If We Are Serious About Halving Violence Against Women and Girls, Domestic Abuse Must Be a Test of Devolution

In response to Rewiring the State for Victims and Survivors: Domestic Abuse and the Future of Devolution by Dame Nicole Jacobs, Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales.

The government's ambition to halve Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) is one of the most significant public policy commitments of our time. Yet achieving this ambition will require more than political commitment and national strategies. It will depend on whether public systems are capable of translating ambition into meaningful change in the lives of victims and survivors.

This is why the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s discussion paper is both timely and necessary. At a moment when government is reshaping how public services are organised and delivered, her discussion paper raises a fundamental question: what will devolution mean for victims and survivors of domestic abuse?

Dame Nicole Jacobs argues that domestic abuse should not be treated as a peripheral issue in debates about local governance. Instead, it should be seen as one of the clearest tests of whether devolution succeeds or fails. Domestic abuse sits at the intersection of housing, health, policing, children's services and wider community support, making survivors' experiences a powerful indicator of whether devolved systems are genuinely more joined-up, accountable and effective.

I agree.

However, I believe the conversation must go further.

The challenge before us is not simply how domestic abuse services fit into a devolved landscape. The more fundamental question is whether devolution can help address the systemic conditions that have long undermined effective responses to domestic abuse.

For decades, victims and survivors have been required to navigate fragmented systems. They move between housing departments, police services, health providers, family courts, social care teams and specialist support organisations, often repeating their experiences while encountering different thresholds, priorities and decision-making processes.

This fragmentation is not accidental. It is the product of systems that have evolved separately, are funded differently and governed through distinct accountability arrangements. Responsibility becomes dispersed while survivors are left carrying the burden of fragmented systems.

Devolution Alone Will Not Deliver Transformation

Devolution alone will not solve this problem.

There is a danger in assuming that transferring powers from central government to local areas is inherently transformative. A devolved system can be just as fragmented as a centralised one if the underlying incentives, accountability mechanisms and power structures remain unchanged.

The discussion paper correctly identifies fragmented accountability, siloed budgets and poor coordination as barriers to progress in tackling violence against women and girls. These challenges reinforce why domestic abuse should be understood as a systems issue rather than solely a service delivery issue.

The promise of devolution lies in its potential to create the enabling conditions for systems change.

Even the harshest critics of devolution will likely agree that under the right conditions, devolution could encourage place-based approaches that bring together health, housing, policing, education, skills and employment, and community organisations around shared outcomes. It could strengthen prevention, support earlier intervention and enable local leaders to respond more effectively to local needs.

Yet these opportunities will only be realised if devolution is accompanied by a deliberate effort to redesign how institutions work together.

Too often, public sector reform focuses on structures while neglecting relationships. We create new agencies, redraw boundaries and establish governance arrangements without addressing the cultures, incentives and power dynamics that shape decision-making. The result is often episodic change without systems change.

Domestic Abuse as a Test of Systems Leadership

Domestic abuse provides a powerful test case.

If local areas are serious about creating survivor-centred systems, they must move beyond organisational silos and embrace shared accountability and outcomes. Success should not be measured simply by the number of services commissioned or programmes delivered. It should be measured by whether survivors are safer, whether children and young people are protected from harm, whether repeat victimisation is reduced and whether pathways to recovery become easier to access.

This requires a different model of leadership.

Devolved leaders cannot view domestic abuse solely as the responsibility of specialist services.

Housing policy affects survivors.

Economic development and good growth affects survivors.

Public health approaches affect survivors.

Education affects survivors.

Domestic abuse is not confined to a single department or budget line. It is a whole system challenge requiring a whole system response. This is precisely why I have argued for a stronger systems lens in the co-edited volume tackling domestic abuse and sexual violence.

This is also a question of power redistribution. Yet, one of the most overlooked dimensions of devolution is who gets to influence priorities and shape decisions. Survivors and specialist organisations possess knowledge that must meaningfully inform strategy documents or performance frameworks. Their lived/living experience provides critical insight into how systems operate in practice and where they fail.

If devolution is genuinely about bringing decision-making closer to communities, then survivors and specialist organisations must have a meaningful role in shaping local responses. Consultation alone is not enough. Their expertise should help inform strategy, commissioning and accountability.

At the same time, we must avoid exacerbating the postcode lottery of support issue. Local innovation is important, but innovation cannot come at the expense of consistency. Survivors should not face radically different levels of protection or support simply because they live in different parts of the country.

Measures of Success

For me, this is another reason why the discussion paper matters. The conversation ceases to be about the mechanics of devolution and becomes something far more important: whether we are prepared to redesign public systems around the realities of survivors' lives.

Ultimately, the future of devolution should not be judged by the number of powers transferred from Westminster, the creation of new governance structures or the expansion of mayoral authorities. These are means, not ends.

The true measure of success will be whether people's lives improve.

Will victims and survivors find it easier to access support? Will children and young people experience greater safety and stability? Will communities become better equipped to prevent abuse before it escalates into crisis? Will institutions learn to work collectively rather than defensively?

These are the questions that matter.

The discussion paper is therefore more than a contribution to the devolution debate. It is a challenge to policymakers, practitioners, researchers and local leaders alike. It asks whether we are prepared to move beyond the radical reset rhethoric, and confront the structural barriers that continue to undermine our response to domestic abuse.

The question posed by the discussion paper is therefore not whether domestic abuse has a place within the devolution agenda. It is whether devolution can become the catalyst for a fundamentally different way of governing: one that dismantles silos, shares accountability, centres lived experience and delivers meaningful outcomes for those who have too often been failed by public systems.

For too long, domestic abuse policy has been characterised by a rich body of knowledge but less coordinated action. We understand the consequences of fragmented commissioning. We understand the limitations of siloed working. We understand the importance of prevention, early intervention and survivor-centred practice. The challenge is no longer one of evidence. It is one of implementation, leadership and political will.

This is why devolution matters.

Not because it offers another opportunity to redesign governance structures, but because it offers an opportunity to redesign how the state responds to harm. At its best, devolution can help shift public services from fragmentation to integration, from crisis response to prevention, and from organisational accountability to collective responsibility for outcomes.

But that Shift is not inevitable.

Without a commitment to systems thinking, devolution risks becoming little more than the redistribution of power across existing structures. Responsibilities may move, boundaries may change and new institutions may emerge, but survivors will continue to encounter the same barriers in different forms.

The true test of devolution will not be whether power moves closer to communities. It will be whether justice, safety and support move closer to survivors.

Come 2034, nobody will care how many powers were devolved or how many governance reforms were enacted. What will matter is whether a survivor fleeing abuse could access safe housing without delay; whether children and young people affected by domestic abuse received support before trauma became crisis; whether public services acted together rather than apart; and whether victims experienced dignity and justice, instead of bureaucracy and systemic harm.

That is the standard against which devolution should be judged.

If we are serious about halving violence against women and girls, then domestic abuse cannot be treated as a specialist or niche concern sitting on the margins of public service reform. It must become a central measure of whether public service reform is working at all.

The discussion paper challenges us to imagine what a different future could look like. The responsibility now lies with all of us, policymakers, devolved authorities, commissioners, practitioners, researchers and community organisations, to ensure that this vision translates into action. The opportunity before us is not simply to devolve power. It is to rewire the state around the lives of those it exists to serve.

And that is why domestic abuse should not merely be part of the conversation about devolution. Re-centring domestic abuse as a pressing challenge provides a powerful lens through which to assess whether the ambitions for public service reform, system integration and the halving of violence against women and girls are being realised in practice.