Despite a growing recognition that children and young people experience harm in their romantic relationships, young people’s voices are rarely heard in research on teenage relationship abuse (TRA), including on how to undertake such research with young people with lived experience.
Involving Young People in Research on Abuse: Young People’s Perspectives is a short report from VISION Research Fellows Polina Obolenskaya and Annie Bunce and colleagues that draws on the perspectives of four young people (aged 18 to 25). These views were expressed during an online workshop as a result of having experienced harmful relationships when they were 13 to 16 years old.
Thematic analysis identified five key themes from their discussions:
Participating in research has psychological and practical benefits for young people but they still appreciate remuneration;
It is important to reach out to as many young people as possible to broaden knowledge and perspectives of teenage relationship abuse;
Researchers’ use of language around teenage relationship abuse is vital for involving young people in a meaningful way and for research quality;
Providing choice, safety and clarity helps encourage young people to get involved and maintain their engagement in the research process;
It is important to young people that they are kept informed about how their voices are shaping the research and driving change.
The report concludes with some practical recommendations for researchers.
Violence and abuse in children and young people’s intimate relationships are frequently overlooked in research and policy, falling between child protection and Domestic Abuse policy. Focused work with young people with lived experience of harmful relationships is needed to ensure their voices are incorporated in research, policy and practice.
Too Soon Too Late: Young People’s Perspectives on Experience of Teenage Relationship Abuse and Professional Support, a study from VISION Research Fellows Polina Obolenskaya and Annie Bunce and colleagues, explores young people’s thoughts on experiences of violence and abuse in romantic relationships, including recognition, help-seeking, and professional support. The team draws on lived experience accounts of four young people aged 18-25 who experienced harm in their romantic relationships when aged 13-16 (via an online workshop).
This work was designed and co-produced by academics and a domestic abuse charity, SafeLives, as well as three young people from their ‘Changemakers’ network, some of whom had also experienced abuse, who facilitated the workshop.
The workshop transcript was coanalyzed using thematic analysis. Three themes were identified:
violence and abuse in romantic relationships are not easily identifiable/recognizable in those aged 13-16, including among those who appear to be “doing well”;
there are inadequacies and inconsistencies in the professional response; and
earlier identification and more effective responses to harmful behaviors are crucial.
The study concludes that to improve recognition, identification, and responses to harm in teenage relationships, the following is required: adopting consistent and relatable terminology; empowering teachers to spot the signs of harm and strengthening communication between agencies; and tailoring responses to abuse among young people to their specific needs.
To cite: Obolenskaya, Polina and Bunce, Annie and Balachandran, Imi and Balachandran, Maya and Beat, Ellie and Waller, Kristie, Too Soon Too Late: Young People’s Perspectives on Experience of Teenage Relationship Abuse and Professional Support (October 06, 2026). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=7570859 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.7570859
Domestic abuse (DA) is a public health problem with wide-ranging impacts for victim-survivors and services responding to it. The purpose of the current study was to explore relationships between victim-survivors’ experiences of abuse, additional needs/vulnerabilities and sociodemographic characteristics, and physical and mental health outcomes and health care help-seeking behaviours following DA.
The team used a series of logistic regression models to understand the relationship between:
abuse types (physical, sexual, emotional, financial, coercive control, technology-facilitated abuse (tech abuse) and threats to kill);
needs/vulnerabilities (disability; offending, drug and alcohol-related support needs; pregnancy, recourse to public funds and accessing by-and-for services);
health outcomes (perpetrator caused harm to or loss of unborn child;
attempted strangulation;
self-harm (disclosed);
feeling depressed or suicidal;
injury requiring GP treatment; and
injury requiring Accident and Emergency (A&E) treatment).
Stakeholders from Women’s Aid and five other third sector organisations input into the study design and interpretation of results.
