School for Policy Studies – Page 6

Another Blog on the C-Word.

Posted on July 4, 2019May 2, 2023 by policystudies

Professor David Abbott, from the Norah Fry Centre for Disability Studies, looks at collaboration and power sharing in coproduced research.

It’s #CoProWeek if you’ll excuse the twitter short-hand. And with a whiff of, ‘This is what I did in my holiday’ news, I am not long back from a summer school about co-production at the rather glorious and gloriously named, University of the Highlands and Islands.

One of the things I liked about the course was that we were comprised of researchers, activists, heads of charities, community agitators and leaders, and policy and engagement types. We shared a commitment to making things change and making things better in our respective communities. I think some of us went searching for the perfect way to do coproduction and of course in that respect we were usefully disappointed. Two main learning points for me, about which more below, were: 1. Coproduction behoves us to rethink who is ‘we’ and who is ‘them’ and ‘they’? 2. In the overall endeavour of research, who has a say, who always has a say and who rarely or never has a say?

It seems to me that lots of folks are in search of ‘true’ co-production, some holy grail of perfect collaboration and power sharing. We are awash with toolkits, guidance, good practice, courses and webinars about coproduction. It’s an industry in and of itself. I wonder if there is more of this than actual coproduction.

In my field at the intersection of social policy and disability studies, there is a long history of problematising the role and historical dominance of non-disabled people doing research on disabled people. The movement towards more inclusive research with disabled children, youth, and adults, including those with learning disabilities, is now however fairly well established.

In my first research job with a disability focus, our young disabled people’s reference group held a fairly long, no-holds barred discussion about whether or not I should be in the room as a non-disabled person. It was very uncomfortable for me but they were rightly asserting their power and asking a legitimate question. So, coproduction for me sometimes has a feeling of ‘emperor’s new clothes’ but also something co-opted for better and sometimes worse to actually mask power differentials. I can still really only whisper in lower case about being part of a so-called coproduction team evaluating a so-called coproduced government policy programme “with” (lol) disabled people. The volume on coproduction was high but the reality was draconian and grim.

What I can say, from my own experience of being part of a project team made up of user-led organisations, disabled people’s organisations and university researchers, are three things:

It felt like coproduction because it was hard and mostly uncensored. We had similar goals but I think the wider team sometimes felt I was a bit slavish to the research proposal and agreement with the funder. Others sometimes wanted to ‘get on with it’ or change things. I often did too but felt a bit uptight with the burden and privilege (?) of being the budget holder (see below).
It worked well as coproduction because we played to our agreed strengths and interests.
When we asked participants why they had decided to take part in research interviews, several said it was because of the team. Some said they would have put the paperwork in the bin straight away if it had just come from “the University”. The nature of the team reassured people about the underlying values of the research and that there was some presumption of trust and safety.

Money matters and I mentioned above that I had been the budget holder in our work together even though in fact the collaboration was well established and the need for research established before I was ever invited in as a researcher. (I liked this. To me it turned on its head the usual idea that coproduced research is about the researcher inviting the non-academics, the non-researchers into the tent. Plus, note the ‘non’ rather than what people actually are – experts in all kinds of domains.) But the reality is that many funders require the budget holder or principal investigator to be based in a University or the NHS or some other statutory service. This doesn’t rule out coproduced collaborations but the power is already and instantly a bit unequal.

This is why the Disability Research on Independent Living & Learning (DRILL) programme was so neat as the world’s first major research programme led by disabled people. Not to my credit, but I can recall feeling irked that such a big funding opportunity excluded me from applying missing, initially, the point that this was entirely right and massively exciting and important. My initial annoyance presumably mirrored by groups routinely excluded from or hampered by the set-up of research funding streams.

If I can end by directing you to elsewhere it’d be to this brilliant podcast which discusses what to my mind is a wonderful, authentic piece of coproduced research with young disabled women living shorter lives but exerting the value, joy and expertise that their lives engender. “Coproduction is not about having all the answers, but about learning together,” say the researchteam. Amen sisters.

