Understanding and preventing Domestic Violence and Abuse (DVA) is compounded by long-standing data quality issues in police records. Accurate police-recorded crime data is vital for responding to DVA, yet it often contains missing values and inaccuracies.
Across all crime types, the quality of police data in England and Wales has been a concern. While there have been improvements in overall crime data recording since 2014, individual police forces still encounter difficulties adequately recording instances of DVA in police-recorded crime datasets.
Correcting poorly recorded or missing data at this scale is non-trivial and beyond the capabilities of manual intervention alone. Fortunately, the increasing availability of computational solutions and machine learning algorithms such as text mining and natural language processing (NLP) can augment, and to a degree, offset much of this processing. NLP is supported by a growing body of interdisciplinary research, which shows that valuable information can be automatically extracted from unstructured data such as crime reports and case summaries through technology.
However, automated prediction systems are not without risk, particularly when applied in sensitive domains such as policing. Data inherently reflects societal biases that poorly designed AI solutions can amplify, and in the context of DVA, these biases may stem from underreporting of marginalized demographic groups or inconsistencies in police recording practices.
In their recent study, Improving police recorded crime data for domestic violence and abuse through natural language processing, VISION researchers Dr Darren Cook and Dr Ruth Weir (City St George’s University of London) and Dr Leslie Humphries (University of Lancashire), evaluated the capability of supervised machine learning models to automatically extract victim–offender relationship information from free-text crime notes in DVA cases.
Both models demonstrated that such tools could serve as cost-effective and efficient alternatives to manual coding, accurately classifying relationship type in around four out of five cases. The incorporation of a selective classification function improved precision for the most challenging cases by abstaining from low-confidence predictions, though at the cost of reduced coverage. This research represents a meaningful step toward addressing concerns about the completeness and reliability of police-recorded crime data.
Recommendation
Given that police-recorded crime lost its status as an accredited official statistic in 2014 due in part to weaknesses in data collection and processing, the application of data science methods to reliably impute missing values offers a promising route to restoring confidence in these records. Police constabularies are encouraged to use the available technology and implement text mining and NLP solutions to extract valuable information from unstructured data such as crime reports and case summaries.
To cite:Cook D, WeirR, Humphries, L. Improving police recorded crime data for domestic violence and abuse through natural language processing. Front. Sociol., 24 November 2025, Sec. Medical Sociology Volume 10 – 2025 https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2025.1686632
Danielle Sharp is the founder and Chief Executive of the Centre for Safer Society, an organisation dedicated to supporting services in designing evidence-based responses to reduce violence, abuse, and harm. Through the Centre, Danielle conducts service evaluations, develops impact-driven strategies for organisations working to end violence and abuse, and serves as an Independent Chair for statutory Domestic Abuse-Related Death reviews – work that brings her face-to-face with the families of those who have been killed or died by suicide.
For most of her career, Danielle has worked in the domestic abuse and violence against women and girls (VAWG) sector. She began in frontline roles supporting young people and families before moving into strategic positions developing and commissioning evidence-based local responses to domestic abuse. Her work then expanded to national level at SafeLives, where as Head of the Knowledge Hub she led projects such as the Home Office One Front Door pilot, and Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) national oversight.
It is through her work as an Independent Chair for Domestic Abuse-Related Death reviews that Danielle identified the practice challenge that will form the focus of her Practitioner in Residence (PiR) research at the Violence and Society Centre (VASC). In several reviews, a recurring issue has emerged: cases where practitioners identify ‘bi-directional violence’ or ‘dual-allegations’ between individuals. This creates significant difficulties in accurately assessing risk, determining whether there is a primary victim and primary perpetrator, and making informed safeguarding decisions.
With the support of VISION Co-Investigator and Senior Lecturer Dr Elizabeth (Lizzie) Cook, Danielle’s focus in the PiR programme will be to bridge the gap between research and practice by developing practical resources for professionals. These tools will equip practitioners with greater clarity and confidence when navigating cases involving dual-reports, ultimately improving risk assessment and decision-making.
