Research and analysis

Domestic Abuse Duty for Support in Safe Accommodation – Evaluation: Executive summary

Published 21 July 2025

Applies to England

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) commissioned Ipsos and Ecorys to conduct a 3-year evaluation of Part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. Part 4 places a statutory duty on Tier 1 local authorities (LAs) in England to provide support within safe accommodation for victims of domestic abuse and their children, as victims in their own right, and on Tier 2 LAs to co-operate with the Tier 1 LA. The aim of the duty is to ensure that all victim-survivors of domestic abuse, including their children, are able to access appropriate support in safe accommodation whenever they need it.

The evaluation was conducted from 2022 to 2025. It explored adult and child survivors’ experiences of support to assess:

• whether the duty is delivering as intended

• how and why delivery of the duty is proving effective

• what is limiting its effectiveness

It also considered ways to enhance its impact. The evaluation assessed the value for money of the duty and its findings include observations on how best practice can be sustained and extended.

In summary, while there was considerable variation in implementation, the duty had led to an expansion in the scale or range of support in safe accommodation in many authorities.  MHCLG’s annual LA monitoring information (MI) found the number of survivors using support increased under the duty, but the numbers of survivors who were unable to be supported also increased. Despite the overall rise in provision, therefore, access to and benefit from support in safe accommodation still varied between sub-groups of survivors.

Method

The evaluation took a mixed-method approach to analyse the implementation, experience, outcomes and value for money of the duty. At the core was an integrated theory-based process and impact evaluation, which drew on evidence from longitudinal fieldwork with 19 LA case studies in England, involving 799 research engagements (269 with adult survivors and 45 with child/young people survivors, plus 485 with LA and service provider staff). Support organisations assisted with recruitment and the findings relate predominantly to refuge and dispersed accommodation settings, with little evidence on sanctuary schemes.

This produced very rich, contextualised data that traced changes in the case study areas. To maximise insight, the core qualitative analysis was overlaid with two novel approaches (qualitative comparative analysis and agent-based modelling) that explored key conditions associated with successful delivery of the duty. This was supplemented with a quantitative analysis of data including MHCLG’s annual LA MI data to map out the wider system. The value for money evaluation used the Value for Investment approach to assess how well the duty funding was being used at the local level to meet needs and drive intended outcomes. In addition, three rapid evidence assessments were commissioned from academic teams, relating to the models, outcomes and value for money of support in safe accommodation. The study’s design, conduct and analysis were informed by three co-development groups: the Lived Experience Panel, the Practice Reference Group and the Academic and Practice Consortium, and by MHCLG’s Expert Advisory Group and the National Expert Steering Group set up by the Conservative government and jointly led by the then minister and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner.

Key findings

Accessing support in safe accommodation

Nationally, the numbers of survivors accessing support in safe accommodation had risen under the duty but the numbers unable to access it had also increased. In case study areas, the duty had, as a minimum, secured continuity of existing support. In some areas, it had also increased the extent and range of support for survivors.

Access to support was improved by having a breadth of provision (both of support services and forms of safe accommodation), especially for those with additional needs or specific characteristics. Providing a range of options allowed for a better match between service provision and survivors’ needs, with choice being a key factor in accessing support.

The fit between provision and survivors’ needs was seen to be more successful where decision-making and delivery had been closely informed by input from survivors. Meaningful and broad survivor input to needs assessment, strategies, commissioning and review were found to contribute to the duty’s effectiveness in providing the support survivors need. LAs are encouraged to integrate survivor voices throughout these processes to improve access and experiences.

Staff from many agencies helped survivors access safe accommodation and support. The duty reinforced professionals’ ability to identify and respond to survivors’ needs as local strategies drew attention to the issue and training was delivered across agencies. However, practice varied by area. Recognition of some groups’ needs remained patchy, and many survivors found themselves having to route to safe accommodation alone.

Survivors’ access was often constrained by limits on availability of safe accommodation. Some areas had leveraged duty funding to increase the supply of appropriate bedspaces but longer stays meant access may be limited even in areas with higher levels of provision. Professionals linked longer stays to more survivors having additional needs. The agent-based modelling also identified housing supply as a significant constraint on access.

Access remained particularly challenging for survivors with additional needs, specific requirements (for example, disabled access), contextual issues (for example, pets) or individual or family characteristics such as having two or more children or older sons. There was evidence that the duty was catalysing improvements in access for many, but slowly.

Meeting victim-survivors’ support needs

Difficulties experienced in accessing safe accommodation could deter survivors from engaging with support. Acute needs (for example, feeling physically safe) had to be met first before survivors could consider other forms of help. Best practice is to make information about options accessible and to remind survivors as they settle in and their needs change.

It was also important that survivors had help to navigate support in safe accommodation. A trusting, positive relationship with a named key worker helped survivors identify and take up support, as well as offering emotional and practical support.

