Archives

Building better survey data on violence

 

By Sally McManus, VISION co-Deputy Director

Good policy depends on good data. While administrative data sources provide key insight, only surveys of the general population can evidence the extent to which violence is experienced, how it has changed in prevalence over time, and whether some groups are more affected – or less likely to get support – than others.  

The VISION consortium is working to improve the measurement of violence in the UK. Here we highlight examples of how VISION has advanced survey methods and generated new survey datasets to improve the evidence base on violence across the population. 

Ensuring the questions on violence get asked 

VISION research has challenged the historical reluctance to ask survey participants about their experiences of violence, with Dr Lizzie Cook arguing that the topics and people excluded from research cannot be counted or represented. VISION has worked with partners and ethics committees to improve and extend survey measurement so that it more faithfully and fully reflects the realities survivors face.  

Developing new questions on violence at work 

VISION researcher Prof Vanessa Gash has been working with the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS) to pilot an entirely new set of questions on experiences of violence at work. Workplace violence has historically been poorly captured in national surveys. These new questions will make it possible to examine who is affected, in which sectors, and, because UKHLS follows the same people over time, how experiences change within individuals across their working lives. 

Building a clearer picture of economic abuse 

In a project supported by VISION, Rosa Wilson Garwood and Surviving Economic Abuse developed and administered a detailed set of survey questions on economic abuse. This work has deepened understanding of the different component parts of economic abuse and revealed important inequalities in who experiences it. There is now a national dataset available for download from the UK Data Service. It means that researchers can now examine the structure and breadth of economic abuse rather than relying on narrow proxy measures of it. 

Capturing the links between types of violence 

A new approach to the measurement of violence and abuse was developed by VISION researcher Prof Sally McManus for the 2024 Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey (APMS). Rather than treating different forms of violence in isolation, the new approach spans a range of types of violence and abuse in a way that allows data users to examine how they interact, including co-occurrence and their combined relationship with mental health outcomes. The new dataset is now available for researchers to use, downloadable from the UK Data Service. 

Evidencing the long-term impacts of violence 

Dr Polina Obolenskaya co-ordinates VISION’s responses to consultations, including on survey content. We are keen to encourage the UK’s birth cohort studies and other longitudinal surveys to ask about violence and abuse. Where adopted, such questions have helped generate some of the first longitudinal data on violence and abuse, opening up new research questions about trajectories, risk, and recovery across the life course. 

Adding depth through open-text responses 

Survey approaches can be augmented through the collection of open-text responses, enabling qualitative insight to be generated at scale alongside structured measures. Research by Dr Nadia Aghtale and Fatemeh Babakhani with VISION researcher Dr Ladan Hashemi used an anonymous online survey and open-ended questions to capture women’s narratives of violence and their proposed solutions, revealing perspectives and forms of harm that are often missed in closed survey items. Their use of online data collection methods has shown how survivors from marginalised or hidden populations – often underrepresented in traditional survey methods – can also be reached via online platforms. 

Supporting researchers with designing and using surveys 

VISION has produced tools and guidance to help researchers design and analyse survey data. Dr Alexandria Innes created the VISION Risk of Bias Toolkit to inform understanding of the potential biases in different data sources, and Dr Hannah Manzur critiqued standardised measurement of ethnicity in national survey data proposing changes to the way surveys ask about and code ethnicity. Dr Niels Blom and Prof Vanessa Gash’s examined the strengths and weaknesses of different violence victimisation measures; while Prof Sian Oram and Dr Vish Bhavsar reviewed violence perpetration measures; and Dr Ladan Hashemi and Maryam Ghasemi’s make recommendations for improved measurement of adverse childhood experiences. To help those analysing survey data, Dr Niels Blom generated and archived code that helps users of the Crime Survey for England and Wales to merge multiple years of data, for better examination on lower prevalence groups in society. 

Why it matters 

Survey data isn’t perfect. But surveys provide one key part of the evidence landscape. Together, these developments contribute to a shift in the survey landscape. Violence and abuse have been excluded, undercounted or narrowly defined in national statistics. These new resources help give researchers better tools, and policymakers better evidence, to respond to how violence is patterned in the general population 

For further information about and to access the new survey datasets on violence, please contact: 

  • Vanessa Gash about the new workplace violence module on UKHLS, which will be archived for users in the future 

Illustration from Adobe Stock subscription

Exploring violence, inequality, and representation

Reflections from a guest lecture

By Hannah Manzur, VISION Research Fellow

At VISION, we work with a wide range of stakeholders engaged in tackling violence and inequalities in society, from police to specialist services to national policymakers. Yet, as well as established professionals, our work also engages with students and young people through placement programmes, participatory action research, and, critically, through teaching new generations of upcoming researchers, practitioners and policymakers.  

