Content uploaded by Eric Halford
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Eric Halford on Feb 01, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gppr20
Police Practice and Research
An International Journal
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gppr20
Operation provide: a multi-agency response to
increasing police engagement in cases of intimate
partner violence during the COVID-19 pandemic
Eric Halford & Jonathan Smith
To cite this article: Eric Halford & Jonathan Smith (2022): Operation provide: a multi-agency
response to increasing police engagement in cases of intimate partner violence during the
COVID-19 pandemic, Police Practice and Research, DOI: 10.1080/15614263.2022.2033621
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2022.2033621
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.
Published online: 31 Jan 2022.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Operation provide: a multi-agency response to increasing police
engagement in cases of intimate partner violence during the
COVID-19 pandemic
Eric Halford
a
and Jonathan Smith
b
a
Policing and Security Studies Rabdan Academy, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates;
b
Lancashire Constabulary, West
Division, Gerry Richardson Way, Lancashire, England
ABSTRACT
Because of the lockdown conditions imposed in the United Kingdom to
control the spread of the COVID-19 virus, police services responded to the
risk of increased domestic abuse and intimate partner violence in a variety
of ways. This study evaluates the eectiveness of a multi-agency pilot
program put in place to increase the engagement in both the criminal
investigation and safeguarding actions of the police and other agencies
for victims of intimate partner violence. In this program, independent
domestic violence advocates and independent sexual violence advocates
work side by side in a police patrol capacity, conducting joint incident
response to reports of domestic abuse in an eort to provide enhanced,
immediate victim support. The early ndings indicate signicant overall
increases in engagement with criminal prosecutions. The level of engage-
ment of repeat victims in respect of safeguarding and criminal investiga-
tions also greatly increased. In addition, individual oences of controlling
and coercive behaviour, harassment, threats to kill, aray and malicious
communications showed signicant rises in engagement. The ndings
indicate that improved victim support at an earlier stage improves the
likelihood of agencies protecting, preventing and reducing cases aecting
victims of intimate partner violence. Areas of further research include
victim and practitioner perspectives and a more comprehensive data
analysis to evaluate if these early ndings remain at greater volumes
and over time.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 23 July 2021
Accepted 7 January 2022
KEYWORDS
Policing; domestic violence;
COVID-19; crime and Covid-
19; crime and coronavirus
Introduction
Upon the outset of the coronavirus pandemic, COVID-19, there was a substantial body of media
reporting supported by announcements from senior police officers, social care practitioners and a
variety of charitable organisations in the UK who all indicated that domestic abuse (DA) and
intimate partner violence (IPV) was increasing. A United Nations (UN) statement on domestic
violence during the pandemic also indicated that such incidents, and specifically violence against
women and girls, are likely to increase (Mlambo-Ngcuka, 2020). The UN supports this assertion
with emerging data from Europe, North America and South America, all of which indicates
increasing volumes of such abuse. The increases outlined are believed to be as a direct impact of
lockdown conditions imposed to slow the spread of the COVID-19 virus as it is suggested that
locked in victims are at considerable risk of abuse and in particular, victims of intimate partner
CONTACT Eric Halford ehalford@ra.ac.ae Policing and Security Studies Rabdan Academy, Dhafeer Street, Abu Dhabi,
United Arab Emirates
POLICE PRACTICE AND RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2022.2033621
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
violence. Academic research however has provided conflicting evidence with some showing rises in
domestic abuse calls or recorded crimes (Leslie & Wilson, 2020; Piquero et al., 2020) and others
indicating there has been little change (Campedelli et al., 2021; Payne et al., 2020; Ravindran &
Shah, 2020) or dramatic declines (Halford et al., 2020; Hoehn-Velasco et al., 2021). The debated
impact of COVID-19 on the volume of DA and IPV is likely to continue for some time. This is
because studies to date analyse various sources of data (calls for service to third-sector services,
emergency service calls and recorded crimes) each often using different legal and policy definitions
to underpin incident classifications (DA and IPV). However, what is known is that the nature of the
offending has changed. For example, Ivandic et al. (2020) have identified increases in intimate
partner violence but reductions in abuse committed by previous partners. In addition, the nature of
reporting has changed with more incidents being reported by third parties than victims (Ivandic et
al., 2020) with the assumption being that the close proximity between neighbours that lockdown
conditions have created has increased their ability to overhear or witness domestic abuse. Of note,
this study does not claim to contribute to these aforementioned areas, and instead, focuses on the
police response. To help address the outlined issues the UN recommended governments respond in
a number of ways including using evidence-based measures to address violence against women by
strengthening and building capacity within services, and support available to victims (United
Nations Women, 2020). In response, police services, social care, health and the third sector all
sought to put in place responses to both understand the impact, and also enable interventions that
could help potential victims. This study seeks to begin to contribute to the research literature in
these key areas by reporting on the initial results of a multi-agency pilot program implemented to
improve the safeguarding of victims of intimate partner violence and subsequent effectiveness of
criminal investigations. Conducted in the North West of England the pilot program placed
independent domestic abuse and sexual violence advocates in company with patrolling uniformed
police officers, in a dedicated domestic abuse police response vehicle. With a strong focus on
improving the care for victims of intimate partner violence, the study examines whether or not the
engagement co-operation of victims is increased because of the early support provided by specia-
lized advocacy. By reporting these findings this article provides one of the first empirical examina-
tions of the response by agencies regarding the effectiveness of efforts to help support victims of
intimate partner violence.
Literature review
There has been a comprehensive body of research conducted in respect of domestic abuse with a
systematic review conducted by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (2014)
identifying as many as 899 pieces of literature produced exploring the subject. This figure has
only grown further since the NICE review in 2014 and as such, it is clearly impractical to examine
such a large evidence base. Instead, this review of literature focuses on material relevant to the
implementation conducted in the pilot program related to this paper. This includes a brief overview
of research conducted on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on domestic abuse. This is
followed by an outline of the definition of domestic abuse and the sub-definitions of intimate
partner violence and serial domestic abuse in the UK. Responses to domestic abuse and their
effectiveness are then covered to position the study, before outlining literature regarding engage-
ment with the police and criminal justice system in the UK.