Experiences of support were influenced by how well provision met survivors’ needs, by staff skills, training and personal attributes and by setting-related factors such as how well the safe accommodation itself suited survivors’ characteristics and needs.

There was an increase in support for survivors with additional needs and some underrepresented groups, although LGBTQIA+ individuals continued to face particular challenges. Although survivors in these groups often still experienced challenges with access, those with additional needs gained from having support in a setting where their experiences of domestic abuse could also be addressed, rather than overlooked where they may be a focus on other characteristics and particular needs.

By and For support proved additionally effective for survivors from minoritised groups. This provision was highly valued by survivors who had accessed it as they could find that their identity-related needs were not always met by generic or statutory providers. By and For providers had more understanding of contextual and cultural factors that could inform and assist survivors’ recovery from abuse.

The duty was identified as having funded and facilitated improvements in provision and increased the scale, range and diversity of support. However, even with overall gains, the evaluation found that access and benefit remain unequal across different groups.

Outcomes from support were most evident for survivors’ near and medium-term safety and wellbeing and confidence, and less clear for longer-term financial independence. Survivors reported having limited access to structured financial support and wanted guidance with budgeting and managing expenditure to improve financial literacy. The outcomes for mental health were mixed, with improvements reported for survivors who had lower needs, but less consistent for those with substantial mental health needs.

Overall, the evaluation found emerging evidence that support in safe accommodation contributed to greater day-to-day safety and stability and enhanced survivors’ emotional and practical readiness to re-establish their lives after abuse.

Meeting children’s and young people’s needs

The Domestic Abuse Act recognises children as victims of domestic abuse in their own right, adding emphasis to the duty’s requirements for LAs to provide support in safe accommodation. This meant children were increasingly being counted separately from their parents, which was reported to have improved commissioning for children, although the evidence varied.

The duty was found to have increased the overall availability of support for children in safe accommodation, but with substantial variation between areas in what was on offer and ongoing challenges for some in accessing either safe accommodation or support.

Progress under the duty varied. While some case study LAs established support before the duty came into effect, others only started commissioning support for children from mid-2024 and one had not commissioned anything by early 2025. Few areas offered dedicated support to children in sanctuary schemes, according to LA and service staff.

Each LA’s approach to commissioning broadly followed from their position pre-duty. LAs with provision for children pre-duty used the duty funding to increase the capacity or scope of existing services. LAs without existing dedicated support for children typically commissioned a new service, except one which continued with its all-age provision.

Analysis of the MI data found that use of duty funding was significantly associated with more children being supported in safe accommodation. Most case study LAs expanded their provision and reported that services were better able to meet children’s needs.

However, there were still challenges, particularly for families with two or more children, with older sons (13+) or whose child(ren) had additional needs (such as behavioural support needs). There was also evidence that overall demand was already exceeding service capacity and concern that support could not meet the increasing complexity of children’s needs.

There was evidence of improved collaboration between safe accommodation settings, children’s social care and education settings, directly or through dedicated children’s support workers funded by the duty. However, this progress was not widespread, and parents reported poor experiences working with services that were not joined up.

For children, being in safe accommodation could bring some benefits – such as feeling safer, improving wellbeing and having a better relationship with their non-abusive parent. However, children also reported frustration, boredom, conflict with siblings, disrupted education, fractured friendships and missing their other parent. 

Having support within safe accommodation did amplify the benefits of the setting and, to some extent, address the challenges children experienced in safe accommodation. Having dedicated staff time, attention and resources funded or facilitated by the duty, all contributed to children feeling more settled and better able to engage with school or remote learning, opportunities to play, and with group-based social activities. Duty-funded children’s support workers were particularly appreciated for their direct support.

Specific support including for substantial mental health needs was not widely available. Some LAs had not commissioned it at all. Where it was provided, children and parents did appreciate this support, but it was often less extensive than children required.

Although the Domestic Abuse Act meant that children were better identified and the duty meant they were better provided for, there were still key limitations in the extent to which LAs and service providers understood children’s outcomes from any support they had received.

Implementation

Introducing Local Partnership Boards created a local structure for partnership working, including across Tier 1 and Tier 2 authorities. Local Partnership Boards could overlap with existing structures, and this slowed their contribution in some areas. They also had varying levels of representation and engagement from agencies, which could reduce their impact. However, Local Partnership Boards did foster links between service providers, statutory agencies and housing associations.

Local Partnership Boards’ multi-agency relevance could be improved by developing strategies to ensure meaningful participation across local geographies, including Tier 2 areas. Promoting best practice for inclusive representation on Local Partnership Boards, including adult and child survivors, would also help enhance their effectiveness.