The study found:
Ninety-six percent of victim-survivors accessing DA services (n = 77,785) were female
Almost half (41.24%) had felt depressed/suicidal
5.59% disclosed having self-harmed
Almost one quarter (23.41%) had suffered a strangulation attempt
2.54% had suffered harm to or loss of their unborn child caused by the perpetrator
Just under 10% had an injury requiring A&E treatment
7.33% had an injury requiring GP treatment
Associations with the type of abuse varied by health outcome, for example physical abuse followed by threats to kill were most strongly associated with attempted strangulation and injuries requiring GP and A&E treatment, whilst tech abuse was most strongly associated with self-harm and feeling depressed/suicidal. Vulnerabilities/needs were more consistently associated with health outcomes, with those with a disability; drug, alcohol or offending support needs, or living in temporary/unstable accommodation more likely to experience negative outcomes across the board, and almost all needs/vulnerabilities being associated with adverse mental health outcomes (with the exception of pregnancy and accessing specialist by-and-for services, which appeared to have a protective effect).
The results highlight the almost inevitable harms to mental health for victim-survivors of DA, the dangers of non-physical types of abuse such as threats to kill and tech abuse and the heightened risk of attempted strangulation. These findings have particularly important and timely implications for the training of health care professionals. Alongside improvements in health care settings, health care professionals, specialist support workers, researchers and policymakers must continue to explore more integrative and collaborative ways of working to further improve the response to DA and intervene before irreversible damage is done.
To cite: Bunce A, Davies E, Barbosa EC. Health outcomes of victim-survivors accessing specialist domestic abuse services: the role of abuse experience, vulnerabilities and sociodemographic characteristics. BMC Womens Health. 2026 May 23;26(1):363. doi: 10.1186/s12905-026-04518-8. PMID: 42177560; PMCID: PMC13374347.
Over the years, nay decades, I have become used to academic conferences, with opportunities to meet colleagues across – in my case – the primary care and violence research landscapes and hear what they have been up to. Our conferences are mostly modest affairs with (relatively) tight budgets and far from policy impact.
A couple of weeks ago I landed in the parallel universe of a conference devoted to policy and leveraging governmental action. BIT, the organiser, started out as the Cabinet Office’s Behavioural Insights team 16 years ago. Spinning out from government, it is now a global consulting firm with specific expertise in conducting multi-sectoral randomised controlled trials.
The Policy Live conference was in County Hall, right across from the Houses of Parliament, which made it easy for a minister and a couple of MPs to attend. The venue was definitely high-end, as was the food and the coffee on tap from a machine that looked like it could fly to the moon. And I have never been in a green room before.
Addressing the evidence gap: violence against women and girls
I was invited to sit on a panel to discuss The evidence gap: What it will take to halve violence against women and girls. The panel was chaired by Helen Brown, UK Managing Director of The Behavioural Insights Team with Seyi Akiwowo, (founder of Glitch, a UK non-profit dedicated to ending online abuse and misogyny), and Jess Phillips one of the MPs who came across Westminster Bridge to the conference and (recent) ex-Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG).
It was an opportunity to hear about the challenge of reducing online abuse and the difficult task of implementing the national VAWG strategy, in which Jess played a central role until she resigned in the dying days of the Starmer premiership. Violence against women and girls is a violation of human rights with severe and persistent damage to health. In the UK, a woman is killed by a man every three days, and 1.6 million women experience domestic abuse every year. Yet, until relatively recently, the health sector has lagged behind criminal justice and the voluntary sectors in responding to this pandemic.
I spoke about the health care response to domestic abuse, which has finally had the political attention and (some) national resource needed for the implementation and scaling up of evidence-based programmes. In identifying some of the obstacles I highlighted the dis-connect between the Department for Health and Social Care’s development of the national Steps to Safety programme and deployment of the research and the cumulative expertise of IRISi, the social enterprise that has scaled up the primary care response nationally.*
Emerging themes
The advantage of a panel over individual presentations is the conversation within the panel and synthetic themes that emerge. One that stood out for me was the tension between the long-standing expertise of the domestic abuse sector and the short institutional memory of government departments, with inevitable inertia not necessarily about policy but in resourcing implementation.
The siloing of domestic abuse prevention policy nationally and locally was another theme, which means that new dimensions and tools of abuse, not least in online spaces, do not get an integrated policy response.