David Abbott is a Professor of Social Policy in the School for Policy Studies at the University of Bristol and an Associate Director of NIHR School for Social Care Research. He tweets things about research, cake and the countryside at @davidabbottbris

Working with volunteers in social care for older people

Posted on February 26, 2019May 2, 2023 by policystudies

Dr Ailsa Cameron, Senior Lecturer in the Centre for Research in Health and Social Care and a Fellow of the NIHR School for Social Care Research, discusses findings from a recent project looking at how we can best support volunteers in social care settings.

Encouraging people to volunteer in social care for older people has been a key part of practice in the sector for many years, but in recent times the significance of volunteering has grown, particularly in light of the funding cuts faced by the sector.

We know volunteers can do a huge amount to enhance the care and support that older people receive. They can bring a new energy to settings and give older people an opportunity to develop meaningful relationships with people other than paid care workers. Volunteers can also do a lot to reduce the loneliness and isolation that many older people experience.

There are also benefits for those who volunteer in social care themselves – opportunities to develop new skills, gain experience of different work contexts and enhance their own wellbeing, or just an opportunity to give something back.

During our research on Exploring the Role of Volunteers in Social Care Settings (ERVIC), we heard about many settings where volunteers were making an important contribution to older people’s care and support. We learnt about volunteer-run exercise programmes and befriending services in residential care, organising and running lunch clubs, and volunteers giving extra support at day centres and visiting people recently discharged from hospital.

However, reliance on volunteers to deliver care and support for older people brings new challenges to the sector. Volunteers are not a ‘free service’ – to be effective, they need training as well as ongoing support. This is particularly important given the vulnerability of many older people who receive social care services. Volunteers have much to offer, but they also need to be clear of the boundaries and limits of their role, and they need to know what to do if they have concerns about an older person.

Several of the settings we visited told us they were struggling to recruit and retain volunteers. Changes to retirement law, as well as growing numbers of older people looking after grandchildren or caring for their partners or friends, means that fewer people have the time or flexibility needed to volunteer. On top of that, delays in DBS processes and burdensome training programmes were thought by volunteer coordinators and managers to put some people off of volunteering in the sector.

On Thursday 21 March 2019, in partnership with Voscur, we will host a workshop at the Southville Centre to present our findings from the ERVIC project and exchange ideas about the challenges and opportunities associated with working with volunteers in social care settings for older people.

This event is aimed at volunteer coordinators, commissioners of adult social care and providers and managers of social care organisations and will involve a Voscur-led workshop called Measuring the Value of Volunteering, plus discussions about how volunteers are contributing to social care, the challenges of involving volunteers and how best to work with volunteers.

If you’re connected to social care, volunteering or services for older people, or you’re just curious and would like to find out more, we hope to see you at the Southville Centre next month. Book your place for the workshop.

Winter months, loneliness and isolation amongst older men.

Posted on February 11, 2019May 2, 2023 by policystudies

Dr Paul Willis and Alex Vickery from the Centre for Research in Health and Social Care introduce findings from their recent project looking at older men at the margins.

Watching the early February snow fall outside my office window is a beautiful sight but it can also be a stark reminder that snowfall in the UK means many things to different people – for some a frustrating barrier to their daily routine or journey, for others a (hopefully) opportune moment to enjoy time off from work or school. For some people who struggle with feelings of loneliness day-to-day and experience social isolation daily, adverse weather conditions in winter can be another reminder of their solitude and disconnection from others and present a further obstacle to leaving the home, both mentally and physically.

