Survivors Manchester believes
All male survivors of sexual abuse, rape and sexual exploitation have the right to be seen, heard and guaranteed free access to quality assured/survivor-centric care in lifelong healing from unwanted and abusive experiences We believe that male survivors have the ability to cope and recover to a positive future free from pain of the past.
Version: 001
The Victims Bill Consultation The Victims Bill consultation is the first significant step towards the passing of what is described as a landmark moment in a generation – the ‘Victims’ Law’, which will build on the foundations provided by the Victims’ Code to substantially improve victims’ experiences of the criminal justice system. The aim and commitment is that the new law will make a tangible difference to ensuring all victims of crime receive the support they need through and beyond the criminal justice process. This consultation will consider how we can make concrete improvements to victims’ experience of and confidence in the criminal justice system, and their support. The resulting legislation will be the cornerstone of our work across government to ensure that victims’ needs lie at the heart of the criminal justice system. The consultation asks questions across five key issues, focusing on: • • • • •
What victims should expect Performance and accountability The Victim Surcharge Community-based support services Improved advocacy support
This consultation is open to the public. We would be particularly interested to hear from victims of crime, organisations representing victims, the police, criminal justice practitioners, service providers, health care professionals, Police and Crime Commissioners, local authorities and community safety partnerships. Whilst Survivors Manchester is a provider of services to male survivors of sexual abuse, rape and sexual exploitation (along with their loved ones), as one of only four male specific organisations across the UK and a leader in the sector, the organisation commits to playing its part in disseminating knowledge gathered from formal research and more importantly, lived experience. This is a core component of Survivors Manchester’s charitable aims (aim 4) as follows:
To provide education, training and awareness raising campaigns around the issue of the sexual abuse and violation of males of all ages and backgrounds, whilst continuing to learn from our work and respond effectively to new knowledge and identified needs Survivors Manchester would like to thank the Ministry of Justice for their support in enabling the organisation to develop and facilitate this consultation project which means that the voices of male survivors are heard and useful to future understanding of male survivors needs.
About the Engagement Event Survivors Manchester has partnered with the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) to deliver on behalf of the MOJ, a consultation event for male victim/survivors of Sexual Abuse, Rape or Sexual Exploitation. The purpose of the event is to collect the thoughts, opinions and experiences of male survivors on questions relating to the proposed ‘Victims Law’ with the once in a generation intention to influence the development of the law that will better fit for sexual abuse victims/survivors.
Confidentiality All participants agree to adhere to Survivors Manchester’s confidentiality agreement, providing all individuals with the safety of anonymity and restricting members of the consultation from discussing other’s experiences or comments outside of the consultation. However, this does not preclude individuals from talking to anyone they choose as to their own input into the consultation or identifying themselves as a participant. The limits Survivors Manchester has to confidentiality within the consultation is that if identified that anyone is at immediate risk of harm to self or other, then there may be a need to discuss this outside of the consultation and/or the organisation.
Rules of Engagement •
Participants must be invited by Survivors Manchester and are ‘actively’ open engagement
•
Conversations, comments, ideas and opinions will be confidential, unless identified that an individual is at immediate risk of harm to self or other(s) and participants agree to keep all other participants identity anonymous
•
The event will be contained to the date, time and venue, unless agreed by both the participant and Survivors Manchester
•
Survivors Manchester will have the responsibility for writing up the report that will be submitted to the MOJ
•
Survivors Manchester will seek explicit agreement from all participants for their contributions to be passed on to the Ministry of Justice and used in a confidential, anonymised format as part of the Victims’ Bill Consultation
•
The report will be submitted to the MOJ by 4:00pm on Wednesday 2 February
Structure •
The event will take place on Monday 24 January at 7:00pm – 8:30pm (doors open from 6:15pm)
•
The event will take place at Survivors Manchester, Unit 8 Deva City Office Park, Trinity Way, Salford, M3 7BB**
•
The event will be facilitated by Duncan Craig, Founder / Chief Executive Officer of Survivors Manchester
•
Refreshments (food and drink) will be available at the event at no expense to individual participants
•
Survivors Manchester will reimburse all participants reasonable travel expenses and £50 per participant in lieu of their time/expertise, which will be reimbursed by Survivors Manchester direct to the individuals bank account within 7 days of the event
**Any individual who is confirmed as being a part of the event who is unable to join due to unplanned COVID19 isolation / impact will be offered the opportunity to undertake a telephone 1:1 with the facilitator.
Participants 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.