Audience and impact
So, who was listening? Looking out at the audience, unlike my academic conferences, I only recognised a couple of faces. My sense from conversations overheard in the social area and green room is that most were policy professionals or political advisors.
My hope is that our conversation made a constructive contribution to clarifying VAWG prevention priorities, clarifying where we do have evidence and where we don’t, and naming some of the obstacles to putting that evidence into practice.
* Conflict of interest disclosure: I am a non-executive director of IRISi.
In collaboration with Imkaan, the UK’s only national feminist umbrella organisation dedicated to addressing violence against Black and minoritsed women and girls, VISION Research Fellow, Dr Hannah Manzur, wrote two policies on the intersectionality of ethnicity, sex, gender, and violence focussing first on access to specialist services and second, through a systems theory approach.
The first policy briefing, Ethnic Inequalities in Violence Series: Specialist Services, is based on VISION research on ethnic inequalities, gendered violence, and specialist services. The research team finds critical inequalities in Black and minoritised women’s access to support and emphasises the need for a sustainably funded ‘By and For’ Sector.
The second policy briefing, Ethnic Inequalities in Violence Series: Systems Response, also uses VISION research on ethnic inequalities but looks at violence risks, harms, and service responses from a systems theory approach. This briefing identifies compounding disadvantages, intersecting inequalities, and critical gaps and disparities in victim-survivors’ services access and treatment.
Supporting Specialist Services for Black and Minoritised Women Victims of Violence: Access, Impact, & Resources
Specialist services provide life-saving support to people experiencing domestic and sexual violence, including trauma-informed and VAWG-sensitive care, counselling, legal and medical support, safety planning, advocacy, and crisis interventions delivered by trained caseworkers and practitioners. Led by Black and minoritised women, specialist ‘By and For’ services[1] are particularly important in offering essential holistic, wrap-around support, including intersectional advocacy, tailored to the specific needs and experiences of Black and minoritised women victim-survivors. Despite this, specialist services, particularly the ‘By and For’ sector, are constrained by chronic underfunding, limited inclusion and recognition of their expertise, and increased demand for services in an increasingly hostile political landscape for Black and minoritised communities and victim-survivors of violence.
Key Recommendations
Funding: adequate, secured, and sustainable funding for specialist services with increased and ring-fenced ‘By and For’ funding.
Recognition: formally recognise ‘By and For’ services as a distinct and essential model of VAWG prevention.
No Recourse for Public Funds (NRPF): urgently repeal the NRPF condition.
Data: introduce a data firewall for migrant victims, improve national ethnicity data, fund specialist services’ data-infrastucture projects, and engage ‘By and For’ expertise.
Accessibility: evaluate national accessibility to specialist services, especially ‘By and For’ closures and reductions.
Training: statutory services training in service provision tailored to Black and minoritised women victims.
Collaboration: investment in collaborative partnerships, training, and referral protocols, led by ‘By and For’ expertise.
Ethnic Inequalities in Violence: Addressing Compounding Disadvantage and Institutional Engagement through a Systems Response to Violence
From data to policy to services, the systems designed to address the complex needs of violence victim-survivors of violence often fall short. Disjointed services, difficult pathways to support, and critical gaps in service provision create a complex system which victim-survivors, particularly those experiencing domestic and sexual violence, are expected to navigate to access support. For Black and minoritised victim-survivors of domestic and sexual violence, violence causes and contexts, risks, harms, and support needs are shaped by both intersecting inequalities and compounding disadvantages. The combination of existing social disadvantages, under-funded and non-specialist public and specialist services, and disjointed and complex systems[2] requires urgently addressing from an intersectional and systems-based response to violence prevention and victim support.
Key Recommendations
Systems-level responses: Targeted interventions and support provision must be integrated into a systems-level approach through cross-sectoral and multi-agency collaboration. Include funded advisory roles for specialist ‘By and For’ services representatives as systems leaders, not only referal partners.
Build data and evidence linkages and expand cross-sectoral comparative research.
Remove cross-sectoral barriers to support, including repealing the NRPF, introducing data-sharing firewalls, and enhance statutory duties.