Loneliness is a natural and widely experienced emotional response to our desire for increased social contact with others and it’s something we all experience across our lifetime. Feeling lonely is an important social cue that tells us we need to reach out and connect with friends, family members or other people in our neighbourhood or local community. In a lot of cases these feelings are temporary and serve a short-term purpose in getting us socially mobilised. For some people however, loneliness can become an ongoing and persistent ache for other people’s company that is not easily alleviated. It is increasingly defined as a social problem requiring a healthcare and social policy response and, in the UK, this has recently accumulated in the appointment of a Minister for Loneliness and the release of a cross-departmental strategy on tackling loneliness by the UK Government.

Winter is often associated as a difficult time for people living with long-term loneliness and experiencing social isolation, with shorter days and longer nights and adverse weather conditions that undermine attempts to meet and connect with other individuals in person. National campaigning organisation Age UK runs an annual campaign, ‘No one should have no one’, to bring attention to seasons such as a winter and festivities like Christmas as particularly difficult times for older adults who may be socially isolated. Age UK estimates that currently around 1.4 million older people (50+) living in England are ‘often lonely’. We know that a greater percentage of older women report loneliness in comparison to older men in the UK but that men can also struggle with discussing and disclosing emotionally sensitive topics such as loneliness.

As part of a two-year research study on older men, social isolation and loneliness, we’ve been speaking to 111 men from different social groups and circumstances about the ways in which they experience loneliness and how they alleviate these feelings and keep it at bay. We’ve interviewed men (65-95 years) about their experiences from five different groups: older men who are single or living alone in rural and urban areas; older gay men who are single or living alone; older men with hearing loss; and, older men who are carers for significant others (such as family members, partners). The project is funded by the NIHR School for Social Care Research to April 2019 and in collaboration with Age UK.

Across our interviews with different groups of older men, a common thread has been the challenges of combating loneliness during colder months, and winter and night times as being tough times to manage, particularly when on one’s own. The older men in our study talked of ‘winter blues’ that can make them feel particularly isolated and how with the dark nights and winter illnesses they can have trouble socialising and engaging in activities. Over half the men we interviewed lived alone which also complicated efforts to connect with others daily.

I suppose it’s the what, regrettably, is the long nights. We change the clock, the night comes in that much quicker, and daylight hours are shorter.
It gives the general feeling of claustrophobia, then. [M83, 75, single/ living alone]

Sitting here, probably not feeling very well, which is when it hits, in the depths of the winter, when it’s dark. I’m doddering on my legs, and I have to be careful not to go out when it’s icy these days, because you don’t want to fall over and break your hip. That can be very serious. [M7, 72, single, gay]

For men who are caring for significant others such as partners or adult children, night times were difficult not because of the season but more as the first moment of the day they were alone and not in the company of the person they were routinely caring for. This could be experienced as a moment of necessary solitude but also a reminder of their isolation from others within the caring relationship.

Despite experiencing periods of loneliness, this does not mean these men were socially isolated from others. This is where it is important to recognise the difference between loneliness and social isolation. Most men we spoke to had regular contact with friends and family members in their social networks and all were connected to and participated in groups in their local community. Many men told us about how they valued contributing to and being actively involved in running groups and the importance of having a role and purpose which made them feel valued and regarded by others. With Age UK, we are currently in the process of developing good practice guidance for service providers on what men value about groups and some of the considerations that need to be given to running groups.

Tackling loneliness at any time of the year is the focus of many voluntary and third sector organisations. Bristol Ageing Better is one locally-based programme that is commissioning groups and interventions aimed to reducing loneliness and isolation for older people. The UK Men’s Shed Association is another initiative targeting the interests and needs of older men, with Sheds running across the UK. While the UK Government’s Strategy on Loneliness is a welcome policy response on this important issue, there remains further scope for tackling the wider, more complicated problem of social disconnection and the social distances older people, amongst other groups, experience between themselves and the wider communities in which they live.

Further information: Findings from the study, along with the practice guidance, will be launched on Monday 29^th April 2019 at Age UK, Tavis House, London WC1H 9NA. To find out more about the launch event please contact alex.vickery@bristol.ac.uk

Funding disclaimer: ‘This blog summarises independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research School for Social Care Research. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR SSCR, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care.’