[VBCSM1]: Survivor of childhood sexual abuse in a community setting and adult sexual exploitation [VBCSM2]: Survivor of adult rape [VBCSM3]: Survivor of adult sexual assault and attempted rape [VBCSM4]: Survivor of childhood sexual abuse in an education setting [VBCSM5]: Survivor of childhood sexual abuse and adult rape [VBCSM6]: Survivor of organised childhood sexual exploitation [VBCSM7]: Survivor of teenage peer-sexual abuse in education setting [VBCSM8]: Survivor of childhood sexual abuse in sport and leisure setting [VBCSM9]: Survivor of teenage sexual exploitation and survivor of CSAM (child sexual abuse material) [VBCSM10]: Survivor of childhood sexual abuse [VBCSM11]: Survivor of childhood sexual abuse [VBCSM12]: Survivor of childhood sexual abuse and rape
Survivors Manchester would like to thank all the participants in this consultation for the commitment and enthusiasm shown in ensuring male survivor voices are heard.
The Engagement Before participating, all were contacted by Survivors Manchester representative and a discussion was had on the purpose and engagement process. All individuals were sent information in advance and before the consultation roundtable began, all participants signed an agreement that contained details of the session and the following statement: Consent Agreement I agree to engage in the consultation process on 24.01.22 which I understand will be audio recorded for research. I understand my words (whole or in part) will be used to be submitted to the Ministry of Justice as part of Survivors Manchester’s Victims Bill consultation response, however, Survivors Manchester will keep my identifying details anonymous other than that identified as summary demographic information. Should I have any concerns, I will contact Duncan Craig on 0161 236 2182 for further information. Participants then provided expenses and reimbursement details. Survivors Manchester strongly believes that the lived experience and knowledge of a survivor is of value and that survivors should be reimbursed appropriately for their expenses, which includes an individuals’ time.
All participants were made aware that the session was being audio recorded for the purposes of note taking and analysis later in the writing of the report. All agreed to hold confidentiality and anonymity for the group, agreeing that the facilitator would hold boundaries and take responsibility for any safeguarding issues.
Theme: Victims Code and Accountability 01. Have you heard about the Victims Code before? (before meaning before details of this consultation were provided) Only 2 (16%) of the participants was aware of the Victims Code prior to this consultation event and the documents that were sent in advance for it. The knowledge of the code for VBCSM5 came through via the Police during the investigation but its was limited to what the code actually stated, whereas VBCSM9 was aware of it through newspaper article. All other participants only became aware of it through this consultation. This lack of awareness was a source of anger and frustration as VBCSM4 pointed out that at no point did the Police, CPS give him any understanding of it and further adds to a feeling as a victim of child sexual abuse that that he was treated differently because he disclosed his past experiences as a victim whilst he was an adult in prison and only seen as so. Some of the participants stated a sense of confusion between ‘Victims Code’ and ‘Victims Rights’ as there was a strong sense that a code is something that could be worked by but not required, whereas a ‘right’ is something fundamental that is yours as a citizen of the UK. There was 100% agreement from all participants that the ‘code’ should be ‘rights’ and enshrined in law with everyone in the UK understanding what it is and its theirs as citizens in the UK. There was some discussion about the uncomfortableness with the use of the word ‘Victim’ in the title of a ‘code’ or ‘rights’ with reflections from individuals that: a) The word victim feels like its a title that is used always and “I’m a survivor not a victim” b) The word victim feels like it’s the right phrasing as “The crime happened to me so I am a victim of that crime, it’s like I went from denial to victimhood and that’s movement” c) The word victim is always attached the Criminal Justice System and a query on how encompassing is that for those that don’t report? d) It’s a word that “I find unpleasant as an official once referred to me as ‘one of these victims” which is tinged with so much negativity and lack of value The fact that so few people had even heard of the code and even those that did there was no substance to the awareness brought about discussion and reflections on victims/survivors expect and deserve better – if there is guidelines, code, law etc for victims then they should be better informed. VBCSM9 stated that there is a ‘need for professionalism’ in the Criminal Justice System and wider agreement by all that victims need to be front and centre of the process, with as VBCSM6 put it, “every person in the CJS, who VBCSM6ies responsibility for the treatment of victims/survivors, must be ‘top draw”. A suggestion from VBCSM1 was presented that the low level of awareness of the code may be down to training within the Police as it’s the Police that put us as ‘Victims’ and that those
with lived experience of victimhood are perfectly placed to be able to aid the training and increasing of knowledge to those professionals within the system. VBCSM2 agreed and stated that he the question so often how the responsible official “could even understand the nuances without lived experience?”, something that VBCSM8, VBCSM11, VBCSM3 and VBCSM4 strongly agreed with.