The COVID-19 pandemic has provided new challenges in tackling crime and IPV. Stickle and
Felson (2020) have described the pandemic as the ‘largest criminological experiment in history’,
citing the drastic changes to routine activities as the underpinning cause of the dramatic changes. As
a result, there has been extensive research conducted into how the pandemic has affected crime and
disorder across the globe. This research has covered an array of areas including robbery and
shoplifting (Abrams, 2021; Ashby, 2020; Campedelli et al., 2021), organized crime, including
human trafficking and sexual exploitation (Balmori de la Miyar et al., 2020; Djordjević &
2E. HALFORD AND J. SMITH
Dobovšek, 2020), cyber-related crime such as fraud (Muhammad et al., 2020), serious crimes
including homicide, kidnapping and extortion (Balmori de la Miyar et al., 2020) and the overall
decrease in crime rates (Boman & Gallupe, 2020; Halford et al., 2020). Especially relevant to this
study is the research on domestic violence (Piquero et al., 2020) which indicated that it has
increased during the pandemic. This study was supported by a number of key articles that enabled
this conclusion (Ashby, 2020; Evans et al., 2020; Hsu & Henke, 2020; Leslie & Wilson, 2020; Nix &
Richards, 2021). However, despite the breadth of research exploring the impact on domestic abuse
and IPV calls for police services and recorded crimes, there is much less literature available that has
examined how the police and other agencies have sought to respond to the increasing rates. At the
time of writing, the exception was a study of domestic abuse multi-agency risk assessment processes
during the pandemic (Walklate et al., 2021). Such research is now underway but it could be
sometime before publication. As such, there is an urgency to contribute to the limited available
material for practitioners to call upon in their continued response to the issue of IPV during the
pandemic and it is in that vein that this study seeks to add to the body of literature.
It is important before moving forward that this review briefly outline the definitions that this
study uses so readers can fully understand the content of the article. There are three distinct forms
of domestic abuse this pilot was used to respond to. The pilot primarily sought to tackle domestic
abuse (DA) that is within the definition within the UK Domestic Abuse Act 2021 which describes it
as ‘behaviour of a person (perpetrator) towards another person (victim) . . . if both victim and
perpetrator are aged 16 or over and are personally connected to each other, and the behaviour is
abusive’. Secondly, intimate partner violence (IPV) is described as ‘a pattern of behavior in any
relationship that is used to gain or maintain power and control over an intimate partner’ (United
Nations, 2021). Finally, the definition of a serial repeat domestic abuser was defined in 2009 by the
association of chief police officers (ACPO) as being circumstances where ‘the perpetrator is alleged
to have used or threatened violence against two or more victims who are unconnected to each other,
and who are, or were intimate partners of the perpetrator’ (Moore, 2009).
In respect of the academic literature, regarding responses to intimate partner violence there have
been several approaches. Firstly, knowledge-based awareness campaigns focus on the victim
increasing their ability to safeguard themselves from abuse and by reducing identifiable risk factors
(Hamby, 2006). In these programs behavioural change is driven through education and increasing
knowledge and awareness regarding areas such as conflict management and communication skills
and do offer some evidence of success (Avery-leaf et al., 1997; Edwardsen & Morse, 2006; Enriquez
et al., 2011; Ernst et al., 2011; Toews et al., 2011; Weisz & Black, 2001; Whitaker et al., 2006;). Other
research has focused on raising awareness amongst perpetrators and victims regarding what a
healthy relationship looks like (Antle et al., 2011; Solomon & Fraser, 2009; Wray et al., 2004) with
some reported success on improving overall understanding.
Literature on perpetrator based programs have focused on examining and identifying risk
(Feder et al., 2009; Nelson et al., 2012; Ramsay, 2002; Waalen et al., 2000). The presumption in
such interventions is that if risk is identified then a suitable intervention can be put in place to
prevent harm materializing (Klevens & Saltzman, 2009; Moracco & Cole, 2009; O’Campo et al.,
2011; Ramsay, 2002). Such risk screening interventions are successful at identifying improved
levels of victimization of IPV (Feder et al., 2009; O’Campo et al., 2011; O’Reilly et al., 2010;
Trabold, 2007). However, the research to date does not successfully prove they go on to reduce
the subsequent conduct of intimate partner violence (Coulthard et al., 2010; Feder et al., 2009;
O’Reilly et al., 2010; Ramsay, 2002). Once intimate partner violence is identified, it is then vital
that an effective intervention is conducted to prevent and reduce repeat victimization or serial
offending. As outlined above the large volume of research on perpetrator programs that has
been conducted (Adams, 2003; Aldarondo, 2010; Chovanec & Roseborough, 2016; Kistenmacher
& Weiss, 2008; Roffman et al., 2008; Hester & Westmarland, 2006) suggests they provide
moderate benefits in terms of reducing offending (Sheehan et al., 2011; Stover et al., 2009;
Wathern & MacMillan, 2003).
POLICE PRACTICE AND RESEARCH 3
More specifically, this study is positioned in the final two areas of literature relevant to this article
which examines interventions that provide support for victims, concentrate on offering advocacy,
and the improvement of victim engagement with the criminal justice system. Advocacy in this
context provides assistance with emergency housing, and social care support for victims (Coy &
Kelly, 2011; Donovan et al., 2010; Hester, 2012; Rivas et al., 2015; Ramsay et al., 2005; Robinson,
2009; Wathern & MacMillan, 2003). Advocacy programs grew heavily after the 2004 introduction of
the victims’ commissioner under the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. Their role
was identified as being to act as an advocate for victims by improving the criminal justice system
and services available to them. A key improvement in this area was the delivery of advocacy support
through interventions that placed independent domestic violence advocates (IDVA) closer to the
victim by both outreach programs and approaches positioning advocates in accident and emer-
gency wards for example (Cairns & Hoffart, 2009). Literature in this area has provided the most
positive results. However, the success of victim-based advocacy appears time dependent, with some
research suggesting the length of intervention support impacts effectiveness with victims supported
for longer than 12 hours being more effective at reducing repeat abuse and future victimization
(Ramsay, et al, 2009). Other research indicates 10 hours is sufficient to achieve significant improve-
ments in the victim’s quality of life (Ramsay et al., 2005) and re-abuse of the victim (Wathern &
MacMillan, 2003). Importantly, research has suggested that these approaches work most success-
fully when they are mindful of displaying and avoiding judgmental language and behaviour
(Hughes, 2017).
To understand the full value of the study it is also necessary to have an understanding of what
prevents IPV victims from engaging with the criminal justice system. Research indicates that
victims have a tendency to view the police and wider criminal justice system as purely a method
to quell occurring or impending physical violence (Apsler et al., 2003). Birdsall et al. (2016) argue
that as a result many victims of IPV subsequently withdraw complaints made to the police resulting
in failed prosecutions, an argument that is supported by the wider research (Buzawa & Buzawa,
1996; Hoyle, 2008; Hoyle & Sanders, 2007; Robinson & Cook, 2006). Literature indicates that this
often occurs due to a lack of victim support (Barrett & Hamilton-Giachritsis, 2013) and not as a
result of insufficient evidence which is the dominant narrative within policing (Harris et al., 2018;
Payne & Wermeling, 2009) and which is lost as officers prioritise their focus on evidence gathering
and not victim advocacy. As a consequence, it is argued that the police and criminal justice system
are fundamentally failing to provide the victim with their primary desire, which is to free themselves
from violence (Birdsall et al., 2016; Harris et al., 2018; Payne & Wermeling, 2009). Ironically, it has
been suggested that an emphasis on the requirements of the victim (and not those of the police)
within IPV cases would not only enable the victim to have a greater chance of living an abuse free
life, it would also increase the likelihood of a successful police prosecution (Birdsall et al., 2016;
Roberts & Hough, 2011; Tyler, 2004; Wilson & Jasinski, 2004).