How transformed is care?

Posted on June 21, 2018May 2, 2023 by policystudies

Dr Sandra Dowling, a lecturer in Disability Studies at the Norah Fry Centre for Disability Studies discusses deinstitutionalisation in the context of the Transforming Care Policy programme.

People with learning disabilities are still, in some circumstances, leading institutionalised lives – the Transforming Care programme has a long way to go, and we must not forget those people with learning disabilities with the highest levels of ‘need’ who are experiencing the highest level of separation from an ordinary life. Recent decades have seen significant changes in the lives of people with learning disabilities in the UK. Once routinely institutionalised, distanced from home communities or their Right to a life like any other, people with learning disabilities were relegated to the shadows of the everyday and had limited opportunity to effect change. This article suggests these issues might still be affecting too many people with learning disabilities in 2018.

Advocacy and activism amongst people with learning disabilities and their allies has been a powerful force in altering the opportunities available to some people. To be respected, to be heard, to have choice and to really have the chance of a life like any other have been common demands. For many people these demands, these requests, have to some extent been realised. In the UK today some people with learning disabilities live in a home they have chosen, some have a job, some have regular contact with family and friends and some feel part of their community. Too many do not.

The challenge to realise the fundamental human rights of this section of the population is ongoing. The urgency of the challenge is very much determined by personal position. If you are a person with learning disabilities or indeed an ally, these challenges are of course urgent. Although recent policy does commit to a transformation in social care for people with learning disabilities, urgency to transform this to practice is not consistently apparent.
Major policy initiatives and legislation in recent years have produced a convincing rhetoric to support ideas of individual autonomy, inclusion and a role in decision making about important life matters. The Care Act 2014, for instance, details guidance for adult social care which, importantly, includes the principle of individual wellbeing. In practice wellbeing involves people having control of their day to day life, living in suitable accommodation and being able to contribute to society. It is a requirement of The Act that local authorities take people’s views, wishes and beliefs into consideration, and that their efforts support what people themselves want to achieve in their own lives.

The Transforming Care Policy Programme produced a raft of reports, guidance and policy following the shocking abuse of people with learning disabilities residing in Winterbourne View Assessment and Treatment Unit. The overall aim of Transforming Care has been about improving health and social care services to enable people to live in the community, to have good support and to be close to home. It aimed to address the high numbers of people with learning disabilities living for too long in Assessment and Treatment Units (ATU), often at a long distance from their families and without adequate discharge planning. However, since the scandal broke in 2011, and following a robust policy response, little has changed. The numbers of people in ATU settings has remained stubbornly high, provision of sufficient support in the community has not met need and discharge remains an elongated process for many.

Narratives of Home, a study funded by the NIHR School for Social Care Research, conducted within the Norah Fry Centre for Disability Studies (NFCDS), has interviewed 18 people with learning disabilities and three parents of people discharged from Assessment and Treatment Units (ATU) during the lifetime of Transforming Care. This narrative study has collected people’s stories of resettlement in the community following their hospital stay. Of those interviewed, 12 were male and 6 were female. Time spent in ATU settings ranged from 4 – 20 years. The legacy of institutional living clearly impacted on their resettlement experiences.

The factors which are identified as important to individuals are just what you would expect. Security, choice, a valued social role, friendships, fun and the opportunity to take pleasure in things which are important to you. But what is different is that the people that we interviewed, even though living in the community, still often live within parameters defined by others. Some described their attempts to ‘get out’ of the ATU by ‘doing what the doctors said’ or ‘just do what you are told, keep your head down, get through all the programmes and hope for the best’. These experiences travelled beyond the walls of the ATU into their now ’independent’ lives in the community. In interview people checked with present support workers whether they were saying the ‘right thing’, or whether it was ‘ok to say this’. Some were so heavily medicated that they could not remain awake throughout the interview.