02. Do you think the 4 principles that underpin the Victims Code capture what victims need? If not then what do they leave out? VBCSM1 reflected that the 4 principles feel like ‘the right principles’ for him as they are loose enough but couldn’t agree that they go far enough, stating that it felt like something was missing, maybe less loose? VBCSM5 claims that they are good, however ‘loose’. He brings up the need for allotted times in which a victim/survivor can provide feedback regarding the process they are undergoing. He asserts that this should be offered regardless of whether the victim/survivor perceives any problems. VBCSM1 agrees, stating that the principles remain ‘wobbly’ and that “Principles ought to underpin the legal rights” and these ought to be more ‘pinned down’. He refers to VBCSM5’ example of regular victim/survivor feedback as one such thing that must be pinned down. VBCSM11 concurs stating that there must be a better underpinning ‘structure’ and that the language needs to be tightened up. The overall feeling was that the principles were in essence correct but the language felt too loose and needed some more tightening… they didn’t feel SMART, there was something about them needing more of a time stamp to them… e.g. •
“Ensuring victims are informed through the Criminal Justice process” should be something more like “Ensuring victims are informed with regularity and clarity through the Criminal Justice process by mutual agreement”
•
“Ensuring victims are supported (regardless of whether they report the crime)” should be “Ensuring victims are supported (regardless of whether they report the crime) by authorities and services commissioned to offer general or specialist support”
•
“Ensuring victims’ voices are heard (i.e. that they are offered the opportunity to make a victim personal statement)” could be “Ensuring victims’ voices are heard (i.e. that they are offered the opportunity to make a victim personal statement at the earliest opportunity regardless of engagement in the Criminal Justice System)”
•
“The right to review/ be able to challenge decisions that affect them” could be “The right to review/ be able to challenge all decisions that affect them throughout the process from referral to verdict and beyond”
03. In your view, what would be the best way to gather feedback from victims on the service they are receiving or have received from criminal justice agencies (such as the police, Crown Prosecution Service and Courts service)? VBCSM10 stated that the key for him to providing feedback was his ISVA, but the Police took a really pragmatic approach to his case, inviting feedback throughout. It was agreed by all that all forces should be pro-active with inviting feedback, which would aid the victim to feel more engaged and comfortable as they are addressing the power indifference then. VBCSM1 stated that as he has “never reported to the police, and neither have the intention”, it’s important to be able to have his journey captured and the big question is who does that, how does his experience ever get captured if a person hasn’t reported to the Police and therefore don’t go to court or engage with the CPS? He asked the rhetorical question… “does that mean my experience isn’t as valuable to the system?” VBCSM4 stated that the ‘system’ should reinforce reporting is a choice by insisting that “everyone’s journey is different” and there is a need to gather feedback no matter what Criminal Justice System agency are in contact with a victim. VBCSM1 suggested that he felt the Criminal Justice System is so separate from health and that is and always will be a danger until they come together more. He said ‘health’ should be at the centre of the system, as much as prevention or justice. VBCSM4 asked why do RASSO claims only becoming ‘significant’ when they are brough to the police? Is that because the Criminal Justice System sees itself as more than a health system? VBCSM10 thought that the NHS’s own service is ‘so lacking’ that counsellors will ‘drop’ victims/survivors on the basis that they are not trauma-informed practitioners. That left a big question on the idea of feedback… if its only collected from police, CPS and courts then how do we ever really move on to better understanding victims? One way of understanding might be to better develop Victim Personal Statement’s and VBCSM8 said that there is no guarantee of who in the Criminal Justice system “hears it”. VBCSM4 also stated that his personal statement would only be heard by the accused was found ‘guilty’ and so for him, it was never heard, a missed opportunity for the system to heard feedback and understand victims’ words. There was a unanimous agreement that all agencies involved in the care of victims should have a way of supporting a victim to develop a personal statement that evidenced impact of the crime, but also how they have been treated by society and the system. Even if the
person doesn’t report, it could be something held on file in their counselling or survivor service for instance to be used later, like SARC’s hold FME evidence. Survivors Manchester agreed it would work with the Expert Reference Group to develop a service within it to offer every single individual the opportunity to create a ‘Survivor statement’