Operation provide
In response to concerns regarding potential heightened risk to victims of intimate partner violence
Lancashire Constabulary, a provincial police service in the North West of England in the UK,
introduced a pilot program called Operation Provide. The pilot’s primary objective was to enhance
the multi-agency response to intimate partner violence during the lockdown phases of the UK
government COVID-19 pandemic response. The pilot had four original aims (1) to reach out to
locked in victims of intimate partner violence, (2) maximize positive victim outcomes (not just
police investigation outcomes) for sufferers of intimate partner violence, (3) reduce the likelihood of
repeat victimization and (4) enhance police response and standards of evidence-based investiga-
tions. The planning phase of the pilot focused heavily on identifying evidence-based approaches to
responding to IPV and as a result emphasis was placed upon enhancing the service to victims as this
was felt to be a method that research indicated could provide the greatest chance of success (Coy &
4E. HALFORD AND J. SMITH
Kelly, 2011; Donovan et al., 2010; Hester, 2012; Ramsay, et al, 2009; Ramsay et al., 2005; Robinson,
2009; Wathern & MacMillan, 2003). The pilot program sought to do this through a multi-agency
response between Blackpool Teaching Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust,
Fylde Coast Women’s Aid and Lancashire Constabulary. Agencies provided a mix of resources and
funding to support the pilot. Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust provided funds
to recruit both independent domestic violence advocates (IDVAs) and independent sexual violence
advocates (ISVAs), Fylde Coast Women’s Aid also provided IDVA’s to the pilot team. Lancashire
Constabulary provided officers specially trained in responding to domestic abuse to work alongside
both IDVAs and ISVA’s on a ROTA basis that covered 7 days a week with coverage ranging from
7am to 10pm. The staff were deployed in a dedicated joint patrol capacity. This tactic was utilized as
previous evidence has indicated that similar approaches to mental health have been effective (Dean,
2013; Landeen et al., 2004; Segal, 2014). Allocated a dedicated police call sign the police officer and
dedicated IDVA or ISVA were then utilized as a secondary or joint response unit to incidents of
IPV, attending with, or after an initial police patrol had established control of the incident as a way
to minimize risk to the IDVA or ISVA. After arrival, primary responsibility for victim management
was then handed over to the operation provide unit. This enabled immediate victim support from
highly skilled, independent staff from non-police agencies whose sole purpose was the wellbeing of
the victim and their needs and not any identified criminal investigation, which was managed by the
officer. The IDVA and ISVA conducted their role by providing immediate emotional support for
the victim, signposting to agencies that can assist the victim in a variety of ways. These included for
example, conduct of an in-depth risk assessment, advice regarding domestic abuse and the benefits
of engaging with services offered, as well as locating emergency shelter accommodation, long term
housing support and access to emergency funds for vital items such as food or clothing. On a
number of occasion’s the IDVA or ISVA would also provide direct assistance such as transport to
identified shelters.
Measures of success
Aims 1, 2 and 3 were entirely victim focused. Calling upon learning from studies that advocated
focusing on victim engagement (Birdsall et al., 2016) as a method to increase support for both
safeguarding and investigation co-operation the measures for success were not those traditionally
used by the police. Instead, the emphasis was on measuring two primary indicators (1) did the
victim engage with the safeguarding support and advice offered by the specialist staff which is
designed to offer them safety and support, reducing their reliance on the perpetrator and maximiz-
ing any reduction of victimization and (2) did the victim engage with the police investigation and
criminal prosecution. Aim four of the project is most effectively assessed through qualitative review
of any concluded criminal investigation and convictions through the criminal justice system. As the
operation is still underway and prosecutions have not yet finalized, the final measure of success
regarding criminal investigations is not subject to review in this paper.
Data and method
Anecdotally, the pilot program has been considered a great success. As a result, it was entered
into the Nursing Times Awards 2020 and was successful in winning the patient safety improve-
ment category. Beyond this, quantitative analysis also indicates that the pilot scheme has been a
success in delivering its three first aims which were (1) to reach out to locked in victims of
intimate partner violence, (2) maximize positive victim outcomes (not just police investigation
outcomes) for sufferers of intimate partner violence and (3) reduce the likelihood of repeat
victimization (as measured by successful engagement of the victim with safeguarding support
and advice, and their engagement with a police prosecution in cases where criminal offences have
occurred).
POLICE PRACTICE AND RESEARCH 5
Data used to assess the pilot was drawn from a bespoke incident tracker that was created to assist
in evaluating the pilot program. Using an excel database every incident attended by the Operation
Provide unit was recorded. An important distinction here is that the recorded cases are incidents
(those classified and deployed to by the police control room), and not recorded crimes (a formal
record of a crime, recorded by a police officer and that complies with UK national crime recording
standards). Each record consisted of essential information such as the date and associated police
reference numbers. In addition, the tracker recorded various other variables including the type of
incident attended (for example, assault, theft and robbery), whether the victim was a repeat victim
(someone who has been a victim on two or more occasions) and their level of engagement.
Engagement was recorded in two variables aligned with the studies aims. Firstly, did the victim
engage with the safeguarding support (i.e. agreed to police alarms, hostel accommodation, advocacy
support or advice offered by the specialist staff). Second, did the victim engage with the police
investigation and criminal prosecution processes when offences were identified (i.e. provided a
victim statement or allowed photographs of injuries and forensic evidence recovery). Whether the
victim positively or negatively engaged with either form of engagement (safeguarding or investiga-
tion) was decided by the operation provide staff and was recorded at the end of each shift through
input by them directly onto the bespoke tracker. For repeat victims, additional information was
retrieved and recorded on the tracker from police records regarding their previous history of
engagement (whether they previously engaged with safeguarding or investigation and investigation
processes) which was identified by examining previous police records within which the victim was
named. All data entered onto the tracker was subject to a quality assurance process every 24 hours,
which was conducted by a detective sergeant from within the criminal investigation department.