Choice and autonomy was found in things such as choosing how to decorate your home, or what to have for a meal. A deeper sense of independence of thought and action though, remained elusive for some. Institutionalisation, just as a hundred, or fifty or twenty years ago produces the same results. It dis-empowers individuals, depleting independence of thought and sense of self. A good life happens at a deeper level than what can be seen on the surface of community living. The need to address issues of identity and equality remain pertinent. Deinstitutionalisation remains a goal.

The Social Disinvestment State Unleashed

Posted on April 27, 2018May 2, 2023 by policystudies

Dr Noemi Lendvai-Bainton, Senior Lecturer in Comparative Urban and Public Policy at the School for Policy Studies, discusses the recent Hungarian election and how it reflects the trend towards political populism & the rise of illiberal democracies.

After a very long and rather Kafkaesque election night in Hungary, FIDESZ secured a victory for a third term of governing with a two-thirds majority. After eight years in government, the vote for the radical right in fact increased, with both Fidesz (49% of votes) and Jobbik (a far–right party with 19% of the votes) gaining more votes than four years ago. Tellingly, Orban in his victory speech thanked ethnic Hungarians living abroad (largely dual citizens of Romania, Ukraine and Serbia with voting rights) who ‘defended Hungary’, he thanked his Polish friends and Kaczyński, and he gave thanks for all the prayers (with no end to religious references).

The campaign was a single-issue, emotively hostile and negative campaign, focusing on the migration issue and financier/philanthropist George Soros, that erased public policy as a matter for debate all together – the end of an era when negative campaigns can’t be electorally successful, it seems. A déjà vu of the Brexit campaign in which the migration issue captured the public discourse.

This Hungarian result talks to a lot of different issues. It reflects a deep division between the capital Budapest, where the opposition won by a two-thirds majority, and the ‘country’ (countryside) where Fidesz won almost outright. It reflects on the widespread and significant institutional ‘reforms’ in the country which confidently delivered votes in small towns and in villages through channels of appointed officials, public finances, and EU funds (no need for subtle pressures here – civil servants were asked to take a photo of their ballot papers and email it to a central account; Kindergarten teachers were told to hand out Easter chocolate to parents as a ‘gift’ from Fidesz). The election result also points to the fact that corruption has become normalized – despite unprecedented levels of corruption concerning both EU funds as well as public funds, the government secured its third term.

No longer can one think that populism is a short-term political project. Orban can now thrive on the basis that his legitimacy with a high turn-out (70%) at the election makes him a stronger leader than many of his counterparts in (Western) Europe. His anti-EU rhetoric is expected to intensify in the coming months and years and he is already working hard on building a new transnational coalition against ‘liberal’ Western Europe and to evict all NGOs from the country that have political missions.

Justice for victims of sexual abuse and harassment. Lessons for Westminster?

Posted on April 23, 2018May 2, 2023 by policystudies

Dr Lis Bates is a researcher in gender-based violence at the School for Policy Studies, and a former clerk of the House of Commons

The problem with Westminster

As a former clerk of the House of Commons, the recent Newsnight coverage(i) depicting a culture of unchecked bullying and sexual harassment by some MPs took me by surprise. Not because of the allegations: the stories reported, and many more, have long been open secrets in Westminster. But because, for the first time, the corrosive culture of normalising this behaviour was revealed. What is new is that the careful investigation of reporters Chris Cook and Lucinda Day has exposed a pattern of abusive Members not being held to account, and a historic management culture of quietly moving victims who speak out. This is a culture which has normalised the acceptance of bullying behaviour, refused to shine a light on the bullies, and thus tacitly condoned it. This is the same cultural quicksand which led us to Weinstein, Bennell and Saville: a wilful collective blindness.