I had the pleasure of joining City St George’s Broken Britain module for undergraduate Sociology and Criminology students as a guest lecturer to share my research and experience on a topic that sits at the heart of my research and professional journey: the relationship between violence, inequality, and the social structures that sustain them. Before joining VISION, I worked as a Policy Advisor at the European Parliament, where I saw firsthand how political decisions, data classifications, and institutional blind spots can shape people’s life chances. Combined with my academic research and civil society work, my career journey has taught me the importance of building bridges and learning lessons from across research, policy, and practice spaces to examine social issues from multiple, interlocking perspectives. Those experiences continue to inform how I teach and think about inequalities and their impact on society today. 

Why Concepts Like Marginalisation and Intersectionality Matter 

I opened the session with a warm-up exercise introducing three foundational concepts: social marginalisation, intersectionality, and vulnerabilisation. These ideas help us understand why and how certain groups of people consistently find themselves pushed to the edges of society, excluded from rights, resources, and security.  

In my policy work, these dynamics were impossible to ignore. Decisions that look ‘neutral’ on paper often deepen existing inequalities when viewed through an intersectional lens. Understanding how race, gender, class, sexuality, and migration status interlock isn’t just theoretical—it’s essential for designing policies that do not unintentionally harm the very people they claim to support. By tracing the rich history of intersectionality and how it functions across the individual, interpersonal, and institutional levels of society, students were encouraged to move past surface-level understandings of intersectionality as a buzzword and really engage with the complex ways violence is shaped by intersecting inequalities.  

Everyday Fear and the Unequal Distribution of Safety 

As well as focusing on physical violence, students engaged with wider experiences of violence, including those which directly affected them. One of the most engaging parts of the session involved asking students to reflect on their own relationship with fear and safety: 

  • How often does fear shape your everyday behaviour? 
  • Who feels protected, and by whom? 
  • And whose fears are dismissed or minimised? 

These questions were designed to bring abstract ideas of ‘fear’, ‘security’, and ‘inequality’ to life through student’s experiences navigating the world from their own individual positionalities. Bringing in key insights from my own research at VISION, we discussed the gaps and differences in how violence is understood and experienced from personal and policy perspectives. While working in Brussels, I learned how policymakers often speak about “security” in general terms, yet the lived reality of violence — and fear of violence — is anything but equally shared. Some communities experience over-policing while others receive under-protection; some voices are amplified, others silenced. Understanding this imbalance is crucial for building systems that genuinely keep people safe. 

The Problem of Representation: When Categories Don’t Fit 

From challenging perceptions of violence, we also delved into challenging understanding of ‘inequality’ and how categorising people into distinctive groups can distort our understanding of how different groups experience violence. Official classifications for data collection are often seen as a neutral, technical process. But so much is packed into these decisions. Categorising people, with all their nuance and diversity, into neat separate boxes may be important for creating useful statistics, but it can also create serious problems when these categories don’t reflect people’s lived realities. I displayed some of the categories commonly used in surveys and policy documents and asked students whether these labels reflect their identities or experiences. Students grappled with the contradictions and complexities of capturing inequalities, relating their own frustrations with being put in ‘the wrong box’ and how misrepresentation can carry serious consequences for people’s lived realities being visible and their future life chances. 

This is a conversation that deeply resonates with me. As both a researcher and policy advisory, I often struggled with how overly rigid or simplistic classifications erase nuance, flatten identities, and ultimately limit our ability to recognise and respond to inequality. Data shapes policy—but if the data categories themselves are flawed, so too are the decisions built upon them. Representation is not just symbolic. It determines who is seen, whose experiences are counted, and which forms of violence are acknowledged or ignored. 