To curb COVID-19, three periods of severe physical distancing measures (‘lockdowns’) were imposed by the Government throughout 2020 and 2021 in England and Wales: between 23 March and 1 June 2020 (68 days), 5 November 2020 and 2 December 2020 (27 days) and between 6 January and 8 March 2021 (61 days). These lockdowns resulted in societal changes, including full or part-time school and workplace closures, and reduced community mixing.
The pandemic also necessitated a change in clinical consultations in primary care, with a shift from predominantly face-to-face to mostly remote consultations (telephone, digital and video), complicating the provision of care and support, including safeguarding. The lockdowns made it harder for people to disclose domestic violence and abuse (DVA) to health professionals, as online consultations can form barriers to support.
Long and enforced lockdowns can make it harder to disclose DVA and can have a detrimental impact on DVA victim-survivors and their families. Previous studies suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic and its lockdowns have led to an increase in DVA incidence. Refuge, the organisation running the 24-hour national DVA helpline in England, reported that calls surged by 60% during 2020 compared with the previous year. There is, however, scarce evidence on the impact of consecutive lockdowns over a period of almost 2 years on referrals from primary care to DVA support services in England.
Anonymised data on daily referrals, interrupted-time series and non-linear regression quantified the impact of the three national lockdowns over 2020 and 2021 comparing analogous periods in the 2 years before and after, reporting incidence rate ratios, 95% Confidence Intervals and p values. Time spent at home and workplace visits over the lockdown periods were quantified as proxies for the stringency of the different lockdowns.
The first national lockdown in early 2020 led to a reduced number of referrals to DVA services. Over the second and the third lockdown, there was a possible increase in the number of referrals. The first national lockdown was more stringent (58% decline in workplace visits; 22% increase in time spent at home) than the second (34% decline in workplace visits; 14% increase in time spent at home) or the third (18% decline in workplace visits; 18% increase in time spent at home).
Increased freedom of movement alongside easier access to GP services during the two latter, less stringent, lockdowns compared with the first, stringent, lockdown could have contributed to the different trends in referrals. The research team determined that ensuring access to primary care and adequate and continuing provision of specialist support for people experiencing DVA is important during national emergencies. Further research, coproduced with DVA survivors and DVA agencies, is necessary to establish and evaluate the most appropriate support during both potential future national lockdowns and other systemic closures (eg, school holidays).
Recommendation
More stringent systemic closures will lead to a reduced number of referrals to a specialist DVA programme, while more relaxed system closures may result in increased referrals. This highlights the importance of ensuring adequate access to support, such as primary care, where people can safely disclose DVA and be referred to service providers during system closures, regardless of the stringency.
To cite: Panovska-Griffiths J, Szilassy E, Downes L, Dixon S, Dowrick A, Griffiths C, Feder G, Capelas Barbosa E. Interrupted time series and non-linear regression analyses to evaluate the impact of the three consecutive COVID-19 national lockdowns on the general practice referrals of women experiencing domestic violence and abuse in England and Wales. BMJ Public Health. 2025;3:e002408. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjph-2024-002408
Violence is a critical issue in the UK, both in terms of its impact on individuals and communities and its prominence in public and media discourse. Violence has many negative effects for victims, ranging from emotional and/or physical impacts to isolation and withdrawal from social life. Victims of violence suffer the effects for longer periods of time compared to victims of other crime types and the societal economic cost of violence is also considerable with the total cost of violence in London alone in 2018–19 was £3 billion.
Few studies have examined violence at the neighbourhood level, and even fewer have investigated how changes in neighbourhood characteristics relate to changes in violence over time. The recent study, Increases in disadvantage and instability are associated with rising violence, led by Ferhat Tura (Bournemouth University) with Oluwole Adeniyi (Nottingham Trent University) and VISION researchers Ruth Weir (City St George’s University of London) and Niels Blom (University of Manchester) investigates the association between changes in neighbourhood characteristics and changes in violence rates in England and Wales between 2011 and 2021.