The Newsnight investigation showed that some victims were believed but no action taken, and others’ accounts were minimised. The problem is, the effect is the same–a silencing of an individual’s voice, and an absence of justice. The House of Commons management’s ill-judged initial response to the story eloquently illustrates this: denying that there is any longer a problem, and insisting on looking forward with a zero tolerance approach to bullying and harassment sits jarringly with a refusal to look at past cases, and a policy under which not a single claim of sexual harassment has progressed even to mediation.

In this context, the publication on 8th February of cross-party working group recommendations to strengthen Parliament’s response to harassment, bullying and sexual harassment at Westminster(ii), and the setting up of working groups to beef up grievance policies and drive cultural change, are to be welcomed. The proposals finally start to strengthen an investigatory and sanctions system which for years has been notoriously weak, characterised by handing decision-making powers back to political parties, an absence of accountability for those who abuse their power, and consequently a significant lack of faith in the system by those who might be victims of harassment.

Since the Newsnight story broke, what has increasingly struck me is the parallels with the experiences of victims of sexual and domestic abuse: being disbelieved, discredited, or blamed for ‘bringing it on themselves’, for being weak or not resilient.

Current research from the Universities of Bristol, Cardiff and UWE (Justice, Inequality and Gender-Based Violence (hereafter ‘Justice project’)(iii), led by Professor Marianne Hester and funded by the ESRC, is casting new light on why sexual abuse and harassment cases require handling with particular care. During 2016-17, the research team interviewed over 250 victims of domestic and sexual abuse and harassment to ask “What is justice?”. The answer, it seems, is humblingly simple: being listened to, getting a genuine apology, and being given a voice. There are some direct lessons from our findings for Westminster, as it seeks to respond to sexual harassment, abuse and bullying.

Sexual harassment is about power inequality and rarely occurs in a vacuum

As with other interpersonal abuse, at its core, sexual harassment is about power inequalities which allow one person to exploit another with impunity. It often overlaps with other forms of harassment and abuse. In the Justice project, over a third (39%) of interviewees reported having experienced sexual harassment in the workplace or on the street. Over two-thirds of these women also reported having experienced rape or domestic abuse. The figures confirm that these experiences rarely operate in isolation: sexual harassment and violence frequently occurs as part of a continuum which disproportionately affects women.(iv)

The dynamics of sexual harassment and abuse in Westminster are even more particular. The exploitation of one individual’s power over another is exponentially magnified when the dynamics of an employer-employee relationship, and the power hierarchies of political structures, are fed into the mix. Added to this, the political setting means that (alleged) perpetrators can often use (implicit or explicit) intimidation tactics to undermine or discredit victims, and victims are often shamed or intimated into silence. This toxic cocktail was recognised by Caroline Lucas MP in describing the dynamics of power in Westminster which allows some MPs to get away with belittling and humiliation tactics against staff.(v)

It is therefore important that the working group report has recognised the particularities of sexual harassment, and proposed a separate process and systems of remedy and support from that for complaints of non-sexual bullying and harassment. It is important, too, that plans are underway to provide specific and specialised training to MPs, Peers and staff across Parliament about sexual harassment.

What victims/survivors want

Central to the deliberations of those investigating current and future provision, are the voices of those who experience sexual harassment and abuse.

To be listened to. Part of the process of justice, victims told the Justice project, was being given the space and place to say what’s happened, and be heard. A strong theme throughout our interviews was the importance victims placed on external recognition that harm was done. This was very often the first response to the question “What is justice?” and, for many, overrode ideas of punishment or revenge. As one female victim of domestic abuse and sexual harassment said, “he doesn’t accept that there’s anything wrong–and that isn’t justice to me. Justice would have been a realisation on his part that what he did was utterly dreadful and the impact it had was utterly dreadful”.