Looking Ahead 

My goal in this lecture was not only to share academic insights, but to encourage students to question the systems around them—how they define people, whose realities they prioritise, and how they respond to social harm. Whether in policymaking or research, we cannot address violence and inequality without listening carefully to those who live at their intersections. Drawing on both my policymaking experience and new research findings from my work at VISION, I emphasised the importance of understanding how systems work from multiple perspectives, how cycles of exclusion and harm can feed into one another, and how areas of research, policy, and practice can work together to disrupt these cycles. Engaging with students through this Guest Lecture reminded me of the critical role of teaching in sharing knowledge, changing perspectives, and building critical tools for new generations to see and challenge cycles of inequalities and harm across their future careers and lived experiences.

For further information, please contact Hannah at hannah.manzur.4@citystgeorges.ac.uk

Photographs from Dr Hannah Manzur

Understanding violence: The risks for migrants with rising far-right fascism

 

 

Migrant community insights on building safety

 

By Aya Khedairi, Migrants’ Rights Network

 

“My dear sister. Please do not lose hope. Better days are coming. ”
– A London workshop participant

“To all migrants: The far rights are out there with their intimidating rhetoric to break you down. You must remain strong and keep hope alive. They are targeting your mental health and they want to destroy it. You must remain resolute and courageous.”
– A London workshop participant

“Do not be afraid, and take care of yourself—for example by going for a walk, talking to someone, or reporting it to the police. My advice is to stay strong.”
– A Belfast workshop participant

Note: The above are messages of solidarity that were shared in our workshops, addressed to other migrants who may be struggling, for the purpose of strengthening community safety. 

 

In the last few years, there has been a shift in the way that migrants, including refugees and people seeking asylum, are viewed in the UK.  Rhetoric about migration has become more aggressive which has emboldened racist demonstrations in the streets and attacks on asylum accommodation.  

With the support of the UK Prevention Research Partnership (UKPRP) VISION consortium, my colleagues and I at the Migrants’ Rights Network (MRN) are co-developing a research project with migrants that maps experiences of harm and identifies community-led safety strategies. These insights will form a practical workbook featuring shared knowledge, scenarios, and messages of solidarity to all migrants in the UK. 

Our research is centred on two cities, London and Belfast, working with communities who have experience of the asylum system / no recourse to public funds. In Belfast, we were honoured to partner with Anaka Collective/ Participation and the Practice of Rights (PPR), who have been organising and campaigning alongside people seeking asylum since 2016 on a range of topics, including documenting and supporting community members navigating race hate. We built on the research Anaka is already doing through the Kind Economy project to reach new audiences, and further develop community strategies to stay safe. In London, focus group participants shaped the themes and priorities of a subsequent collective knowledge building workshop. 

Our project builds on and brings together MRN’s narrative work, which actively challenges disinformation about migration, while trying to better understand and document the impact of hostile language on people currently in the immigration system.  

Methodology and grounding 

The scale of multifaceted violence migrants in the UK are facing is significant, ranging from the daily indignity of a hostile immigration system that is designed to exclude and push people into poverty and precarity, ever changing immigration rules and relentless government press releases promising to make people feel less welcome in the UK and threatening to remove people.  These are on top of encounters with institutional racism in schools, healthcare and workplaces, and instances of far right violence. In light of this, we took a flexible approach to the research, inviting focus groups and workshops participants to identify key information and research gaps, and topics they would like to prioritise for collective discussion. 

As has come up through discussions, we framed ‘violence’ holistically to include violent narratives, moments of physical violence, and strain of continuous fear of violence, even when no direct violence occurs. 

In anticipation of the weight of some of the topics that might come up, the first focus group was co-designed and facilitated with a somatics practitioner, with grounding, movement and breathing exercises built into the sessions, and an optional online drop-in session the following week. The guiding principle throughout has been a return to shared experiences, mapping and extending individual and community support structures, and affirming participant agency.

Since December, we have hosted two focus groups discussions and a workshop in London, and two sessions in Belfast, with 96 people with lived experience of the asylum system / no recourse to public funds, many of whom are currently, or have previously, lived in asylum accommodation. The London workshops were conducted in English, while the Belfast workshops were primarily facilitated in Arabic, with interpretation into English. 

Key themes

The key findings affirm what we anticipated – the majority of research participants spoke to the impact of increasingly hostile narratives and moments of violence that impacted on their mental health and the ways this has shaped their behaviours. This ranged from choosing to avoid certain areas, being locked into or unable to return to asylum accommodation due to the presence of far right ‘protesters’, checking the news for incidents before leaving home, getting off the bus early and walking to avoid being associated with asylum accommodation and the ‘disgusted looks’ from other passengers, to no longer reading the news. Many participants felt reporting incidents brought little support, citing slow responses, dismissive attitudes, and limited follow-up from police or security staff.