They argue that rising levels of social disadvantage—particularly in relation to unemployment, poor health, lone-parent households, residential mobility, and social housing—are associated with increased neighbourhood-level violence.
The research team highlights that increased ethnic heterogeneity when it coincides with growing deprivation (e.g. poor health and no qualification) is associated with rising violence risk. There is a need to address structural inequalities through investment in housing, health, education and community stability. Policy responses should extend beyond criminal justice to promote long-term violence reduction and community well-being.
Recommendation
Social policies should focus on long-term investment in deprived neighbourhoods, including affordable and stable housing to reduce residential turnover and improve long-term outcomes for residents.
To cite: Ferhat Tura, Ruth Weir, Niels Blom, Oluwole Adeniyi, Increases In Disadvantage and Instability Are Associated With Rising Violence, The British Journal of Criminology, 2025;, azaf080, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azaf080
High Trees Community Development Trust and the Lambeth Peer Action Collective (LPAC) were recently awarded further funding from VISION to co-develop an evaluation framework to measure the impact and value for money of open access youth work and provision on reducing young people’s exposure to violence in Lambeth.
The project draws on an existing collaboration and partnership between VISION, High Trees and LPAC that explored the role trusted adults and safe spaces play in protecting young people from violence. The findings from the original partnership support emerging national data about the role that youth organisations, positive activities and trusted adults play in supporting vulnerable young people. However, existing approaches to evaluation surface challenges about how youth work is measured, monitored and evaluated. Through previous LPAC research with young people, youth practitioners and organisations, the team observed a disconnect between how practice is recognised and valued by young people and how funders, commissioners and policymakers expect impact and value for money to be measured.
This contributes to gaps in the quality, consistency and reliability in evidence, particularly as smaller youth organisations have limited capacity and resources to contribute to large-scale evaluations using established methods. For those offering open access youth work and services, where provisions can be accessed by young people regardless of background or need, demonstrating impact and value for money proves even more difficult as these interventions are longer-term, open-ended and/or unstructured across different settings.
Therefore, building on the previous LPAC research and an initial Cost-Consequence Analysis (CCA) produced by VISION, the aim of the current project is to co-produce an evaluation framework, including components for economic evaluation, that supports youth organisations in Lambeth to measure and demonstrate the impact (and potential value for money) of youth service provision.
VISION is pleased to announce the funding for an exciting new project from the Migrants’ Research Network (MRN). The funding will extend and disseminate MRN’s existing work to:
understand the nature of far-right violence against migrants in the UK focusing on sites where MRN is currently engaged,
provide migrants with resources to recognize and understand when significant risk of violence is present, and
catalogue migrant experiences of violence to feed forward to better understanding and future resourcing of violence prevention.
MRN has worked extensively to support migrants, to build a basis for political participation and advocacy of migrant interests, and to recognize and combat violence and discrimination. In an existing piece of work, MRN created a draft of an ‘explainer’ document for migrants living in temporary accommodations, detailing the nature of racism in the UK, and the rise of far-right violence against migrants, what risks migrants may face, how to recognize potentially violent situations, and what support and resources are available to migrants with insecure status who have experienced or fear experiencing violence.
Given the resurgence of far-right activity, this document can provide a crucial resource to support migrants, providing information to help mitigate fear. However, there is also a significant gap in knowledge regarding the types of violence migrants experience, how these experiences integrate across the life course in the context of previous experiences of violence, and how they affect a sense of safety in place.
This project seeks to fill that gap by integrating lived experience perspectives, and knowledge of those who work closely with migrants experiencing violence, such as caseworkers. Those with lived experience would iteratively revise the current explainer document, to be rolled out via various digital outlets, for broader reach.
While the motivation for this project is the basis of longstanding advocacy work, and academic-practitioner knowledge exchange, the objectives will fully integrate lived experience. The final outputs will be a series of social media posts for circulation and an ‘explainer’ leaflet, co-designed for migrants in insecure accommodation regarding far-right violence. Quantitative data in the form of a survey, and qualitative data collected in the course of discussions regarding the types of violence experienced by migrants and the fear of far-right violence, will generate a report to fill a gap in knowledge regarding violence experienced by people with insecure migration status.