Here again is a parallel with Westminster–it is striking that all the alleged perpetrators of sexual bullying have vigorously denied engaging in any harmful behaviour. One has even gone so far as claiming to even have no memory of working with the victim. And, the historic management response of moving victims has the effect of strengthening the same message that the victim is to blame. Participants in the Justice project identified this pattern of behaviour when asked to define what “injustice” meant to them. One female victim of sexual harassment, domestic abuse and child rape said, “that person… does something wrong but then tries to put the blame onto the person they’ve actually done wrong by”.

The perpetrator to be held accountable. This was the other side of the same coin. It was very important to victims that the perpetrator take (at least partial) responsibility for the harm done. For many victims, ideally this would come from the perpetrator themselves, and involve a genuine apology and expression of remorse. But in many cases this had not happened. Here, the next best thing was for another party (the state, the police, their friends and family) to offer this recognition, and to hold the perpetrator (rather than the victim) responsible.

To have choice, control and voice in the process. Another key element in achieving justice for victims was getting back some control over what happened to them. This meant informed choices about what remedies they could pursue, and being put at the centre of decision-making about their case. The Justice project is finding that those experiencing violence and abuse sometimes choose not to pursue public or punitive justice options for a range of reasons, including fear of retaliation or consequences and concern for their status or assets (which, in the case of workplace sexual harassment, could be their job or professional reputation). This makes it vital that they can access a range of remedies when making a complaint. In part, this is because they often have had power and control taken away from them as part of the abuse or harassment. Offering them some control over the process therefore becomes an important part of justice.

For some victims (generally those not experiencing abuse from an intimate partner), a facilitated dialogue with the perpetrator offered an opportunity to have a voice, express the impact of the harm done to them, and create the space for the perpetrators to hear the victim and express remorse. This was especially true when the abuse had occurred within a closed or tight-knit (e.g. activist, traveller, religious) community, where victims often faced additional barriers to reporting abuse because they feared losing their membership of the community–for instance, being ostracised, disbelieved or expelled. These contexts affected the choices victims made about reporting, and have parallels with victims who are members of other closed groups like political parties. In the case of one victim we interviewed, the community organised an informal meeting between them and the perpetrator. For her this showed that the community recognised the harm done, and held the perpetrator to account.

Great care is required with mediation or guided discussion approaches in contexts (like Westminster) where there has been a history of institutional downgrading and minimising of complaints. In these cases, it is even more vital to make sure that victims are taken seriously, that specialists who understand the dynamics of sexual violence are engaged, and that remedies should always include options for punitive sanctions alongside any less formal routes.
However, there is growing evidence that less formal justice approaches can play an important part in some cases of sexual harassment, but only when they involve specialist mediators who can recognise power imbalances (including gender) and challenge abusive behaviours through a process of ‘transformational mediation’.(vi vii) Such mediation only works when it is voluntary and other options are also available to the parties involved. (viii) It should never be used as an alternative ‘first step’ in responding to allegations of sexual harassment, since the process by which a perpetrator accepts responsibility for their actions often requires a more formal investigation or finding of facts. But it can form part of an overall response. If not managed by specialists, mediation approaches can perpetuate harm; but when victims are properly supported by specialists who can reduce the intensity of their participation, they are valued by victims because of the recognition involved.(ix)

Support through specialist advocacy. The evidence from the Justice project and elsewhere (x xi xii) is unequivocal on the importance and effectiveness of specialist victim advocacy. Specialist sexual violence advocates play a crucial role in supporting victims using counselling, emotional support through court/other justice processes, practical help, and referrals to other support agencies. Advocates also can change cultures in other agencies and actors through so-called “institutional advocacy”.(xiii) The Justice project has examined over 400 police rape case files and found a statistically significant link between victims receiving support from a specialist sexual violence advocate and a criminal charge being made.

This body of evidence underlines the importance of victims getting targeted advocacy support from specialists who understand the dynamics of gendered abuse and harassment. In this light, it is positive that the Commons working group proposals include the commissioning of specialist ISVA support for any complainants. Such support should not be contingent on what resolution or justice processes victims choose to follow–it is a vital element irrespective of whether the route to remedy is an internal process, a formal resolution, or criminal justice.