An additional recurring theme from the workshops was the role of minors in perpetrating hate incidents against migrants, whether in schools or in public space. This complicates the ability for bystanders to intervene, and in several experiences recounted in the workshops led to reported hate incidents being dismissed as ‘teenagers being teenagers’. 

However, the overarching theme that emerged, as surmised by one participant, is that “it’s not a feeling of fear, it’s a feeling of rejection”. Others similarly shared that they don’t feel “relaxed, loved in public”, and requested a group discussion on how “others manage fear, uncertainty, or anger in these contexts… especially when formal support systems feel limited or inaccessible”.  The priority emerging from the workshops is the need for more spaces and resources to be heard, the opportunities to share common experiences and the impact these have had, and to be in community. The impact of hostile narratives on mental wellbeing and community participation is a recurring theme in MRN’s work, and one that should trigger significant reflection, accountability and resourcing from policy makers and institutions, as well as allies and the general public. 

Nevertheless, the tone of our research has remained one of anger, defiance and strength. Participants were quick to identify and decry opportunistic politicians and bad faith actors who seek to use migrants as a ‘political card’, with a strong message to politicians to “not use refugees as a tool to win elections. Do not build your success by destroying others”, messages of solidarity to each other to stay strong, and the sharing of wellbeing practices, from calling friends, journaling, or singing. 

London and Belfast workshops

While London and Belfast differ in political context, migrant workshop participants in both cities face racialised hostility. In London, incidents tended to be sporadic and public-facing, whereas in Belfast they were more concentrated, including repeated attacks on specific properties and migrant-owned businesses. As outlined in Committee on the Administration of Justices’ report 2025 report on ‘Mapping Far Right Activity in Northern Ireland’, “it is well documented that there is a particular problem of the involvement of elements of loyalist paramilitarism in racist violence and intimidation, whether sanctioned by leaders of groups or factions or not, or involving persons with paramilitary connections”. This brings additional complications in challenging far right violence and a pattern of ineffective response by the police and local authorities. 

Despite all the differences, there remain striking parallels in experiences and ways of organising that can be extrapolated nationally.  Belfast offers a key reference for the rest of the UK as a precursor of escalations in far-right violence, as well as a leading example of the necessity and strength of having established community and solidarity structures to call on, decompress and celebrate with. In discussing scenarios, the first point of call was always “call Anaka”, whether to come to the house in moments of violence, support with shopping and school runs, or just to connect. 

This research is a small but essential part of shaping MRN’s ongoing work:

MRN would like to thank the UKPRP VISION consortium for the opportunity to develop this work, and to all the participants for their generous insights and reflections. 

For questions or an interest in connecting, please contact Aya at a.khedairi@migrantsrights.org.uk

This project is supported by the UK Prevention Research Partnership (Violence, Health and Society; MR-VO49879/1).

Photograph from Adobe Stock subscription.

Reforms to British policing: Does performance equal progress?

 

 

Reflections on performance and productivity markers in the 2026 police reforms white paper

 

By Mattie Jones, PhD student, Violence & Society Centre, City St George’s University of London

In January, the British government released the white paper ‘From local to national: a new model for policing,’ outlining sweeping proposed changes to the police in England and Wales. To date, the media has primarily focused on the proposed National Police Service (NPS), calling it the “British FBI.” While the creation of the NPS is a major section of the paper, it is simply one piece of a much larger effort to reform British policing in a new and developing, post-Casey Review era. 

As a policing researcher and former United States police officer, what gave me pause when analysing the proposals were the pervasive underlying themes of improving productivity and tracking performance. Alongside the white paper, the Home Office introduced the Police Performance Framework. This framework sets out performance metrics that clarify parameters of success and identify areas for improvement. While performance metrics are useful for informing evidence-based policing, elements of this framework appear to lack specific direction on how forces will achieve the objectives, and it does not properly contextualise the desired outcomes that coincide with the numeric change. 