This served to reduce bias, and maintain validity and objectivity of the data entered by the operation
provide units, by for example, confirming that a victim who had been recorded as co-operating with
an investigation, did in fact provide a written police statement. No personal or demographic data
was recorded for the victims or perpetrators. A free text box was populated with details of action
taken by the Operation Provide unit. Dates covered in this study span the period of 24 April 2020–
21 November 2020. In doing so, this captures data obtained during two lockdown periods of the UK
COVID-19 response. During that period, the Operation Provide units attended 442 incidents. The
data recorded was then subjected to descriptive and statistical analysis for the purpose of this study.
Results
Results in this study have been analysed across three different themes. Firstly, an examination of the
overall level of engagement from all 442-recorded incidents was conducted. This is then followed by
an analysis of data from 123 incidents that were successfully identified as involving a repeat victim.
Finally, all 442 incidents were then examined again but split into incident classification types.
In respect of overall levels of engagement, it can be seen within Table 1 that the descriptive
analysis shows there was a strong positive result in increasing engagement in both safeguarding and
co-operation with criminal investigations. However, the t-test analysis results, illustrates Tables A1,
Table A2, Table A3, Table A4 and Table A5 outlined in full in Appendix A, identified that only the
Table 1. Number and percentage of pre and post engagement levels across all incidents.
Total Level of Engagement
Previous Incidents Operation Provide Incident
Form of Engagement Form of Engagement
Safeguarding Criminal Investigation Safeguarding Criminal Investigation
Victim Did Not Engage 110 (24.8%) 151 (34.1%) 58 (13.1%) 150 (33.9%)
Victim Did Engage 115 (26%) 74 (16.7%) 353 (79.8%) 219 (49.5%)
1st Incident 214 48.4(%) 214 (48.4%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Other 3 (0.6%) 3 (0.6%) 31 (7%) 73 (16.5%)
Total Number of Incidents 442 (100%) 442 (100%) 442 (100%) 442 (100%)
6E. HALFORD AND J. SMITH
increased engagement within the criminal prosecution was statistically significant (Pre (M = 5.8,
SD = 7.7) and post (M = 16.6, SD = 7.7) levels of victim engagement significantly improved, t
(−1.8) = 12, p = .048).
Possibly the most important incidents examined in the study are those that were against repeat
victims (those who had been a victim of DA more than once in a period of 12 months). This
analysis, which is outlined in Table 2, shows a very high increase in percentile levels of engagement
in both safeguarding and criminal investigation. The data for repeat victims for both safeguarding
and criminal investigation was analysed together to enable assessment. This supported the descrip-
tive findings and identified that the improvement between pre (M = 44.5, SD = 17.6) and post (M
= 90.5, SD = 20.5) levels of victim engagement significantly improved, t (−23) = 1, p = .014,
indicating that overall, repeat victim engagement did significantly increase as a result of the pilot
intervention.
The results for individual incident offence classifications are displayed in Table 3. This again
showed percentile improvements across almost all identified incident types. Of note, t-test analysis
identified significant results (p < .05) in incidents relating to controlling and coercive behaviour (p
= .014**), harassment (p = .035*), threats to kill (p = .024*), affray (p = .029*), and malicious
communications (p = .045*).
Once t-test analysis of the offence classifications outlined in Table 3 had been completed it
became apparent that a number could not be analysed effectively due to the small levels of data
available. In an effort to understand this area further four offence categories were constructed that
combined offence classifications. The first category was defined as controlling and coercive beha-
viour (which included malicious communications, controlling and coercive behaviour, harassment,
breach of civil orders), violent offences (which included assault, threats to kill and affray), property
offences (including theft, criminal damage and domestic burglary) and sexual offences (which
included rape and sexual offences). The offence categories were then re-analysed. This examination
only showed an improvement between the pre (M = 7, SD = 6.8) and post (M = 13.7, SD = 6.8) levels
of engagement for criminal investigations for the offence category of controlling and coercive
behaviour t (−2.3) = 3, p = .050.
Discussion
The results indicate that positive levels of engagement were achieved almost across the board and in
a variety of circumstances. Significant increases in victim engagement with criminal prosecutions
were achieved overall, and specifically in the engagement of repeat victims. The implications of this
finding could be significant as it begins to evidence the fact that the police and partner agencies are
far more likely to be able to safeguard a victim if they focus upon their immediate needs, as opposed
to the present focus on gathering evidence and zero tolerance to domestic abuse. These factors will
always remain a key requirement but should not be the sole focus of responding officers, which
existing evidence indicates is the case. To reach this stage the police will require further training in
victim management and the concepts of advocacy and its positive impact. Or alternatively,
Table 2. Number and percentage of pre and post engagement levels across repeat victim incidents.
Level of Engagement in Cases of Repeat
Victimisation
Previous Incidents Operation Provide Incident
Form of Engagement Form of Engagement
Safeguarding
Criminal
Investigation Safeguarding
Criminal
Investigation
Victim Did Not Engage 66 (53.6%) 91 (73.9%) 18 (14.6%) 47 (38.2%)
Victim Did Engage 57 (46.4%) 32 (26%) 105 (85.4%) 76 (61.8%)
Total 123 (100%) 123 (100%) 123 (%) 123 (%)
POLICE PRACTICE AND RESEARCH 7
Table 3. Number and percentage of pre and post engagement levels by incident type.