Invest in comparative and intersectional research which integrates multiple social contexts and axes of inequality.
[2] VISION’s systems theory approach was led by Dr Olumide Adisa. See for example: Adisa 2024, 2025.
To cite the Specialist Services briefing: Manzur, H. 2026. Supporting Specialist Services for Black and Minoritised Women Victims of Violence: A VISION Research and Policy Briefing in collaboration with Imkaan. London: VISION, Imkaan. https://doi.org/10.25383/city.33524527
To cite the Systems Response briefing: Manzur, H. 2026. Ethnic Inequalities in Violence: Addressing Compounding Disadvantage and Institutional Engagement through a Systems Response to Violence. A VISION Research & Policy Briefing in collaboration with Imkaan. London: VISION, Imkaan. https://doi.org/10.25383/city.33527260
This event is in person only and catering will be provided
Imkaan, the UK’s only national umbrella organisation for Black and minoritised ‘by and for’ VAWG (violence against women and girls) organisations and the UK Prevention Research Partnership VISION consortium warmly invite you to a showcase of ground-breaking research that brings into sharp focus the stark inequalities faced by Black and minoritised women and girls subjected to violence and abuse — and the vital role of specialist ‘by and for’ Black and minoritised VAWG organisations in supporting them.
Chaired by Professor Ravi Thiara from the VISION consortium and the University of Warwick and featuring the London Victims’ Commissioner, Andrea Simon, the event will bring together voices from academia, VAWG sector policy research and specialist frontline practice. Together, we will launch a new report from Imkaan’s research team —exploring the current state of the specialist ‘by and for’ sector, the life-saving support it provides, and the funding inequalities, sustainability challenges and barriers it continues to face, alongside examples of promising practice.
We are pleased to welcome Shaminder Ubhi, Executive Director of Ashiana Network, a pioneering ‘by and for’ organisation with over three decades of experience providing intersectional, holistic and trauma-informed VAWG support to Black and minoritised women and girls. We will also be joined by Dr Hannah Manzur (VISION consortium and City St George’s), who will share innovative research synthesising key findings on the harms, challenges and barriers faced by Black and minoritised women who have experienced VAWG, as well as the role of specialist ‘by and for’ organisations.
The programme will be added to this page very soon.
For more information about the event please contact Rani Selvarajah, Research & Policy Manager, Imkaan at rani@imkaan.org.uk.
The fifth VISION annual conference was held on 7 July at The Light Auditorium in Friends House. The theme was Violence prevention in dialogue: Research and Policy.
After five years of research looking at violence prevention and the resulting health inequalities and focusing on improved measurement, policy, and practice, and delivering through a strong cross-sector partnership, we showcased our research in partnership with stakeholders Refuge, High Trees, Migrants’ Rights Network, Gloucestershire police constabulary, and Revolving Doors. In addition, we invited those working in violence prevention to critically assess our contributions and identify where further research and prioritised focus are required.
Jo Todd of Respect and Professor Gene Feder, VISION Director, reflected on 25 years of working in violence prevention as frontline practitioners and researchers. Drawing on their extensive experience, they highlighted both the progress made and the challenges that remain. While collaboration between government, academia, and the third sector has improved, longstanding silos—particularly across the health and criminal justice sectors—persist. Overcoming these barriers requires sustained commitment to relationship-building and cross-sector working.
They noted that significant progress has been made in violence prevention policy, including the publication of the government’s Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) strategy last year. However, there remains considerable interest in how the incoming Prime Minister will take forward the Labour government’s commitment to halve violence against women and girls within a decade, and what this will mean for future policy, practice, and investment.
Professor Liz Kelly from London Metropolitan University was our 2nd keynote speaker and shared her thoughts on the language and naming of violence in the 21st century. Liz highlighted that language changes not just what we say but what we know and recognise. The words we use in the field as researchers, analysts, policymakers, officials, and practitioners matter and should be clear and grounded in victim / survivor agency and freedom.