An example of this from the framework is to ‘increase the volume of crimes’ where a suspect receives VAWG-related charges. While commendable, goals like this might lend themselves to target-driven enforcement.  Officers may feel pressure to chase targets and demonstrate productivity, which could lead to unnecessary minor arrests without actually reducing serious crime or benefitting victims. In 2015 the Home Office interrogated issues of target chasing, directly attributing it to mis-recording crimes and shifting efforts to minor or ‘volume crime’ to meet metrics.  The proposed framework, combining a focus on performance indicators and a prioritisation of productivity, raises similar warning signs for a policing environment inclined toward quota-driven enforcement. 

Quotas are a loaded term in police practices, and it’s important to not over conflate all performance metrics with quotas. Police quotas combine four elements: formal channels and/or informal mechanisms of implementation, quantification of an acceptable threshold, requirement to meet the threshold, and negative action upon failure to meet the threshold (Ossei-Owusu, 2021). Policing in a quota-based system leads to officers and forces focusing on meeting metrics which may be at odds with discretion and focusing on positive outcomes for the public (Ossei-Owusu, 2021). These, along with issues of discrimination, are why many scholars, practitioners, and the public push back against their implementation (Ossei-Owusu, 2021). With the introduction of the Police Performance Framework, the Police Performance Dashboard for data monitoring between forces, a Tiered Performance System, and a “more active, ‘hands on’ Home Office,” the white paper outlines an environment ripe for quota-driven enforcement.  

The line between creating quality metrics that provide data to drive improvements and encouraging forces to adopt quotas or enforcement targets is very fine.  To strike the right balance, the Home Office will need to take care and offer specificity when operationalising the objectives and quantifying the outcomes of these proposed changes. Quality data on policing and performance is necessary, but we must be cautious that we don’t let the pursuit of quantification and measurement lend itself to ill-advised practice. 

For further information, please contact Mattie at mattie.jones@citystgeorges.ac.uk

Illustration from Adobe Stock subscription.

Independent evaluation of Women’s Aid’s ‘Expect Respect’ programme reveals timely learning about effective schools-based health relationship intervention

 

By Dr Annie Bunce

VISION researchers Dr Annie Bunce (City St Georges University of London) and Dr Estela Capelas Barbosa (University of Bristol), alongside Dr Anna Dowrick (University of Oxford) and Dr Meredith Hawking (Queen Mary University of London), recently wrapped up an independent evaluation of Women’s Aid’s school-based educational programme, ‘Expect Respect’. The programme is aimed at children and young people (ages 4 to 18) and school staff and focuses on unhealthy relationships and the gender stereotypes that underpin them. Sessions are tailored to different age groups, with content for older students also addressing domestic abuse. It is designed to be delivered year-on-year nationally. You can find out more about the programme here: Expect Respect – Women’s Aid

The evaluation was conducted between February 2024 and May 2025, utilising mixed methods to assess the impact of the programme. Staff and student survey data from participating schools was analysed quantitatively, to assess the impact of the programme on individual and school-level behavioural outcomes and differences in student outcomes by age, gender, ethnicity or disability. Creative methods including arts-based activities and vignettes were utilised in student focus groups to facilitate engagement and expression. Interview data from staff and focus group data from students was analysed qualitatively to explore the impact of the programme on school culture, and understanding of and attitudes towards gender stereotypes, healthy relationships and domestic abuse (the latter with older students only).

Findings from quantitative analysis showed that Expect Respect generally works in terms of teaching children and young people about gender roles, healthy relationships and domestic abuse, as well as how and where to seek help. For example, we found the programme had a positive impact on understanding of gender roles among children aged 4 to 14, and on understanding of domestic abuse among older students (ages 11-18). Following the Expect Respect session, those aged 11-18 were less likely to view controlling behaviour as acceptable, and over twice as likely to say they knew who they could talk to if they were concerned about a relationship. School staff overwhelmingly reported they had a better understanding of domestic abuse and felt more confident about responding to abuse-related disclosures after the staff training than they had done beforehand, and were very satisfied with the training. Qualitative findings from staff interviews supported these survey results, with staff describing the content of the training as eye-opening and the delivery by Women’s Aid staff excellent.

Qualitative analysis revealed overall consensus with the quantitative findings in terms of the effectiveness of the Expect Respect training, as well as revealing some nuanced findings. For example, while survey results indicated a change in attitudes for most outcomes immediately following the session, qualitative findings suggested that achieving longer-term change would require consolidation of learning via regular sessions. We also found that secondary school students already had a reasonably decent understanding of the differences between healthy and unhealthy relationship behaviours prior to receiving the Expect Respect session, and felt it would have greater impact if there was a shift in emphasis from awareness raising towards practical advice about how to address unhealthy relationships and where to seek help. There was agreement among both staff and students that the programme would likely have more impact if it was more interactive, particularly the session tailored for older students.

