Presence of IDVAs in court hearings may ‘backfire’ on victims, study finds

Research by Cambridge University showed more than 40 per cent of victims reported repeat crimes after trials were held with an IDVA, figures described as “concerning” by Assistant Chief Constable Jackie Sebire, co-author of the study.

John Ross, a retired police officer who was lead author of the new study in the Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing, tracked more than 550 trials in a specialist magistrates’ court between 2016 and 18, including records of new crimes committed against the victims after the trials were completed.

While 42 per cent of the victims reported repeat crimes after trials were held with IDVAs present, only 21 per cent of victims were re-victimised if the trial occurred on days when IDVAs were not present.

Ms Sebire, a Visiting Fellow at the university’s Institute of Criminology, said: “Whilst in no way dismissing the professionalism and commitment of individual IDVAs, these findings are concerning. It is so important to evaluate how processes work through research to ensure we are effectively protecting victims who cooperate with prosecutions.”

IDVAs are specially trained and operate independently of the criminal justice system. They aim to serve as the primary point of contact for victims, operating as their advocates with other agencies and supporting safety planning for those at highest risk. The provision of IDVA services is a key feature of the Government’s 2018 Victim Strategy.

The study, conducted at Cambridge University by Mr Ross as a Master’s thesis under Ms Sebire’s supervision, included all 559 trials in one specialist court from June 2016 to December 2018. IDVAs were present on the starting day of 84 per cent of the trials while the remaining 16 per cent started on days when no IDVAs were present. Decisions on what day cases were heard were made at random by the Court Listing Office with no information made available to it about the victims or defendants.

The two groups were compared across 23 characteristics and were found to be substantially equivalent. The researchers said this provided an opportunity for a natural experiment to assess the effect of IDVA services.

The study found that trials in which victims were supported by IDVAs were 12 per cent less likely than those in the comparison group to result in conviction; there was also an almost doubling of risk of a repeat domestic abuse incidents in the 18 months following the trial and the harm associated with these incidents was substantially higher.

“By its research design, this study can only report on correlation not causation,’’ said Dr Heather Strang, director of the Jerry Lee Centre of Experimental Criminology at Cambridge and president of the Academy of Experimental Criminology.

“While there is clearly a correlation between the presence of IDVAs at the court and victims suffering worse outcomes, that does not necessarily mean the opportunity for an IDVA causes those outcomes. That conclusion is beyond the reach of this research, which is not a randomised controlled trial.”

The researchers acknowledge the limitations of the study’s design and say the findings should be treated with caution.

“It does not conclude with any strong assertions about the value of IDVA services deployed in a court setting or more generally, but it does suggest a need for the sector to consider whether outcomes might not be as intended,” says the study. “IDVA services have in the past been evaluated via qualitative feedback from recipients, with victim satisfaction as the main criterion especially feelings of safety, rather than whether a victim was kept safe or safer, which is quite different. This research provides opportunity for commissioners to be challenged about what their objectives are in providing an IDVA service and importantly, on what criteria their achievement should be assessed.”

The study is available at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41887-022-00072-z