Aisling Barker, Violence Against Women and Girls Workforce Development manager at Islington Council, and qualified social worker, is the latest practitioner to join the City St George’s University of London (CSGUL) Practitioner in Residence programme. She became aware of the programme through her work on teenage relationship abuse with co-Deputy Director of the Violence and Society Centre (VASC) at CSGUL and VISION consortium Senior Research Fellow Dr Ruth Weir.
Aisling and her team in Islington have been supporting professionals in their practice with adolescents for five years. They identified concerning trends in violence and abuse in relationships where the victim was as young as 13 years of age but the person causing harm was also as young as 14 or 15 years old. An alarming lack of support available for these young people was apparent – particularly those who were causing harm to their partners at that young age.
Aisling presented the work of her team at the first conference on Adolescent Domestic Abuse hosted by VISION in April 2024. Driven by curiosity the team began to analyse cases to understand where there were system strengths and gaps. They found knowledge and practice gaps in services responding to young people where there was harm in their relationships. They also found that young people often had good relationships with practitioners such as youth workers, gang workers and youth justice case workers. Identifying an opportunity for practice improvement, Aisling and her team developed a training and support package for services working with young people affected by criminality and offending behaviour. Aisling also presented the findings from their case analysis and a case study at the second National Working Group on Teenage Relationship Abuse roundtable in November 2024 also hosted by VISION.
With the support of Ruth and the VASC and VISION teams, Aisling’s focus as a Practitioner in Residence will be documenting and examining the impact of this training and support package as an innovative approach to the prevention and early intervention on violence against women and girls.
Blog by Dr Polina Obolenskaya, Merili Pullerits and Dr Niels Blom
The UK government is expected to publish its new Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) strategy later this year. The strategy is part of a broader ambitious commitment to halve VAWG within a decade. A new combined measure of domestic abuse, sexual assault, and stalking, developed by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), has been proposed to serve as the main benchmark for evaluating progress toward this commitment.
Here we outline three main concerns the VISION consortium has with the proposed approach.
Lack of historical continuity
To assess the effectiveness of the VAWG strategy, historical continuity is crucial. Rates of domestic abuse in England and Wales have declined in recent years (Figure 1). Therefore, any assessment of a decline or rise in VAWG needs to be placed in the context of broader declining violence rates. Without this historical continuity, the government cannot distinguish between improvements driven by their strategy and those resulting from long-term social changes that were already underway.
Figure 1 Prevalence of domestic abuse in the last year among people aged 16 to 59 in England and Wales, 2004/05 to 2023/24
However, the new combined measure disrupts this continuity. This is due to changes to the question wording and structure of its composite measures. The new combined measure of VAWG consists of self-completion data from a newly developed Domestic Abuse module (piloted in 2022/23 and 2024/25, and fully implemented from 2025/26), as well as a combination of the old and new Sexual Victimisation module (piloted in 2025/26 and planned for full implementation from 2026/27).
The new Domestic Abuse module had undergone a complete redevelopment, with extensive negative repercussions for historical continuity, which we have outlined previously. While the sexual victimisation module is not being re-developed as considerably, the comparability of the new data to the previously collected data can only be assessed once the first round of results is available. This means a new stable and comparable measure will not be available in its final form until the 2026/27 data collection, despite the government’s strategy period beginning in 2025/26.
Without historical continuity, it will not be possible to produce long-term trends over time in the composite measure of VAWG for England and Wales for some years to come. Given the decline of some forms of violence in recent decades, it is important to examine whether any decline in VAWG is due to genuine policy success, or due to a continuation of pre-existing trends.
Incomplete scope of violence
While the government has indicated that it intends to supplement the new combined measure of domestic abuse, sexual victimisation and stalking with additional metrics, it is currently unclear what these supplementary measures will include or how they will be weighed against the main benchmark. In any case, the narrow scope of the new combined measure has been raised as a concern both among academics and others working in the sector.