Qualitative findings also suggested that boys found it more difficult to engage with the programme than girls, and both staff and students felt the programme was lacking in information about online relationships. Focus group data highlighted that gender stereotypes remain pervasive in young people’s thinking about heterosexual romantic relationships and are used to justify controlling behaviour. Despite this, staff were optimistic about the potential of the programme to positively impact on both students themselves, and school culture more widely, by planting a seed that they were hopeful would lead to longer term impact. Staff interviews also touched on the challenges of trying to model progressive gender stereotypes and healthy relationships to students through the programme when these were not necessarily reflected among adults in school culture. Nevertheless, staff unanimously felt that the Expect Respect sessions had helped them to identify unhealthy behaviour in relationships between students and also encouraged some students to come forward and speak to them about things they were worried about.

Recommendations

Our recommendation focus on the programme content, format and embedding learning, including:

  • Co-produce session content with young people
  • Make sessions more interactive
  • Utilise the power of personal stories and lived experience
  • Explore examples of unhealthy behaviour in friendships, families and romantic relationships
  • Focus on sparking conversations and making sessions memorable
  • Equip young people with skills to challenge unhealthy relationship behaviour, and linking with local support services
  • Continue with year-on-year delivery and provide resources/advice for schools on how to embed Expect Respect messages across the year and build on learning

The full evaluation report can be accessed here: Microsoft Word – ExpectRespect_finalreport_27Jan26

For further information, please contact Annie at annie.bunce@citystgeorges.ac.uk

Cover photo supplied from the evaluation.

Workplace violence and gender inequalities: Why the silence persists

 

Professor Vanessa Gash

 

By Vanessa Gash

Professor Vanessa Gash was an invited contributor on a recent panel on Barriers to Research on Sex and Gender at City, University, where she presented some of her work funded by VISION on workplace violence. 

Workplace violence is often imagined as a rare or extreme event—yet for many employees, it forms part of a daily reality that remains unseen, unreported, and unmanaged. Evidence from recent reviews and representative UK data paints a troubling picture: violence, harassment, and bullying at work are both widespread and systematically minimised, particularly for groups already facing gendered or intersectional disadvantages.

One of the most striking patterns across studies is the silence of victims. Although around 8.3% of working‑age employees report threats, insults, or physical attacks at work, many more choose not to disclose their experiences. Research suggests a persistent “dark figure of crime,” with roughly 60% of crimes generally going unreported, and workplace violence likely exceeding this threshold. Victims often feel ashamed or fear appearing incompetent. At work—where reputational stakes are high and careers depend on social status—these concerns are intensified.

The Sullivan Review sheds further light on the issue by exploring barriers to research within academia itself. Alarmingly, bullying, harassment, and ostracisation emerged as the second most commonly cited barrier, reported by 42% of respondents. The sample was disproportionately composed of colleagues with protected characteristics—women, LGBTQ+ individuals, older staff, and those with disabilities. These groups are historically more vulnerable to exclusionary practices, and their experiences offer insight into how violence and inequality become mutually reinforcing.

A recurring theme across sectors—from nursing to higher education, hospitality, and even commercial kitchens—is managerial normalisation of violence. Studies show that managers may dismiss or downplay workers’ reports, frame violent incidents as interpersonal misunderstandings, or subtly blame victims for “mismanaging” interactions. Such responses erode trust and suppress reporting. Without acknowledgement from leadership, workplace violence becomes embedded in organisational culture, shielded by institutional inertia.

Gender inequalities intersect heavily with these processes. Women and gender‑diverse workers often face disproportionate scrutiny and are more likely to internalise blame for mistreatment. In environments where masculinity norms dominate—whether through expectations of resilience, emotional restraint, or competitiveness—experiences of violence can be viewed as a failure to cope rather than an organisational problem requiring intervention.

The consequences are not merely cultural or professional—they are clinical. Evidence from the UK Household Longitudinal Study indicates that workplace violence is predictive of common mental disorders (CMDs) both at baseline and one year later, suggesting a causal pathway. Mental health harms linger long after individual incidents fade.