Level of Engagement by Incident Type
Previous Incidents Operation Provide Incident
Form of Engagement Form of Engagement
Safeguarding Criminal Investigation Safeguarding Criminal Investigation
Assault Total Number of Incidents Victim Did Not Engage 62 (53.9%) 89 (77.3%) 33 (15.7%) 102 (48.8%)
235 Victim Did Engage 53 (46%) 26 (22.6%) 176 (84.2%) 107 (51.2%)
Criminal Damage Total Number of Incidents Victim Did Not Engage 6 (33.3%) 7 (38.8%) 0 (%) 9 (32.1%)
28 Victim Did Engage 12 (66.6%) 11 (61.1%) 28 (100%) 19 (67.8%)
Controlling and Coercive Behaviour Total Number of Incidents Victim Did Not Engage 7 (41.1%) 13 (76.4%) 5 (18.5%) 12 (44.4%)
27 Victim Did Engage 10 (58.8%) 4 (23.5%) 22 (81.4%) 15 (55.5%)
Harassment Total Number of Incidents Victim Did Not Engage 2 (16.6%) 4 (33.3%) 1 (3.9) 6 (23.1%)
26 Victim Did Engage 10 (83.3%) 8 (66.6%) 25 (96.1) 20 (76.9%)
Breach of Civil Orders Total Number of Incidents Victim Did Not Engage 2 (11.1%) 2 (11.1%) 1 (5.5%) 2 (11.1%)
18 Victim Did Engage 16 (88.8%) 16 (88.8%) 17 (94.4%) 16 (88.8%)
No Offences/Verbal Only Incidents Total Number of Incidents Victim Did Not Engage 2 (40%) 2 (40%) 1 (5.5%) 1 (20%)
18 Victim Did Engage 3 (60%) 3 (60%) 17 (94.5%) 4 (80%)
Threats to Kill Total Number of Incidents Victim Did Not Engage 5 (45.5) 6 (54.5%) 1 (8%) 1 (8%)
Victim Did Engage 6 (54.5) 5 (45.5%) 12 (92%) 12 (92%)
Affray Total Number of Incidents Victim Did Not Engage 1 (33.3%) 1 (33.3%) 0 (0%) 1 (12.5%)
8 Victim Did Engage 2 (66.6%) 2 (66.6%) 8 (100%) 7 (87.5%)
Domestic Burglary Total Number of Incidents Victim Did Not Engage 2 (66.6%) 2 (66.6%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
5 Victim Did Engage 1 (33.3%) 1 (33.3%) 5 (100%) 5 (100%)
Malicious Communications Total Number of Incidents Victim Did Not Engage 0 (0%) 1 (100%) 1 (20%) 1 (20%)
5 Victim Did Engage 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 4 (80%) 4 (80%)
Rape Total Number of Incidents Victim Did Not Engage 1 (50%) 2 (100%) 0 (0%) 1 (20%)
5 Victim Did Engage 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 5 (100%) 4 (80%)
Sexual Offences Total Number of Incidents Victim Did Not Engage 1 (50%) 2 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
2 Victim Did Engage 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 2 (100%) 2 (100%)
Theft Total Number of Incidents Victim Did Not Engage 0 (0%) 1 (100%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%)
2 Victim Did Engage 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%)
8E. HALFORD AND J. SMITH
investment in independent services to increase the capacity to conduct this function alongside the
police. A tentative pattern has also emerged that indicates that incidents that carry a higher level of
harm or risk against the victim, such as coercive and controlling behaviour, threats to kill,
harassment and malicious communication, have a greater likelihood that the victim’s engagement
can be improved. In contrast, victims of lower harm and risk offences such as those related to
property crimes, were less likely to be influenced by immediate advocacy support. This high harm –
engagement link is unsurprising given that these offences tend to be the forms of offending
behaviour that are serial or repetitive in nature which makes intuitive sense as the finding show
that repeat victims were significantly more likely to increase their engagement levels. The findings
of this research help to add to the existing literature that shows the positive impact of victim
advocacy (Coy & Kelly, 2011; Donovan et al., 2010; Hester, 2012; Ramsay et al., 2005; Ramsay, et al,
2009; Robinson, 2009; Wathern & MacMillan, 2003). The findings also further support research
that has argued for increased victim engagement as a way to improve responses to IPV (Birdsall et
al., 2016; Roberts & Hough, 2011; Tyler, 2004; Wilson & Jasinski, 2004) but goes further by
providing an operational methodology to provide this for victims through increased, multi-
agency advocacy support.
Notwithstanding the very positive results, there are several limitations of this study. Firstly, the
pilot program focused on a very specific crime form of intimate partner violence. As such, it is
unclear if this approach would be effective in other circumstances such as non-intimate partner-
related violence against women. In addition, it only examined a very short time frame. As a result, it
is too soon to know if the engagement in either the safeguarding or investigation was retained over
time or if it has a residual effect, such as improving the likelihood of future engagement.
Additionally, the geography of the pilot meant that the victims engaged with are likely to have
been from a predominantly white, European, working-class background, as this is the dominant
socio-demographic population served by the police service. Because of this fact it is unknown if the
findings will remain valid across other communities from a different social, economic, ethnic or
religious background. To address these limitations more research is required. It is suggested that
future studies be conducted using the methodology which is replicable and transferable into almost
any society whereby the police respond to intimate partner violence, and they can be supported by a
suitable independent advisor. Specifically this study recommends piloting in other geographic
locations in the UK and internationally, and in response to a variety of crime types. Future research
focus should also be placed on the qualitative perspectives of the victim, the IDVAs, ISVAs and the
police officers involved to understand the underlying causation of the improved engagement. In
addition, research should revisit the pilot within the next 2 years and examine the data again as a
number of the findings are admittedly based on relatively low volumes of cases and may not hold
true at greater volumes. Furthermore, future research needs to seek to understand if the increased
engagement seen in this initial study has transferred into higher prosecution levels and, or, longer
term reduced victimization.
In terms of its policy implications, from a pandemic perspective this study poses some interest-
ing options for the deployment of police and multi-agency capacity and capability. As further
research emerges regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the emergency services, their
partners and the third sector, a more developed picture of types of offending and demand increases,
along with knowledge of the impact on capacity and capability will be refined. This will afford
agencies the ability to make strategic, tactical and operational decisions to shift deployment of their
resources and specialisms to areas of high demand or harm and risk. To enable that, this
methodology provides an instantly replicable model, and now justifiable argument for rapid shifts
to intense partnership working delivering victim-focused services. From a general perspective it is
clear that the collaboration conducted in this pilot program was a key element of its success. By
working in partnership the relevant agencies were successful in getting the right people, to the right
victims, at the right time. This provides further evidence that the joint patrol methodology of
partnership working can successfully be conducted beyond the realms of mental health intervention
POLICE PRACTICE AND RESEARCH 9
and in the area of domestic abuse and intimate partner violence. As such, public sector organisa-
tions such as the police, health, adult social services and those within the third sector should seek to
formulate ways of working closer together to deliver combined services at the point of need.
Furthermore, with increased scrutiny regarding low conviction rates of offences such as rape, of
which a significant portion are domestic related, the focus on victim engagement as a key element of
a multi-agency response to low reporting or conviction rates may enable the police and crown
prosecution service in the UK to successfully improve conviction rates. If given time and attention
this may further improve victim confidence and willingness to report offences that are within and
outside the realm of intimate partner violence at a national level.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes on contributors
Eric Halford is an Assistant Professor in Policing and Security Studies at Rabdan Academy in the United Arab
Emirates. Dr Halford was previously a Detective Chief Inspector within the UK Police Service where his role was the
head of vulnerability and investigation within West division Lancashire. Dr Halford was also a senior member of the
organisation's evidence-based policing board and chair of the National Crime Agencies online child sexual exploita-
tion and abuse user group. Dr Halford's research publications have a strong focus on vulnerability and more recently
the impact of the coronavirus on overall crime rates and anti-social behaviour and domestic violence.