LAs developed needs assessments and local strategies as stipulated by the legislation. Understanding needs beyond individual LA boundaries is crucial as survivors often move to seek help. However, although some case study areas used a joint-LA approach to assess cross-border needs, other areas took a single-LA approach to gain a granular picture.

Annual refreshers of needs assessments were rare, as the investment required was seen to outweigh their value. LAs were interested in guidance on how to integrate the duty with other statutory responsibilities (for example, around violence against women and girls, serious violence, housing).

All case study areas delivered the annual MI data return, but not all used it themselves. There was particular interest in qualitative data on survivors’ needs and experiences – although areas varied in the extent to which survivors inputted directly to local planning.

The duty was seen as having led to commissioning of longer contracts and facilitated stronger relationships with service providers. However, there was limited evidence that commissioning practices had been adapted to enable small or By and For services to bid.

When new services were commissioned (rather than continuing existing services) they tended to focus on specific needs, survivors with specific characteristics and children. There was less extensive commissioning of new services from By and For

The evaluation identified that LAs would appreciate learning from one another around exploring funding models or partnerships to aid creation of dispersed accommodation as demand continues to outstrip supply and highlighting successful examples of the impact of commissioning By and For services for marginalised groups.

Victim-survivor outcomes were not being monitored comprehensively by LAs, and service providers did not routinely share their outcomes data. There was a strong appetite among LA staff for guidance on shared methods for measuring adult and child survivor outcomes. Encouraging services to share their approach with LAs may elicit more comprehensive insight into the duty’s impact and facilitate development of shared outcome measures.

Value for Money

Value for money was assessed using the Value for Investment approach which scored the 19 case study areas on key aspects of how they had implemented the duty and used the associated funding to achieve its objectives. The assessment focused on four key dimensions: economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and equity. The first two of these, economy and efficiency, were assessed as good, and the second two as adequate. Overall, the duty was assessed as providing good value for money, and as having strong prospects for continuing to deliver and potentially improve in terms of value for money.

The analysis suggests there was a good case for investment in the duty given the limited level of support available prior to its introduction (see Domestic Abuse Commissioner, 2022). It also identified progress in meeting quality standards and the importance of Local Partnership Boards in improving communication between relevant partners.

However, as case study areas demonstrated only adequate value for investment for effectiveness and equity, this indicates that the duty’s objectives were not being achieved as fully as intended, nor reaching the needs of all relevant groups equally. More can be done to improve access and, as seen in other aspects of the evaluation, the value for money of the duty is compromised by limits on the capacity of safe accommodation and availability of move-on accommodation. Further, whilst the duty appears to have increased professional focus on survivors with additional needs and specific characteristics, such as people with disabilities, from minoritised ethnic communities and male victim survivors, some LAs need to do more to improve the equity of their support. Finally, in this subset of LAs, children had experienced less improvement in accessing safe accommodation and support than adult survivors. Children’s particular support needs and provision should remain a key priority for the duty to deliver benefits and value more fully.

Conclusions and best practice observations

The findings from the evaluation have generated these insights:

1. MHCLG should encourage LAs to ensure they are enabling direct engagement with survivors (and indirectly with children) to inform all stages of Part 4 implementation.

2. LAs should implement transparent commissioning processes that are accessible to all organisations including smaller specialist providers and By and For services. This can lead to a more diverse range of provision, better meeting survivors’ needs.

3. LAs should collate, disseminate and update comprehensive information setting out the range of safe accommodation available and the support within it, so survivors have options and are able to make informed choices about the support they need.

4. LAs should ensure that children’s interests and needs are met on an ongoing basis by increased provision of dedicated/specific support maintaining pace with demand. In relation to dedicated provision, children’s support workers should be provided for children in all safe accommodation settings. Specific support should be provided for children with additional needs, including mental health needs.

5. Given that substantial mental health needs are less well met, duty funding could be used to provide mental health first aid training for safe accommodation staff.

6. Services should be enabled to extend their support offer to include financial management, through collaboration with expert providers in the voluntary sector, to aid survivors in re-establishing themselves independently after safe accommodation.

7. MHCLG should work with LAs and sector experts to consider how best to measure the impact of support in safe accommodation. This includes considering the potential for introducing standardised outcome measurement tools to develop a comparable evidence base.

8. There is a significant knowledge gap regarding support in sanctuary schemes. A sanctuary scheme aims to make the home environment safe for survivors to remain in their own homes, where it is their choice, and the perpetrator does not live there.  MHCLG should commission further research to understand how the duty is being used to support survivors in sanctuary schemes and how the support needs of both adult and child survivors are best met in this model.

9. As many victim-survivors move across areas for safety, LAs may want to consider co-ordinating with neighbouring authorities on their needs assessments, strategies, commissioning or monitoring and evaluating delivery and outcomes. Doing so can offer information and insight on a larger scale and may bring efficiencies in shared effort, although it may not have the granular detail of those focused on a single LA.