VISION research was highlighted in three symposiums:
Insight: Key findings on definitions and measurement within violence prevention
Dr Vishal Bhavsar (Kings College London) and Professor Miranda Horvath (University of Suffolk) presented on intimate partner violence perpetration.
Dr Madeleine Janickyj (University College London) and Emma Pickering (Refuge) presented on technology facilitated abuse.
Inclusion: Violence prevention research with marginalised populations
Dr Alexandria Innes (City St George’s UoL), Aya Khedairi (Migrants’ Rights Network) and Professor Gargi Bhattacharyya (University College London) presented on insecure migration status. Andri and Aya discussed their project, Understanding Violence: the risks for migrants with rising far-right fascism and the resulting output, Workbook: Migrant Community Insights on Building Safety. Gargi highlighted how the far right is misusing genuine work and research and that media discussion of VAWG frequently descends into racism and incitement.
Dr Annie Bunce (City St George’s UoL) and Lauren Bennett and Anthony Donohoe from Revolving Doors presented their work on developing principles for co-analysis with Lived Experience.
Involve: A look at two ongoing, impactful pieces of VISION research with partners
Dr Elizabeth Cook (City St George’s UoL) and Harry Jenkins (High Trees) presented their collaborative research developing Built on Trust, a report with youth from Lambeth in London on the role of youth spaces and trusted adults in reducing young people’s exposure to violence.
Dr Ruth Weir (City St George’s UoL) and Sophie Jarrett (Gloucestershire Police) presented on their system-wide partnership with central and local government, police, education trusts, and the third sector to understand and prevent teenage relationship abuse (TRA). This work has resulted in the establishment of a national group on TRA and a local group wtihin Gloucestershire.
VISION co-Deputy Directors, Professor Sally McManus (City St George’s UoL) and Dr Estela Capelas Barbosa (University of Bristol) closed the conference by reflecting on the achievements of the VISION consortium and outlining priorities for the future of violence prevention research, policy, and practice. Sally highlighted the wide range of datasets, tools, resources, and publications developed by VISION over the past five years. Looking ahead, Estela emphasised the need for further research on violence affecting LGBTQI+ communities and minoritised women and children. She also stressed the importance of breaking down the persistent silos between the health and criminal justice sectors, noting that the impacts of violence extend across both systems. Effective prevention and support therefore require joined-up services, coordinated policies, and cross-sector collaboration.
Visual artists, Abigail and Chloe Baldwin, from Buttercrumble, beautifully captured the day in a series of illustrations which can be downloaded below along with the keynote and symposium presentations.
During summer 2026, Darren Cook was invited by Apolitical, an online social learning network, to write a case study on the VISION AI policy tool. Darren summarises the problem of fragmented violence prevention policy responses across government and third sector organisations which makes it difficult to identify where priorities overlap and the gaps and inconsistencies exist. This problem provided the motivation to create the proof-of-concept VISION AI tool. Its ability to synthesise evidence from a curated collection of UK violence-related policy documents in response to plain-language questions is one solution to the problem. Darren’s article, Artificial intelligence in the critical synthesis of public health responses to violence, builds on the narrative in the VISION research below.
Original blog – April 2026
Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly applied in public health, yet their use for analysing fragmented, multi-sectoral policy landscapes remains underdeveloped. Many applications have focused on service delivery, such as AI-powered chatbots, data surveillance and monitoring, and tracking social media interactions for emerging risks, with less attention paid to how AI might support policy analysis. This is especially true for the violence prevention sector, where AI is gaining traction as a solution for triaging help-seeking calls, detecting threatening messages, predicting conflict and improving police data, but not for understanding the policy landscape.
Policy responses to violence are undergoing scrutiny in the UK, coinciding with the recent publication of an updated cross-government strategy addressing violence against women and girls. This renewed focus places increased demands on researchers and policymakers to rapidly synthesise large and fragmented bodies of policy evidence spanning multiple sectors and both local and national government. Traditional approaches to policy review formed around a wholly manual approach may struggle to meet these demands within policy-relevant timeframes.
