By Miriam Merkova *
Survivor. This is such a powerful word, with a highly significant meaning, yet, in the violence against women and girls sector, it is often applied narrowly to describe those who have engaged with the services. “We need to consult with survivors” is a statement that is often issued by policymakers, eager to set up advisory groups and committees. While the term is intended to evoke notions of resilience and a capacity to transcend past abuse and victimization, its use can come across as semantic wordplay, as it is often used interchangeably with terms like ‘client,’ ‘service user,’ or ‘victim’. Yet, given that one in two women working in the sector possesses lived experience of abuse, a survivor is just as likely to be the woman sitting next to you as she is to be somebody staying in a refuge.
Survivors’ role in the first services
Survivors were integral in setting up and running the first refuges and rape crisis centres in the UK. In her book, ‘History and Memories of the Domestic Violence Movement’, Gill Hague recounts the early, vibrant days of ‘second wave’ feminism. Its rallying cry, ‘the personal is political’, formed the cornerstone of Consciousness Raising (CR) groups, which provided a safe space where women could share their personal experiences. By breaking the silence on issues that, up to that point, had remained private, they located their individual experiences of abuse within the oppression of all women, and brought these into the public sphere by coming together for collective action.
In a spirit of solidarity, equality and power sharing, they established the first services, that operated as collectives where all women – whether paid staff, volunteers or ‘the women in the house’ – were given an equal say, and the women who had used the services were actively encouraged to apply for a job there after leaving. These initial services were set up in challenging circumstances, with little or no money, powered by women’s creativity and dedication. They exploited squatters’ rights and opened up the doors of their own homes. The first ever refuge in the UK, and in fact in the world, was set up in Chiswick, West London, in 1971, by occupying an empty, derelict hotel. Ellen Malos ran the Bristol Women’s Centre from the basement of her own home. Together with Gill Hague, she co-founded the renowned Domestic Violence Research Group (today known as the Centre for Gender and Violence Research Centre at the University of Bristol.
Successes and challenges
Fast forward five decades and violence against women and girls is no longer a peripheral issue, hiding in the shadows, behind closed doors. A strong legislative and policy framework sets out a strategic vision for change and provides access to justice and remedies for survivors, supported by dedicated funding streams.[1] In 2023, the charity Refuge, which grew out of Chiswick Women’s Aid, had an annual income of over £25m, employed 415 individuals and operated 44 refuges within 14 different local authorities. Its ambassadors include celebrities such as Sir Patrick Stewart OBE, Dame Helen Mirren as well as former Prime Minister’s wife, Cherie Blair.
The introduction of competitive commissioning and tendering processes, however, brought into the service provision generic mainstream services, such as housing associations, local authorities and private businesses, and so, alongside these, the discourse of business, complete with a corporate infrastructure of professional fundraising and business development teams. Research by Dr Olumide Adisa and colleagues has revealed the existence of a complex funding ecosystem for VAWG services, that includes Trusts and Foundations as well as local and regional statutory funders. Their funding requirements and expectations include minimum income thresholds, tight deadlines, an emphasis on innovative new work and evidence of ‘value for money’ service delivery, which predominantly disadvantage smaller, grassroots organisations that may lack the necessary resources to fulfil these requirements.
The resulting landscape has been one of service closures, mergers and partnerships of convenience. If our measure of success is our ability to protect those who have already been marginalised by the state policies, then surely, we have failed dismally. Hostile immigration policies and legislation have eroded the rights of migrant, asylum seeking and trafficked women and created a fertile environment and legitimacy for violent attacks and far-right riots. At the same time, half of the specialist refuges delivered ‘by and for’ Black and minoritised communities have closed down or have been taken over by larger providers. These services grew out of the anti-racist struggles of the 1970s, and their anti-violence work continues to be located at the intersection of opposing both state and interpersonal violence. Their significance extends beyond supporting individual survivors to navigate the complex legislation and their rights, as their role is to amplify survivors’ voices to government in order to achieve sustained systemic change. Similarly, not all devolved nations have fared equally. In 2023, the Women’s Aid Federation Northern Ireland became the first UK federation to have its core funding withdrawn from the Department of Health in Northern Ireland. Whilst this has since been temporarily, and partially restored, its continuation remains uncertain. Additionally, there is only a rape crisis helpline that operates on limited days and hours per week and only one Sexual Assault Referral Centre (SARC) which covers the whole region.
While this competitive funding environment has undermined the unity of the sector, the mainstreaming of the VAWG agenda has, in turn, transformed women’s collective experiences of abuse into criminal justice framings of individual harm, that require individualised services and interventions. These changes signal a departure from a social justice focus, with an egalitarian relationship between the women within the services, towards a service model, where the relationships of power are underpinned by protectionist and paternalistic attitudes between ‘helper’ and ‘helpee’.
Concluding thoughts
Audre Lorde warned that “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house”. Sixteen days of activism offer an opportunity to pause and reflect on the strides made with regard to raising awareness and securing legislation and funding to combat violence against women and girls. Yet, this also offers us a moment in which to acknowledge what we may have lost along the way. This is not an attempt to view the past through rose-tinted glasses but an invitation to consider how we might be able to bring the personal back into the political.
*Editorial review and support – Aisha K. Gill, Centre for Gender and Violence Research, University of Bristol https://www.bristol.ac.uk/sps/research/centres/genderviolence/
*Blog by Miriam Merkova https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/en/persons/miriam-merkova?_gl=1*8lukri*_ga*MTQwMjYwMzIwLjE2ODIyNjIwMjk.*_ga_6R8SPL3HLT*MTczMDM3OTMwMC4xNzQuMC4xNzMwMzc5MzAwLjYwLjAuMA , a doctoral student in School of Policy Studies, Centre for Gender and Violence Research, School. Their research focuses on how survivorship is constituted in gender-based policy and practice.
**The Centre for Gender and Violence Research is running a series of blogs produced by staff and postgraduate researchers to spotlight cutting-edge feminist research on gender-based violence at the University of Bristol. Editor: Professor Aisha K. Gill, School for Policy Studies.
[1] For example, the Ministry of Justice Funding for Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence Support Services, the National ISVA and IDVA fund, the Equally Safe Fund in Scotland and the Housing Support Grant in Wales.