Some of the limitations of the measure are due to the unavailability of certain measures in data it is based on – the Crime Survey for England and Wales. The End Violence Against Women coalition (EVAW) has highlighted that the new measure fails to reflect the full spectrum of violence experienced by women and girls, omitting online abuse, child abuse, ‘honour’-based abuse and sexual harassment (EVAW blog) as well as Female Genital Mutilation (EVAW briefing). These exclusions, as EVAW argues, risk distorting the true scale and impact of VAWG. Additionally, given alarming rates of teenage relationship abuse (e.g. Barter et al., 2009; Fox et al., 2013), we consider its exclusion to be a serious oversight in measuring VAWG – including girls – effectively. Since the combined measure excludes experiences of girls under the age of 16, its use as a main tool to measure government’s ambition to half ‘Violence against women and girls‘ may be misleading.
While the gaps outlined above stem from the limitations of the Crime Survey for England and Wales, we also have concerns about the scope of the measure which could be addressed with the data already available.
Firstly, the new combined measure excludes other offences which count within the CSEW as ‘violent crime’ or violence against a person. While men are more likely to be victims of such offences, disregarding women’s experiences of these risks undercounting their overall risks and impacts of violence (Cooper & Obolenskaya, 2021; Davies et al., 2025). For example, while a substantial amount of VAWG is covered by domestic abuse, sexual violence, and stalking, women also experience violence in other aspects of life, such as at work or in public spaces. Accounting for the above offences significantly increases the proportion of people experiencing violence and more accurately reflects the extent of violence experienced by women and girls.
Secondly, the new combined measure omits broader violence-related offences, for which data are available in the CSEW. This includes threats of violence and other criminal offences which are coded as ‘non-violent’ by the ONS (due to a methodological process involving priority ordering of offences), even though they involve the threat or use of force or violence (Davies et al., 2025; Pullerits & Phoenix, 2024). These offences should be included in any overall measure of VAWG regardless of who is most affected. However, their omission is especially problematic given that they disproportionately affect women (Davies et al., 2025; Pullerits & Phoenix, 2024), meaning the headline measure is likely to underestimate women’s experiences even further.
Although the government has suggested that other metrics are planned to be used, separately, to assess progress towards halving VAWG, having a narrow main measure risks reinforcing outdated gender norms where women are considered to be more affected by what happens at home rather than outside of it. Such a perspective fails to capture emerging forms of abuse and fails to reflect the full spectrum of women’s lived experiences with violence.
Collected new Domestic Abuse data had not undergone statistical validity and reliability checks and had not been subjected to wider scrutiny (as raised by VISION previously) before the decision to replace the old module with it was finalised.
Changes to the Domestic Abuse and Sexual Victimisation modules appear to have been made independently from each other, with limited coordination across the survey modules. Given the similarity in the phrasing of a few questions across the modules, this lack of foresight and integration appears to have resulted in overlapping content that could lead to confusion both for respondents and for those interpreting the data.
The development process has lacked transparency and consultation with external stakeholders, as raised by EVAW.
Recommendations for improvement
The ONS’s new combined measure of VAWG risks oversimplifying the complex realities of violence against women and girls. Even with supplementary metrics, relying on such a narrow primary benchmark – which lacks historical continuity and is limited in scope – will not adequately support evidence-based policy development or serve the needs of those most affected by violence and abuse.
To ensure more meaningful monitoring, we have three key recommendations to the ONS:
Prioritise historical continuity in Domestic Abuse data collection: We urge the ONS to revert to a Domestic Abuse module that aligns more closely with the previous version to ensure data continuity. While we welcome the inclusion of new questions on coercive control and family-related violence, we strongly believe these additions could be integrated into the long-standing existing framework without disrupting the historical comparability of the data. If a full reversion is not feasible, we recommend that theONS takes steps to ensure meaningful assessment of change and continuity using the new measure. These steps should involve: publishing clear comparability assessments between old and new measures; providing bridging data where methodologically possible; and maintaining transparency about limitations.