04. Have you ever made/ wanted to make a complaint about a service you received from CJ agencies? VBCSM10 stated that he once complained to the CEO of Survivors Manchester about his experience and the way the complaint was handled with so much care was heartening and wondered if the ‘system’ would do the same as its process driven. VBCSM4 gave an example of extremely poor treatment he received as a victim when he was contacted by the court by phone, as he was on the train on the way home after being in the court all day waiting for the jury to return to be told the verdict has come in and it’s a not guilty. VBCSM4 had only moments before been sent home by the Clerk and gone separate ways from ISVA to supposed to be returning the next day. To receive this information from a clerk by phone was shocking and upsetting for the participants to hear but the consensus in the room was “that’s how male survivors are treated, with little thought”. VBCSM4 said that the irony to this was that he received an email asking if VBCSM4 could reply with how good the service was. VBCSM12 stated that he wanted to make a complaint against Witness Care but was so angry with them. He felt that they took no thought with him after the case ended and the guilty verdict came in. So when the perpetrator was harassing him, when the perpetrator was being released, there was no ‘Witness Care’, as if they forgot about him. Why bother! VBCSM1 stated that if you look at the news you can see a litter of experiences where people complained to the Police and got no where. He said “there ought to be a process, and ‘it ought to be the case that if the service has failed then one can complain, somewhere or someone independent, this is where the Victims Commissioner could come in, they should be the person a victim is able to go to complain and that office should help you through it!”. VBCSM5 stated the fact that it isn’t one person that deals with a victim/survivors’ case, but multiple and so what if you want to complain about the system, do you have to go to each one? VBCSM1 makes the argument that ‘if an organisation isn’t transparent, then it resembles the same smoke and mirrors of the perpetrator’ One comment summarised this stating “if you’ve had such a shit time, why would you complain when all you’d want to do is get as far away from that system as possible as it’s hurt you enough at that point”.
Theme: Victim Support Services 05. What was your experience of accessing, or trying to access, support services? What services did you access and how did you access them? VBCSM11 started the conversation with a sense of deep personal feeling that victims/survivors’ voices are only heard through “places like this [Survivors Manchester]”, and that “more people should go to places like Survivors Manchester as it’s been so helpful”. VBCSM7 stated that in their school counselling treatment, when using the term ‘sexual assault’ they were ‘not taken seriously’ and the severity term should be taken seriously. The lack of engagement at this point then made it impossible to access support at any other point as the message they receive is “won’t be heard”. VBCSM1 stated that this is the thing that makes him so sad, if a service doesn’t hear or see the survivor at any point, the survivor will close down and for males, getting over the barriers in the first place only to be shot down is harrowing. VBCSM4 stated that in his experience “so many of us experience it as kids” [being shut down]. VBCSM1 reinforces this point, given that it is a “myth that kids find it harder to come out about abuse, they just need to know they can and be given the right space”. VBCSM3 stated that its not just kids, as adult males it’s hard as “you feel like you have failed’, failing to live up to your own expectations to what it is to be a man” and how the overwhelming fear of services believing the same thing is silencing. VBCSM3 continued that it was only because of engaging with therapy in prison and there being a knowledge that the prison therapist was a survivor as the service was known as a survivor-led service that it felt he could say something… “by us for us becomes vital to break down barriers to access the right support where you feel you will be understood”. VBCSM5 had a professional service provider tell him at the age of 21, “you should have known better” and “why did you let him do that?” which shut VBCSM5 down for many years. VBCSM12 said that location was a big issue as there was no male specific service in his area and had to travel 50 miles to the closest one. He stated that the Police were blunt, no compassion, not emotive or offered connection or consideration and reflected on maybe that’s because of who he is. They never helped him find support. VBCSM4 gave a personal example that he had to move prisons in order to receive the survivor support he deserved and needed. VBCSM3 insisted on the “importance of being understood” in the process and by the system. All present had accessed the specialist male survivor service, Survivors Manchester, and 85% of those present were still in some way connected, even if it was ad-hoc in the ‘Drop In’ service. 16% of the participants had accessed support initially in Prison using the Survivors Manchester OUT Spoken Talking Therapy Service.