To break this cycle, organisations need scientifically designed interventions that include ongoing measurement, enforce accountability, and centre the voices of both workers and management. Most importantly, institutions must confront the gendered dynamics of silence, shame, and managerial denial that allow violence to persist.

For further information, please contact Vanessa at vanessa.gash.1@citystgeorges.ac.uk

Cover photo supplied via Adobe Stock subscription.

Exploring survivor wellbeing after abuse: A joint VISION and VAMHN symposium

 

Professor Sian Oram

By Sian Oram

In November 2025, the VISION consortium and the Violence, Abuse and Mental Health Network (VAMHN) co-hosted a symposium at King’s College London’s Science Gallery. The event brought together 40 researchers, survivor advocates, providers, and policymakers to explore what meaningful support for survivor wellbeing looks like – and what it will take to deliver it.

The day was structured around two core sessions. The morning focused on VAMHN’s recently refreshed Theory of Change (ToC) and the network’s strategic priorities for the next phase. The afternoon featured a symposium of short talks and group discussions, including exploration of how survivor wellbeing is defined, supported, and measured across clinical, community, and policy contexts.

Across both sessions, a powerful theme emerged: that systems must be reshaped around the lives, needs, and priorities of survivors, not the other way around.

Reimagining the Pathways to Change

The morning roundtable discussions affirmed the relevance of the four pathways within VAMHN’s theory of change: improving understanding of recovery and wellbeing; strengthening psychological and support services; increasing survivor leadership and participation; and influencing policy and systems.

Attendees strongly welcomed a shift away from crisis-driven, risk-based models toward a more holistic, strengths-based approach to survivor wellbeing. There was broad support for launching a survivor-informed outcomes framework, co-designed to work across research, commissioning, and frontline services. Others emphasised the importance of cross-sector knowledge exchange, meaningful survivor leadership (not just consultation), and reducing fragmentation in how services respond.

There was widespread support for VAMHN’s ambition to launch an Evaluation Lab to support small and specialist services with participatory, trauma-informed evaluation, and an ask for the network to take a greater role in amplifying the voices of smaller NGOs in national policy spaces.

What Does Meaningful Support Look Like?

The afternoon symposium featured five speakers who reflected on evidence, practice, and lived experience. Across talks on psychological interventions, survivor voice, systems design, and clinicians as survivors, a call emerged for more responsive and humane systems. Key takeaways included:

  • Survivor wellbeing is relational and systemic, not only clinical or individual. Responses must hold space for complexity, intersectionality, and evolving needs over time.
  • Continuity, trust, and listening matter. Survivors spoke of exhausting experiences of re-telling their stories; a “passport” system or shared record was suggested to avoid re-traumatisation.
  • Support should be built around people – not service structures. Attendees reflected on the need to prioritise basic needs, reduce referral fatigue, and enable survivors to steer their own support journeys.
  • Frontline practitioners need care too. Recognising and supporting professionals with lived experience of abuse is vital.

Participants urged deeper collaboration across sectors and systems. There was strong appetite for developing shared approaches to wellbeing, meaningful evaluation, and ethical survivor involvement across VISION partners.

Looking Ahead

This event marked an important milestone in aligning survivor-centred priorities across the VISION Consortium and VAMHN. We are grateful to everyone who contributed their time, insights, and lived experience to this conversation.

For further information, please contact Sian at sian.oram@kcl.ac.uk

To access the resource: Supporting Survivor Wellbeing After Domestic Abuse Resources

Cover photo supplied via Adobe Stock subscription.

Anastasia Fadeeva shares thoughts on Data Impact Fellowship placement studying healthy ageing

 

Dr Anastasia Fadeeva

VISION researcher and Data Impact Fellow, Dr Anastasia Fadeeva, has written a personal blog, Reflections from being a Data Impact Fellow: a placement in Japan, about her time in the country visiting universities and discussing healthy ageing.

In the blog, Anastasia reflects on her short-term placement at Chiba University and Kyoto University, meeting fellow researchers interested in population health and a focus on studying the ageing population and promoting healthy ageing.

As a Data Impact Fellow, Anastasia is researching the issues of violence in older age, the long-term impacts of violence on mental health, and the lack of reliable data. The placement to Japan is one component of the fellowship.