Jonathan Smith is a member of Lancashire Constabulary and has served for several decades at the ranks of Constable,
Sergeant and Inspector. An experienced practitioner in public order, immediate response and community policing
Inspector Smith has served in a variety of roles. Most recently, he has been the lead for maintaining multi-agency
partnerships in the Blackpool area of Lancashire and was fundamental to the implementation and leadership of
Operation Provide.
ORCID
Eric Halford http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3913-1679
References
Abrams, D. S. (2021). COVID and crime: An early empirical look. Journal of public economics, 194, 104344. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104344
Adams, D. (2003). Certified batterer intervention programs: History, philosophies, techniques, collaborations,
innovations and challenges. Clinics in Family Practice, 5(1), 1–23. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/232426%
2520Paper%25201.pdf
Aldarondo, E. (2010). Understanding the contribution of common interventions with men who batter to the
reduction of re-assaults. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 61(4), 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-6988.
2010.01047.x
Antle, B. F., Sullivan, D. J., Dryden, A., Karam, E. A., & Barbee, A. P. (2011). Healthy relationship education for dating
violence prevention among high-risk youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(1), 173–179. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.08.031
Apsler, R., Cummins, M. R., & Carl, S. (2003). Perceptions of the police by female victims of domestic partner
violence. Violence Against Women, 9(11), 1318–1335. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801203255554
Ashby, M. P. (2020). Initial evidence on the relationship between the coronavirus pandemic and crime in the United
States. Crime Science, 9(1), 6.https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-020-00117-6
Avery-leaf, S., Cascardi, M., O’leary, K. D., & Cano, A. (1997). Efficacy of a dating violence prevention program on
attitudes justifying aggression. Journal of Adolescent Health, 21(1), 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1054-139X(96)
00309-6
Balmori de la Miyar, J. R., Hoehn-Velasco, L., & Silverio-Murillo, A. (2020). Druglords don’t stay at home: COVID-
19 pandemic and crime patterns in Mexico City. Journal of Criminal Justice. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.
2020.101745
10 E. HALFORD AND J. SMITH
Barrett, E. C., & Hamilton-Giachritsis, C. (2013). The victim as a means to an end: Detective decision making in a
simulated investigation of attempted rape. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Oender Profiling, 10(2),
200–218. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1385
Birdsall, N., Kirby, S., & McManus, M. (2016). Police–victim engagement in building a victim empowerment
approach to intimate partner violence cases. Police Practice and Research, 18(1), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15614263.2016.1230061
Boman, J. H., & Gallupe, O. (2020). Has COVID-19 changed crime? Crime rates in the United States during the
pandemic. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(4), 537–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09551-3
Buzawa, E. S., & Buzawa, C. G. (1996). Domestic violence: The criminal justice response. Sage.
Cairns, K., & Hoffart, I. (2009). Keeping women alive - Assessing the danger. Alberta Council of Women’s Shelters.
Campedelli, G. M., Aziani, A., & Favarin, S. (2021). Exploring the effects of COVID-19 containment policies on
crime: An empirical analysis of the short-term Aftermath in Los Angeles. Am J Crim Just, 46, 704–727 . https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12103-020-09578-6
Chovanec, M. G., & Roseborough, D. (2016). Examining rates of engagement over time with court-ordered men in a
domestic abuse treatment program. Social Work with Groups, 40(4), 350–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/01609513.
2016.1204648
Coulthard, P., Yong, S. L., Adamson, L., Warburton, A., Worthington, H. V., Esposito, M., & Sharif, M. O. (2010).
Domestic violence screening and intervention programmes for adults with dental or facial injury. Cochrane
Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd004486.pub3
Coy, M., & Kelly, L. (2011). Islands in the stream, an evaluation of four London independent domestic violence
advocacy schemes. Final Report. Child and Woman Abuse Studies Unit, London Metropolitan University.
Dean, E. (2013). Nurses work with police to cut unnecessary arrests. Mental Health Practice, 17(1), 8–9. https://doi.
org/10.7748/mhp2013.09.17.1.8.s9
Djordjević, S., & Dobovšek, B. (2020). Organised crime in Western Balkans Six at the onset of coronavirus.
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 40(9/10), 807–820. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-06-2020-
0229
Donovan, C., Griffiths, S., Groves, N., Johnson, H., & Douglass, J. (2010). Evaluation of early intervention models for
change in domestic violence: Northern rock foundation domestic abuse intervention project 2004–2009. Northern
Rock Foundation.
Edwardsen, E. A., & Morse, D. (2006). Intimate partner violence resource materials. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
21(8), 971–981. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260506290200
Enriquez, M., Kelly, P. J., Cheng, A.-L., Hunter, J., & Mendez, E. (2011). An intervention to address interpersonal
violence among low-income Midwestern Hispanic-American teens. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 14
(2), 292–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-011-9474-5
Ernst, A. A., Weiss, S. J., Hobley, K., Medoro, I., Baker, J. J., & Kanter, J. (2011). Brief intervention for perpetration of
intimate partner violence (IPV). Southern Medical Journal, 104(6), 446–455. https://doi.org/10.1097/smj.
0b013e3182186fc3
Evans, D. P., Hawk, S. R., & Ripkey, C. E. (2020). Domestic violence in Atlanta, Georgia before and during
COVID-19. Journal of Violence and Gender, 8(3), 140–147. https://doi.org/10.1089/vio.2020.0061
Feder, G., Ramsay, J., Dunne, D., Rose, M., Arsene, C., Norman, R., Kuntze, S., Spencer, A., Bacchus, L., Hague, G.,
Warburton, A., & Taket, A. (2009). How far does screening women for domestic (partner) violence in different
health-care settings meet the UK National Screening Committee criteria for a screening programme? Systematic
reviews of nine UK National Screening Committee criteria. Health Technology Assessment, 13(16), 137-347.
https://doi.org/10.3310/hta13160
Halford, E., Dixon, A., Farrell, G., Malleson, N., & Tilley, N. (2020). Crime and coronavirus: Social distancing,
lockdown, and the mobility elasticity of crime. Crime Science, 9(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-020-00121-
w
Hamby, S. L. (2006). The who, what, when, where, and how of partner violence prevention research. Journal of
Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 13(3–4), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.1300/J146v13n03_07
Harris, L. J., Carbone, J., Teitelbaum, L. E., & Rachel, R. (2018). Family law. Wolters Kluwer.
Hester, M., & Westmarland, N. (2006). Domestic violence perpetrators. Criminal Justice Matters, 66(1), 34–35.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09627250608553400
Hester, M. (2012). Domestic violence advocacy and support in a changing climate - Findings from three recent
evaluations. Northern Rock Foundation.