Moving forward

Victims of sexual abuse and harassment want to be listened to, taken seriously, for the perpetrator to be held accountable, and to be able to make their own, balanced, choices about what happens next. Our society, and criminal justice system, does not yet get this right. The same is true of Westminster, where the culture for many years has been one of minimising and victim-blaming on a corporate scale. The new proposals from the Commons working group are a good step towards addressing this, and the most recent indications from the House authorities suggest a renewed commitment to change. There is rightly a focus on adequate sanctions–for too long this has been a deficit. But culture change is just as important, in particular reversing the practice of dismissing or moving victims, in favour of shining a bright light on the harassers.

The litmus test of any new system must be: if these events occurred today, would those victims feel able to come forward, be listened to, and have faith in the system and its decision-makers to deliver justice for them? Unfortunately, this is not yet the case. As the working group’s staff survey found, a majority of those who had made a report under existing procedures were dissatisfied with the choices given them for next steps, and the same proportion dissatisfied with the level of understanding shown about what an appropriate remedy, outcome or sanction would be from their own perspective. Similarly, the quotes from serving Commons employees following the management’s initial response to the Newsnight story clearly showed a lack of confidence, even disbelief and anger.

The current public spotlight gives an impetus and opportunity for meaningful and lasting change. But, there is one big piece still missing. How can there be confidence in the system if those who are widely known to have transgressed are still alllowed to get away scot-free? There needs to be proper investigation and justice for those who have already suffered. Recent criminal investigations (Saville, Bennell, sexual exploitation of girls in Rotherham) have shown that, even in historic cases, perpetrators can and should be held to account for their actions. Should Parliament and the political parties not now do the same?

[i] Newsnight, 2018a [TV]. BBC2. 8th March. 22.30.
[ii] Parliament (2018) Cross-party Working Group on an Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy: Report.
[iii] The research team will be publishing a range of papers from the project during 2018, including on models and victim perspectives of justice, criminal justice attrition in rape and domestic abuse cases, procedural justice, child contact in domestic abuse cases, BME womens’ experiences of justice, Sharia and other religious arbitration.
[iv] Kelly L. (1987) The Continuum of Sexual Violence. In: Hanmer J., Maynard M. (eds) Women, Violence and Social Control. Explorations in Sociology (British Sociological Association Conference Volume series). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
[v] Today programme, 2018 [Radio]. BBC Radio 4. 9^th March. 06.00
[vi] McCormick, M.A. (1997) ‘Confronting social injustice as a mediator’, Mediation Quarterly, Vol 14, 4.
[vii] Irvine, M. (1993) ‘Mediation: Is it appropriate for sexual harassment grievances?’ Ohio State Journal On Dispute Resolution. Vol 9, 1.
[viii] McLay, Leah (2009) “Workplace bullying: To mediate or not?,” ADR Bulletin: Vol. 11: No. 1, Article 1. Available at: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/adr/vol11/iss1/1
[ix] Fileborn, B. and Vera-Gray, F. (2017) ‘“I want to be able to walk the street without fear”: Transforming justice for street harassment’, Feminist Legal Studies 25: 203-227.
[x] Hester, M. and Lilley, S.J. (2017) ‘More than support to court: Rape victims and specialist sexual violence services’, International Review of Victimology 1-16.
[xi] Howarth, E., Stimpson, L., Barran, D. and Robinson, A. (2009) ‘Safety in Numbers: Summary of Findings and Recommendations from a Multi-site Evaluation of Independent Domestic Violence Advisors’.
[xii] SafeLives (2017) ‘Insights Idva England and Wales dataset 2016-17’.
[xiii] Coy, M. and Kelly, L. (2011) ‘Islands in the Stream: an evaluation of four London independent domestic violence advocacy schemes’. London: London Metropolitan University.