66% of the participants had accessed ISVA services. 75% of the participants had accessed Survivors Manchester’s facilitated ‘peer-support’ service, The Safe Room, which was stated as being vital in the healing and not instead of therapy but as well as. This was because “you get to meet other survivors, other people like you and that is so important… don’t we all need to feel like we belong at a time that is so isolating and lonely and that no one seems to understand outside of those that have experience”. VBCSM11 added that professionals being “upfront about being survivors themselves benefits the victims in the Criminal Justice System process because you know they can empathise”. VBCSM10 said knowing the victim supporter is a survivor helped him “build trust”. Everyone agreed with this statement. VBCSM1 said that presently there are only 5 male specific survivor organisations in the UK and that means that it’s a postcode lottery and so even if someone wanted to speak out they might not get the support or have to travel like VBCSM12 did. VBCSM5 stated that his initial reach out to Survivors Manchester was hit with a barrier due to him not being in the catchment area but the Survivors Manchester leadership reviewed decision and offered him the support if he could travel. VBCSM5 stated he didn’t think he would be here otherwise. VBCSM2 said that the experiences at the SARC have been horrible as everyone in the staff team was female and they talked in ways that made male survivors feel they should be grateful to be there, “it’s as if they are made for women and girls, and sometimes boys, but if you’re a man then they need to adjust to let you in”. VBCSM1 stated that a friend of his had an ISVA in a different area and the ISVA could only meet him in Starbucks to talk and have sessions as “the centre isn’t for men, it’s a women only space” despite the ISVA service supposed to be for all genders. VBCSM1 also stated that everyone he’s met in the group space had first found out about Survivors Manchester via the internet and so that is the first point of call, maybe with that being a place makle survivors can be anonymous. 91% of participants referred themselves to Survivors Manchester rather than being referred and that is something that has to change as it shouldn’t be that hard to have to go looking. Majority started with a phone call and then moved on to coming in for an assessment and identifying which of the services would be suitable. VBCSM11 stated that he went to the SARC and “filled out a form and they said they would be in touch”… “they didn’t get in touch and left me”, “they might as well have offered nothing as that wouldn’t have hurt as much”
06. In your experience, did the services that you accessed (or tried to access) recognise and tailor support so that it was specific to your support needs?
VBCSM2 stated that the first thing a survivor/victim should hear over the phone when they first call is “are you ok to talk?” as this means from the outset the service is thinking about the victim. VBCSM12 stated that he was in the car once on loudspeaker and the Police called and went immediately into personal discussion about the case and there were others in the car with him, the Police didn’t check and so didn’t meet his needs. VBCSM1 reflected that the question sounds like trying to find out if the service met your expectations but continued “who the fuck has expectations of a sexual abuse service, what do we have to measure it by? Its not like a take away where we know what to expect”. VBCSM11 reciprocated saying that “no one has expectations… all you can think about is that you just want to be listened to and heard”. VBCSM10 says he “felt like the police wouldn’t listen to him nor believe him so why should the services”. 100% of those that had ISVA had been able to work with their ISVA to develop a care plan that was solely about them and was reviewed and amended as things changed and time went on. VBCSM8 stated that the professional sat across the table at Survivors Manchester was a survivor and that felt like he needed that, he needed to feel a sense of belonging and shared feelings. VBCSM4 and VBCSM3 agreed that the prison didn’t meet the need but the OUT Spoken service did, that prison was supposed to be supportive to change but it was Survivors Manchester that did that.
07. How can the system improve so that it is easier for you and others like you to access and move between services? VBCSM5 re-stated the time he attempted to call a service only find was “in the wrong postcode” and stated that he contemplated suicide after that point and thankfully Survivors Manchester reviewed that and whilst he didn’t fit the criteria (postcode) they still welcomed him. VBCSM1 exclaims it’s a “postcode lottery for some” and VBCSM4 re-iterated he experienced it differently in the form of having to move prisons just to be seen. VBCSM4 didn’t know if there were “local tailored services” in the community, at least not outside of Manchester. All agreed that the postcode lottery has to change, and that Survivors Manchester should be in every main city or open their doors to anyone coming from anywhere but all understood that the people that fund Survivors Manchester have specific areas to fund only. VBCSM2 asked “well what about patient choice in health and why isn’t that the case in Criminal Justice” VBCSM1 said he was worried that services and funders gets stuck in the mindset that because if the pandemic everyone uses online now and that is dangerous assumption to