Hoehn-Velasco, L., Silverio-Murillo, A., & Balmori de la Miyar, J. R. (2021). COVID-19 and crimes against women:
Evidence from Mexico. Economics & Human Biology, 41. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3701472
Hoyle, C., & Sanders, A. (2007). Police Response to Domestic Violence. Domestic Violence, 411–433. https://doi.org/
10.4324/9781315264905-28
Hoyle, C. (2008). Will she be safe? A critical analysis of risk assessment in domestic violence cases. Children and
Youth Services Review, 30(3), 323–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.10.009
POLICE PRACTICE AND RESEARCH 11
Hsu, L.-C., & Henke, A. (2020). COVID-19, staying at home, and domestic violence. Review of Economics of the
Household, 19(1), 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-020-09526-7
Hughes, W. (2017). Lessons from the integrated domestic abuse programme, for the implementation of building
better relationships. Probation Journal, 64(2), 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264550517701199
Ivandic, R., Kirchmaier, T., & Linton, B. (2020). changing patterns of domestic abuse during COVID-19 lockdown.
SSRN Electronic Journal, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3686873
Kistenmacher, B. R., & Weiss, R. L. (2008). Motivational Interviewing as a mechanism for change in men who batter:
A randomized controlled trial. Violence and Victims, 23(5), 558–570. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.23.5.558
Klevens, J., & Saltzman, L. E. (2009). The controversy on screening for intimate partner violence: A question of
semantics? Journal of Women’s Health, 18(2), 143–145. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2008.1252
Landeen, J., Pawlick, J., Rolfe, S., Cottee, I., & Holmes, M. (2004). Delineating the Population Served by a Mobile
Crisis Team: Organizing Diversity. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 49(1), 45–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/
070674370404900107
Leslie, E., & Wilson, R. (2020). Sheltering in place and domestic violence: Evidence from calls for service during
COVID-19. Journal of Public Economics, 189, 104241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104241
Mlambo-Ngcuka, P. (2020). Violence against women and girls: The shadow pandemic: Statement by executive director
of UN Women. United Nations Publication. https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2020/4/statement-ed-
phumzile-violence-against-women-during-pandemic
Moore, B. (2009). Tackling perpetrators of violence against women and girls: ACPO review for the home secretary.
Association of Chief Police Ocers.
Moracco, K. E., & Cole, T. B. (2009). Preventing Intimate Partner Violence. JAMA, 302(5), 568. https://doi.org/10.
1001/jama.2009.1135
Muhammad, K., Ur-Rehman, A., Kashan Javed, M., & Pandey, D. (2020). A surge in cyber-crime during COVID-19.
Indonesian Journal of Social and Environmental Issues (IJSEI), 1(2), 48–52. https://doi.org/10.47540/ijsei.v1i2.22
National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. (2014). Review of interventions to identify, prevent, reduce and
respond to domestic violence. British Columbia Centre of Excellence for Women’s Health. https://doi.org/https://
www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ph50/evidence/review-of-interventions-to-identify-prevent-reduce-and-respond-to-
domestic-violence-pdf-430413229
Nelson, H. D., Bougatsos, C., & Blazina, I. (2012). Screening women for intimate partner violence: A systematic
review to update the U.S. preventive services task force recommendation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 156(11),
796. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003–4819-156-11-201206050-00447
Nix, J., & Richards, T. N. (2021). The immediate and long-term effects of COVID-19 stay-at-home orders on
domestic violence calls for service across six U.S. jurisdictions. Police Practice and Research, 22(4), 1443–1451.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2021.1883018
O’Campo, P., Kirst, M., Tsamis, C., Chambers, C., & Ahmad, F. (2011). Implementing successful intimate partner
violence screening programs in health care settings: Evidence generated from a realist-informed systematic review.
Social Science & Medicine, 72(6), 855–866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.12.019
O’Reilly, R., Beale, B., & Gillies, D. (2010). Screening and intervention for domestic violence during pregnancy care: A
systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 11(4), 190–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838010378298
Payne, D., & Wermeling, L. (2009). Domestic violence and the female victim: The real reason women stay! . Journal of
Multicultural, Gender and Minority Studies, 3(1), 1–6. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.
551.6655&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Payne, J. L., Morgan, A, & Piquero, A. R. (2020). COVID-19 and social distancing measures in Queensland, Australia,
are associated with short-term decreases in recorded violent crime. Journal of experimental criminology, 1–25.
ttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-020-09441-y
Piquero, A. R., Riddell, J. R., Bishopp, S. A., Narvey, C., Reid, J. A., & Piquero, N. L. (2020). Staying home, staying
safe? A short-term analysis of COVID-19 on Dallas domestic violence. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(4),
601–635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09531-7
Ramsay, J., Carter, Y., Davidson, L., Dunne, D., Eldridge, S., Feder, G., Hegarty, K., Rivas, C., Taft, A., & Warburton,
A. (2009). Advocacy interventions to reduce or eliminate violence and promote the physical and psychosocial
well-being of women who experience intimate partner abuse. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, (3),
CD005043. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005043.pub2
Ramsay, J., Rivas, C., & Feder, G. (2005). Interventions to reduce violence and promote the physical and psychosocial
well-being of women who experience partner violence: A systematic review of controlled evaluations. Final Report.
Barts and The London Queen Mary’s School of Medicine and Dentistry.
Ramsay, J. (2002). Should health professionals screen women for domestic violence? Systematic review. BMJ, 325
(7359), 314–314. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7359.314
Ravindran, S., & Shah, M. (2020). Unintended Consequences of Lockdowns: COVID-19 and the Shadow Pandemic.
National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper 27562. https://doi.org/10.3386/w27562
12 E. HALFORD AND J. SMITH
Rivas, C., Ramsay, J., Sadowski, L., Davidson, L. L., Dunne, D., Eldridge, S., Hegarty, K., Taft, A., & Feder, G. (2015).
Advocacy interventions to reduce or eliminate violence and promote the physical and psychosocial well-being of
women who experience intimate partner abuse. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 12(1), 1-202. https://
doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005043.pub3
Roberts, J. V., & Hough, M. (2011). Public attitudes to the criminal jury: A review of recent findings. The Howard
Journal of Criminal Justice, 50(3), 247–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2311.2011.00664.x
Robinson, A., & Cook, D. (2006). Understanding victim retraction in cases of domestic violence: Specialist courts,
government policy, and victim-centred justice. Contemporary Justice Review, 9(2), 189–213. https://doi.org/10.
1080/10282580600785017
Robinson, A. (2009). Independent domestic violence advisors: A process evaluation. Policy Research Institute of
Wolverhampton University.
Roffman, R. A., Edleson, J. L., Neighbors, C., Mbilinyi, L., & Walker, D. (2008). The men’s domestic abuse check-up.