Broaden the scope of the ‘combined’ measure and make it explicit that it does not fully reflect the experience of girls: the definition of violence against women and girls should be expanded by using existing CSEW data to include “violence against the person” offences, as well as, possibly, other incidents where violence or threat of violence took place but that are not coded as “violent crime” by ONS. The CSEW currently provides insufficient coverage of technology-facilitated and online abuse, which should be a development priority going forward, given the increasing prevalence of these forms of violence both within domestic contexts but also outside of them. Additionally, since the combined measure does not capture violence experienced by girls under the age of 16, the government needs to make it clear that the headline measure, should it be used in the strategy, reflects only experiences of (young) women, not girls.
Enhance transparency and accountability in survey development: we call on the ONS to address technical and transparency concerns regarding their measures and commit to greater openness in their approach. Any new module should be subject to timely, transparent analysis and external scrutiny of it before it becomes a permanent change in the survey.
If the government is genuinely committed to halving violence against women and girls within a decade, it must first ensure its measurement approach is comprehensive, meaningful and methodologically sound. Relying overwhelmingly on a narrow headline measure risks presenting an incomplete picture of the problem of VAWG, and risks undermining both accountability and progress.
Cooper, K. & Obolenskaya, P. (2021). Hidden Victims: The Gendered Data Gap of Violent Crime, TheBritish Journal of Criminology, 61(4): 905–925. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azaa100
Davies, E., Obolenskaya, P., Francis, B., Blom, B., Phoenix, J., Pullerits, M. & Walby, S. (2025). Definition and Measurement of Violence in the Crime Survey for England and Wales: Implications for the Amount and Gendering of Violence, The British Journal of Criminology, 65(2): 261–281. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azae050
Fox, C. L., Corr, M. L., Gadd, D., & Butler, I. (2013). Young teenagers’ experiences of domestic abuse, Journal of Youth Studies, 17(4), 510–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2013.780125
Pullerits, M. & Phoenix, J. (2024). How Priority Ordering of Offence Codes Undercounts Gendered Violence: An Analysis of the Crime Survey for England and Wales, The British Journal of Criminology, 64(2): 381–399. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azad047
How can researchers meaningfully and ethically involve people with lived experience of the criminal justice system in data analysis?
This is the question myself, a group of VISION colleagues (Lizzie Cook, Polina Obolenskaya, Sian Oram, Les Humphreys and Sally McManus), Dani Darley (University of Sheffield) and a group of Revolving Doors’ (Home – Revolving Doors) lived experience members, explored via a face-to-face workshop in May and online feedback session in July, funded by City’s Participatory Research Fund.
These broad principles on doing participatory research are useful and have guided my approach to multiple recent projects. But something I noticed is that there is generally less guidance on involving people from marginalised groups, particularly those with lived experience of the criminal justice system, in the data analysis stage of research projects specifically. Despite the analysis being at the heart of the research process. Essentially, activating the “co” in co-analysis is still somewhat of a mystery. And whilst a definitive “how-to” guide to collaborative data analysis alongside stakeholders would be at odds with the flexibility and relational grounding that are the beauty of co-analysis, a little guidance could make the process smoother and more enjoyable for everybody involved. Without this, quite a lot of angst can be caused repeatedly asking yourselves: Are we trying to do too much? Are we doing enough? How much can we afford to do? How much do people actually want to be involved? How can we make this happen?
Ironically, a fair bit of time in our workshop to co-produce some best practice principles for doing co-analysis was spent going round in circles tackling questions around how to do it. Ultimately, the best approach to co-analysis depends on various factors, including the type of data being analysed, people’s individual experiences and preferences and access to resources etc. Nevertheless, addressing these questions openly and collaboratively, welcoming and respecting everybody’s perspective and actively thinking about all the factors that need to be considered, made for an enlightening and productive discussion. From which themes have been identified and are currently being transformed into principles (watch this space).
