A. & Morley, R. (1994) Children Living with Domestic Violence, Whiting and Birch, London. NCH Action for Children (2004) The Hidden Victims: Children and Domestic Violence, NCH Action for Children, London. ODPM (2002) Supporting People—Guide to Accommodation and Support Options for Households Experiencing Domestic Violence, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London. ODPM (2004) What is Supporting People?, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London. ODPM (2005) Sustainable Communities: Settled Homes; Changing Lives, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London. Smart, C., Neale, B. & Wade, A. (2001) The Changing Experience of Childhood: Families and Divorce, Oxford: Polity Press. The Cabinet Office (1999) Living Without Fear: An Integrated Approach to Tackling Violence Against Women, HMSO, London. Toren, A. (2004) Women’s Aid Federation of England 2004 Survey of Domestic Violence Services (England) Findings, WAFE, Bristol. Read More