Violence Against Women, 14(5), 589–605. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801208315526
Segal, E. (2014). The crisis intervention team (CIT) model for law enforcement: Creative considerations for
enhancing university campus police response to mental health crisis. Creative and Knowledge Society, 4(1), 1-
20. https://doi.org/10.2478/cks-2014-0001
Sheehan, K. A., Thakor, S., & Stewart, D. E. (2011). Turning points for perpetrators of intimate partner violence.
Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 13(1), 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838011426016
Solomon, S., & Fraser, O. (2009). Domestic abuse 2008/09: Post campaign evaluation report. Scottish Government
Social Research.
Stickle, B., & Felson, M. (2020). Crime rates in a pandemic: The largest criminological experiment in history.
American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(4), 525–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09546-0
Stover, C. S., Meadows, A. L., & Kaufman, J. (2009). Interventions for intimate partner violence: Review and
implications for evidence-based practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(3), 223–233. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0012718
Toews, M. L., Yazedjian, A., & Jorgensen, D. (2011). “I haven’t done nothin’ crazy lately:” Conflict resolution
strategies in adolescent mothers’ dating relationships. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(1), 180–186.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.09.001
Trabold, N. (2007). Screening for intimate partner violence within a health care setting. Social Work in Health Care,
45(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1300/J010v45n01_01
Tyler, T. R. (2004). Enhancing police legitimacy. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 593(1), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716203262627
United Nations Women. (2020). COVID-19 and ending violence against women and girls https://www2.unwomen.
org/-/media/headquarters/attachments/sections/library/publications/2020/issue-brief-covid-19-and-ending-
violence-against-women-and-girls-en.pdf?la=en&vs=5006
United Nations. (2021). Violence against women. Https://Www.Un.Org/En/Coronavirus/What-Is-Domestic-Abuse.
Retrieved January 26, 2022, from https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women#:%
7E:text=Intimate%20partner%20violence%20refers%20to,psychological%20abuse%20and%20controlling%
20behaviours .
Waalen, J., Goodwin, M. M., Spitz, A. M., Petersen, R., & Saltzman, L. E. (2000). Screening for intimate partner
violence by health care providersBarriers and interventions. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 19(4),
230–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(00)00229-4
Walklate, S., Godfrey, B., & Richardson, J. (2021). Innovating during the pandemic? Policing, domestic abuse and
multi-agency risk assessment conferencing (MARACs). The Journal of Adult Protection, ahead-of-print, 181–190.
https://doi.org/10.1108/jap-11-2020-0047
Wathern, C. N., & MacMillan, H. L. (2003). Interventions for violence against women. JAMA, 289(5), 589. https://doi.
org/10.1001/jama.289.5.589
Weisz, A. N., & Black, B. M. (2001). Evaluating a sexual assault and dating violence prevention program for urban
youths. Social Work Research, 25(2), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/25.2.89
Whitaker, D. J., Morrison, S., Lindquist, C., Hawkins, S. R., O’Neil, J. A., Nesius, A. M., Mathew, A., & Reese, L. R.
(2006). A critical review of interventions for the primary prevention of perpetration of partner violence. Aggression
and Violent Behavior, 11(2), 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2005.07.007
Wilson, S., & Jasinski, J. L. (2004). Public satisfaction with the police in domestic violence cases: The importance of
arrest, expectations, and involuntary contact. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 28(2), 235–254. https://doi.
org/10.1007/BF02885874
Wray, R. J., Hornik, R. M., Gandy, O., Stryker, J. O., Ghez, M., & Mitchell-Clark, K. (2004). Preventing domestic
violence in the African American community: Assessing the impact of a dramatic radio serial. Journal of Health
Communication, 9(1), 31–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730490271656
POLICE PRACTICE AND RESEARCH 13
Appendix A
Table A1. Results of one way paired t-test on pre and post engagement levels across all incidents.
Overall Offence ClassificationPre and Post Engagement
Pre Post
M SD M SD t do t-test
Safeguarding 9.0 14.171 24.769 46.323 −1.739 12 .054
Criminal Investigation 5.8462 7.787 16.615 27.947 −1.812 12 .048*
* < 0.05 ** < 0.01 *** < 0.001
Table A2. Results of one-way paired t-test on pre and post engagement levels across repeat victims for both safeguarding and
criminal investigation.
Repeat VictimsPre and Post Engagement
Pre Post
M SD M SD t do t-test
Overall -(Safeguarding and Criminal Investigation) 44.5 17.67767 90.5 20.50610 −23.00 1 .014
* < 0.05 ** < 0.01 **
Table. A3. T-test results of pre and post engagement levels across incident classifications.
Individual Offence ClassificationsPre and Post EngagementSafeguarding
and Criminal Investigation
Pre Post
M SD M SD t df t-test
Assault 39.5 19.091 141.5 48.790 −4.857 1 .065
Criminal Damage 11.5 0.707 23.5 6.363 −3 1 .102
Controlling and Coercive 7.0 4.242 18.5 4.949 −23 1 .014**
Harassment 9.0 1.414 22.5 3.535 −9 1 .035*
Verbal Only Incident 3.0 0 10.5 9.192 −1.154 1 .455
Threats to Kill 5.5 0.707 12 0 −13 1 .024*
Affray 2.0 0 7.5 .707 −11 1 .029*
Malicious Communications 0.5 0.707 4.0 0 −7 1 .045*
Other Sexual Offences 0.5 0.707 2 0 −3 1 .102
Theft 0.5 0.707 1 0 −1 1 .250
* < 0.05 ** < 0.01 *** < 0.001* < 0.001
Table A4. T-test results of pre and post criminal investigation engagement levels across incident categories.
Offence Category Pre and Post Investigation Engagement
Pre Post
M SD M SD t df t-test
Coercive and Controlling Behaviour 7.0 6.831 13.75 6.849 −2.353 3.0 .050*
Violent Offences 11 13.076 42 56.347 −1.240 2.0 .170
Property Offences 4.0 6.082 8.3 9.451 −2.137 2.0 .083
Sexual Offences 0 0 3.0 1.414 −3 1.0 .102
* < 0.05 ** < 0.01 *** < 0.001
Table A5. T-test results of pre and post safeguarding engagement levels across incident categories.
Offence Category Pre and Post Safeguarding Engagement
Pre Post
M SD M SD t df t-test
Coercive and Controlling Behaviour 9.25 6.184 17 9.273 −2.279 3 .054
Violent Offences 20.3 28.360 65.3 95.861 −1.154 2 .184
Property Offences 4.6 6.350 11.3 14.571 −1.387 2 .150
Sexual Offences 1 0 3.5 2.121 −1.667 1 .172
* < 0.05 ** < 0.01 *** < 0.001
14 E. HALFORD AND J. SMITH
