By Jonathan Hussey
Commissioners and practitioners need to be able to explain why they believe a domestic abuse perpetrator is making progress. That judgement informs risk management, service delivery and decisions about public money. It also carries consequences for victims and children.
The following four key measures provide a starting point for discussion. This is not a comprehensive list. The purpose is to examine what each measure tells us, where its limits lie and how the evidence fits together.
One. Let victim feedback lead the assessment.
Victim feedback should lead the assessment, with an independent process for obtaining and verifying it. Whether the victim is a current or former partner, we need to understand what has changed in their daily life. Do they feel safer? Can they disagree, make decisions and maintain relationships without intimidation or repercussions? Has the perpetrator respected boundaries, including after separation? These experiences help us assess whether change extends beyond the intervention setting.
Feedback should come directly from the victim, through someone independent of the perpetrator and the practitioner delivering the intervention. The process should be safe, voluntary and verifiable, with confidentiality protected and its limits explained. Victims must not feel responsible for demonstrating whether an intervention has worked.
Where feedback is unavailable, that gap should be acknowledged. It cannot be treated as evidence that abuse has stopped.
Two. Examine reoffending and police call-outs over a defined period.
We should examine recorded reoffending and police call-outs over a clearly defined period. Providers should identify the baseline, the information sources and the length of follow-up. Frequency matters, but so do the nature and seriousness of incidents. The assessment should include relevant behaviour beyond the family home, particularly post-separation abuse, stalking and harassment.
An absence of further recorded incidents is encouraging, but it leaves questions about unreported abuse and continuing coercive control. Fewer call-outs may also reflect changes in reporting. Police information should therefore be considered alongside the victim’s account and other professional evidence.
Commissioners need to know whether an apparent reduction is sustained, and whether the available information supports a conclusion of improved safety.
Three. Use attitudinal questionnaires, but not on their own.
Where an intervention has taken place, pre- and post-intervention attitudinal questionnaires can help assess changes in thinking. Tools should be appropriate to the intervention and population, validated where available, and interpreted by a suitably qualified professional with domestic abuse expertise. The assessment should explain what has changed, how the scores support that judgement and what they cannot establish.
Taking responsibility, challenging entitlement and recognising controlling behaviour are relevant areas to examine. Improved scores, however, need to be considered against conduct outside sessions. A perpetrator may be able to describe respectful behaviour before consistently practising it. Follow-up helps assess whether apparent gains persist.
Questionnaires contribute to professional judgement; they should not determine the conclusion on their own.
Four. Seek feedback from the professionals around the family.
Feedback should be sought from key stakeholders working with the family or either individual. This may include probation, police, children’s services and specialist domestic abuse support. Their contribution should identify specific observations, their source and how recent they are. Information must be shared safely and appropriately, with clear arrangements for responding to concerns.
Different accounts require attention. A positive report from one professional does not resolve a serious concern raised by another. The task is to understand the discrepancy and its implications for safety.
Bringing these perspectives together can reveal patterns that would be missed if each service assessed progress in isolation.
Bringing the evidence together
Commissioners and providers should agree definitions and follow-up points before delivery begins, and reporting should show missing information and outcomes for people who leave early. Practitioners need room to record uncertainty and challenge apparently positive findings.
These measures can strengthen an assessment of progress, although they do not by themselves prove that an intervention caused it. Confidence should rest on a transparent account of the evidence, with the safety and freedom of victims and children guiding every judgement.