A few spoilers:
Lots of ‘p’ words are involved, including planning, preferences, perfection, practicality and power
Transparency and avoiding tokenism are two of the most important principles for our participants in determining whether they found co-analysis enjoyable or not
Ethical standards and institutional processes need reframing if they are to authentically support participatory projects involving co-analysis
Co-analysis is messy, heavy and can’t just be squeezed in as an extra; the emotional labour that goes into both managing and participating in co-analysis must be valued
Co-analysis can also be fun. People with lived experience want to have fun with it, and it’s nice for them when academics can even have a bit of fun as well
Blog by Dr Darren Cook, VISION Research Fellow in Natural Language Processing
Earlier this month, Dr Elizabeth (Lizzie) Cook and I had the opportunity to introduce our developing project on Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs) at the Vulnerability and Policing Futures Research Centre’s second annual conference in Leeds. The two-day event brought together academics, practitioners, and policymakers to explore the themes of reducing harm and strengthening justice.
In a session on Measuring Vulnerability: Harnessing Routinely Collected Data, we outlined how natural language processing (NLP) could be used to improve access to and analysis of the Home Office’s growing library of DHR reports. We highlighted both the opportunities and challenges of applying advanced computational methods to such sensitive material and set out our vision for building a tool to make the full corpus of DHRs more searchable. By improving searchability, researchers and policymakers can more effectively explore recurring themes and insights within the reports.
Our talk prompted thoughtful questions and constructive feedback from an interdisciplinary audience of around 30 participants, which will help shape the next stages of the project.
What are Domestic Homicide Reviews?
Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs) are reports that examine the circumstances surrounding a death resulting from suspected domestic violence or abuse. Introduced in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004) and implemented in 2011, these reviews provide a detailed, chronological account of the victim and perpetrator. They are written in narrative form and aim to identify lessons that can be learned from a domestic homicide.
Since June 2023, over 600 reports have been made publicly available through an online repository with a view to improving transparency and to encourage greater opportunity for learning.
Why does access remain a challenge?
Despite the progress made with the repository, researchers and practitioners still face barriers that limit how effectively the reports can be used. In our talk, we focused on two key challenges: (1) At present, each report must be extracted individually, which is impractical for projects working across hundreds of documents, and (2) The repository’s search functions rely on a fixed set of tags added by the Home Office. Users cannot create new categories or adjust existing ones, which restricts the kinds of questions researchers can ask. As a result, while the reports are technically public, their full potential as a resource remains difficult to unlock.
Building better access
Our presentation built on earlier consultation work with public and third sector organisations, and we shared some of the next steps we are planning. These will be set out in more detail in an upcoming research protocol paper co-authored with Sumanta Roy, a member of our VISION Advisory Board and Head of Research, Evaluation & Development at Imkaan, and Ravi Thiara, VISION Co-Investigator and Professor at University of Warwick.
Our central idea is to explore the feasibility of creating a structured dataset that summarises the key features of the DHR library. This would capture information such as victim and perpetrator demographics, the commissioning body, safeguarding risks, recommendations, and missed opportunities.
To do this, we are developing a tool that applies text-mining and natural language processing (NLP) techniques to extract information directly from the reports. The resulting dataset will be both searchable and filterable, allowing users to focus on increasingly specific subsets of the material. We also want to build functionality that enables users to download customised sets of reports rather than relying on individual downloads.
How will this help researchers and policymakers?
By improving access, searchability, and flexibility, our project will make it possible to work with DHRs at a scale that has not previously been possible. Instead of relying on small samples or manual searches, researchers will be able to look across hundreds of cases, identify recurring patterns, and ask new kinds of questions. The creation of a structured dataset will also support more consistent and comparable findings, helping to strengthen collaboration between academics, practitioners, and policymakers.
In the longer term, we hope this work will not only make DHR research more efficient but also ensure that the lessons within these reports are more easily applied to safeguarding practice.
Looking back to the conference
Presenting at the Vulnerability and Policing Futures Conference gave us the chance not only to share our ideas but also to test them with an audience of experts. The thoughtful discussions and questions we received will help guide how we take this project forward.