For further information, please see VISION member awarded Data Impact Fellow to study violence and mental health in older age to find out more about her fellowship or contact Anastasia at anastasia.fadeeva@citystgeorges.ac.uk

Top photo supplied through Adobe Stock subscription and bottom photo supplied by Dr Anastasia Fadeeva.

“How are young people supposed to stay safe when we have nowhere safe to go?”

 

VISION was pleased to support the Lambeth Peer Action Collective (LPAC) with funding and mentoring in their recent project, Built on Trust: The role of youth spaces and trusted adults in reducing young people’s exposure to violence. Working at the community level and with young adults was inspiring – and the impact was powerful particularly for Dr Elizabeth (Lizzie) Cook, Dr Estela Capelas Barbosa and Dr Alexandria (Andri) Innes, the mentors. Many congratulations to High Trees, LPAC and their partners for the hard work and brilliant report. Please read the blog below, written by the young adults who conducted the research and wrote and delivered their report which can also be found below. They are an amazing group!

 

“How are young people supposed to stay safe when we have nowhere safe to go?”

 

by Anisa Hassan on behalf of the Lambeth Peer Action Collective

 

The Lambeth Peer Action Collective (LPAC) recently published their newest research Built on Trust: The role of youth spaces and trusted adults in reducing young people’s exposure to violence. LPAC was launched by High Trees Community Development Trust in 2021. It’s made up of young people and six local youth organisations working together to create better futures for young people in Lambeth through youth-led research and social action.

What was the research about?

This round of research explored what can be done to reduce young people’s risk of experiencing violence. With the support of High Trees, VISION, Partisan and other LPAC partners, we worked on this project for nearly 18 months, conducting and analysing 46 peer interviews. We found that with access to trusted adults and trusted spaces young people were less likely to be exposed to different types of violence.

This produced four key findings:

  1. The violence affecting young people takes many forms and is often complex in nature.
  2. Youth organisations provide unique spaces where young people can feel safe and build belonging.
  3. When youth practitioners can build trust with young people, they are able to provide them with practical and emotional support to navigate violence.
  4. Youth organisations offer young people alternative pathways and visions for their future.

An afternoon of conversation and community

The launch event was a chance for the LPAC team to connect and show stakeholders and community members our research, get feedback and start to think about how we can work together to make change. Attendees described the event as “hopeful”, “inspiring”, and “empowering”, with many of them pledging support. The team left the event with hope for the next phase of the project – social action that builds long-lasting change for young people in our communities.

What’s next?

“No research without action”

Since the research launch in October, the LPAC team have been busy, taking action in response to our findings.

We were invited to the Lambeth Safeguarding Children Partnership’s Annual Conference to present our research findings to organisations at the forefront of protecting young people. This event gave us an opportunity to highlight key insights from our research and how they can shape safeguarding practices and policies.

We have also been designing our own trusted adult training workshop, which takes inspiration from interviews with young people focusing on characteristics and practical advice that youth practitioners can use to build and maintain trust. We are planning to trial the training with local youth workers early next year.

LPAC team members have also attended workshops hosted by the Met Police and the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC), where we had the opportunity to ask questions and make suggestions about their MPS Children’s Strategy based on young pe  ople’s experiences that they told us about through our research.

LPAC at High Trees were thrilled to win the Power of Community award at the Locality Awards 2025 in Liverpool. The award celebrates community organisations working with local people to shape their own future and to build a fairer society where everyone in the community thrives.

We are also proud to announce that in the new year LPAC will be starting a new round of research, funded by the Youth Endowment Fund, focusing on mental health support for young people affected by violence, and we are excited to continue our collaboration with VISION on this project.

If you’re interested in finding out more about LPAC’s work visit www.lambethpac.com  or get in touch with us on action@high-trees.org.

Photographs provided by LPAC.

Re-imagining responses to gender-based violence

 

Dr Olumide Adisa

VISION Co-Investigator, Dr Olumide Adisa, has written a personal blog, Behind the book, highlighting her journey behind the scenes writing, compiling, and publishing her first edited book, Tackling Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence: A Systems Approach.

In the blog, Olumide discusses her drive to have a meaningful impact in the fight against gender-based violence. Her enthusiasm, advocacy and growing expertise for systems theory and complex systems approaches combined with ongoing work across different systems and with various collaborators led to the project and was an invaluable experience.

For further information, please contact Olumide at olumide.adisa@citystgeorges.ac.uk

Photo supplied through Adobe Stock subscription.