This research, an exploratory, proof-of-concept case study, aimed to describe the development and preliminary exploration of an AI-enabled tool designed to synthesise evidence from violence-related policy documents in the UK. The team was led by VISION Research Fellow Dr Darren Cook and inlcuded several members from the wider VISION consortium, Dr Elizabeth Cook, Kimberly Cullen, Professor Sally McManus, Professor Gene Feder and Professor Mark Bellis.
Then, they used the corpus to train an existing AI framework and deployed it through a question-answer interface. Stakeholders working in violence prevention (academics, practitioners in specialist services and government officials) were invited to pose natural-language questions about violence policy and consider the system’s utility and the usefulness of its outputs. Their feedback indicated that the AI generated reports were well-grounded in the underlying source documents. Syntheses aligned closely with the documents in the tool, and the inclusion of document references and page-level citations supported credibility assessments. Corpus coverage statistics were considered particularly helpful when judging the robustness of responses.
This research contributes by documenting the early application of an AI-enabled tool designed to support exploratory policy analysis. The team illustrates an emerging analytic capability and its potential role within policy-oriented research workflows. By demonstrating how a document-grounded, closed-domain AI system can be used to interrogate policy framings and identify potential siloes, this work addresses a gap in current public health applications of AI, specifically in the context of violence prevention.
To cite: Cook, D., Cook, E., Cullen, K., Zachos, K., McManus, S., Feder, G., Bellis, M., Maiden, N. Artificial intelligence in critical synthesis of public health responses to violence: A novel application to UK violence prevention policy. Science Direct (2026).https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-026-00272-2
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.
Consultation, evidence and inquiry submissions are an important part of our work at VISION. Responding to Parliamentary, government and non-government organisation consultations ensures that a wide range of opinions and voices are factored into the policy decision making process. As our interdisciplinary research addresses violence and how it cuts across health, crime and justice and the life course, we think it is important to take the time to answer any relevant call and to share our insight and findings to support improved policy and practice. We respond as VISION, the Violence & Society Centre, and sometimes in collaboration with others. Below are the links to our published responses and evidence from June 2022.
UK Parliament – International Development Committee – Inquiry: Women, Peace and Security. Our submission was published in March 2026
UK Parliament (Library) – POSTNote – Approved Work: Violence Against Women and Girls in schools and among children & young people. Two VISION reports were referenced in their POSTNote published in August 2025
UK Parliament – Public Accounts Committee – Inquiry: Tackling Violence against Women and Girls (VAWG). Our submission was published in April 2025
UK Parliament – House of Lords Select Committee on Social Mobility Policy – Call for Evidence: Exploring how education and work opportunities can be better integrated to improve social mobility across the UK. Our submission was published in 2025
UK Parliament – Women and Equalities Committee – Inquiry: Community Cohesion. Our submission was published in February 2025
UK Parliament – Call for evidence on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. Our submission was published in February 2025
UK Parliament – Public Accounts Committee – Inquiry: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Government. Our submission was published in January 2025
UK Parliament – Public Accounts Committee – Inquiry: Tackling Homelessness. Our submission with Dr Natasha Chilman was published in January 2025. See the full report
UK Parliament – Women and Equalities Committee – Inquiry: The rights of older people. Our submission was published in November 2023
UK Parliament – Women and Equalities Committee – Inquiry: The impact of the rising cost of living on women. Our submission was published in November 2023
UK Parliament – Women and Equalities Committee – Inquiry: The escalation of violence against women and girls. Our submission published in September 2023
Home Office – Legislation consultation: Machetes and other bladed articles: proposed legislation (submitted response 06/06/2023). Government response to consultation and summary of public responses was published in August 2023
Race Disparity Unit (RDU) – Consultation: Standards for Ethnicity Data (submitted response 30/08/2022). Following the consultation, a revised version of the data standards was published in April 2023
UK Parliament – The Home Affairs Committee – Call for evidence: Human Trafficking. Our submission was published in March 2023
UK Parliament – The Justice and Home Affairs Committee – Inquiry: Family migration. Our submission was published in September 2022 and a report was published following the inquiry in February 2023
Home Office – Consultation: Controlling or Coercive behaviour Statutory Guidance. Our submission was published in June 2022