make. There is a difference between people having to go online or telephone and people choosing to. Many lads can’t access support from their homes because its not confidential and their wife doesn’t know her husband is getting help for rape or sexual abuse. Some people don’t have access to computers, the internet or even know properly how to use them. Services should offer absolute choice and be flexible… “sometimes I might want to come into the service but other times I might want to just talk on the phone or online… why can’t I do that, who makes these rules up about only doing one type”. When asked if it ‘feels good having a specialist survivors service?’ every participant agreed yes and that “the difference with Survivors Manchester is that it is survivor-informed and that is so important”. VBCSM11 said that it is also “not just a counselling service” VBCSM9 says that the service is provided “from a basis of understanding lived experience and all services have got to do that, LISTEN to those with lived experience whether thats staff or groups like this”. VBCSM3 added that “voices are heard in this service, regardless of who you are as a person”. VBCSM1 stated that voices might be heard “because of what it says on the door, and that matters in the question of knowing whether people’s voices are being heard” – Survivors Manchester is for Survivors in Manchester, sort of does what it says on the tin and so people can be themselves here. VBCSM5 recalls his own GP referral to a “PTSD clinic”, and that he had to have gone through low level mental health service first beforehand, itself VBCSM6ying a ‘9-month waiting list’. In the end, he was only able to get ‘7 sessions’ at the clinic, when he ought to have had many more, which prompted VBCSM1 to say that there is a problem in the fostering of ‘expectations’ for victims/survivors, all agreed. The key take out is that to improve the environment for victims/survivors, you have to help manage our expectations because we don’t know what to expect, hopefully we’ve never been in this position before. We need to destroy the postcode lottery system and give ‘survivor choice’ in the same way we’re supposed to have ‘patient choice’ in the NHS. One person stated that having been raped and assaulted while abroad, he felt strongly that his home country to still look after him. Services have got to do more than just counselling. Services have got to advertise! Not just the big ones like NSPCC, but someone in authority has to fund marketing so people know where services are. VBCSM2 stated it can feel like your “passed from pillar to post” when a referral is being moved around – “these things should not be ‘rushed’ after the ‘initial report” The subject of Survivor Statement returned and VBCSM8 said that as ‘a survivor’s Impact Statements (IS) aren’t always read out’ they should be preserved as the originality preserves something of the ‘impact of what happened’ to the victim/survivor. He also asserts that ‘GPs ought to be trauma informed’ so they get what the need is and support referrals.
VBCSM8 and VBCSM11 stated that impact Statement “belongs to the victim/survivor” and this could be made aware to the appropriate professionals as that means that the survivor doesn’t have to keep going through things when they are going to different services. VBCSM1 said Survivors Manchester should do something with that idea like a Victim/Survivor passport.
Theme: Improve Advocacy Support 08. Have you ever had support from an IDVA, ISVA and/or other type of advocate? (please indicate which one) 66% of the participants had accessed ISVA (Independent Sexual Violence Advisor) services, all in the community although one participant had started to engage whilst in prison as was being released. Only 3 people knew what an IDVA was and all were unsure of what other advocacy services there was in the world. VBCSM12 stated that the ISVA service is life changing stuff and that it makes the victims journey more transparent, easier to navigate and takes the pressure off.
09. Were there any barriers to you accessing, or receiving, support from ISVA/ IDVA services? 16% of people stated that the only barrier to accessing ISVA service was the postcode lottery – Survivors Manchester was officially only for Greater Manchester residents and for one person, their local ISVA service focused on females and seemed to have little experience in working with males, with an ISVA stating “you’re the first man I ever worked with so you’ll have to forgive me if I get things wrong”, so was a relief for Survivors Manchester to agree to support. VBCSM1 stated that it felt like there was an understanding that ISVA is for females and that needed to change as it’s a huge barrier if your male. VBCSM2 said that when Survivors Manchester worked with Channel 4 and Hollyoaks and got a male ISVA in the story that was huge as it meant people saw it was for all. VBCSM12 said that the moment someone calls 999 or 101 then they should automatically be given an ISVA… opt out not opt in and that way barriers removed.
10. Was your ISVA/ IDVA sensitive to any specific support needs you had? Did you feel this was communicated effectively, and that support was tailored appropriately? VBCSM5 stated that he “could not have had a better person in my ISVA, and that it felt tailor made at every step”. VBCSM1 asked VBCSM5 what he expected from the ISVA across the whole journey? VBCSM5 replied “communication, structure and management at key dates and that’s what I got with compassion”. He summates that ‘it all comes back to the experience of becoming a survivor’ VBCSM4 stated that “as everybody is different, the ISVA service should always tailor the support” and that the Criminal Justice system process is the same for everyone in a way, so ISVA needs to be the fighter and that his was.
11. To what extent did the ISVA/IDVA that supported you engage with other agencies (for instance, police, courts, healthcare) and professionals around your support needs? VBCSM10 says he valued the “advance warning of police arriving at the door” and that the ISVA became the central point of contact for all other agencies involved. VBCSM7 stated that the mentioning of the term ISVA should be the journey’s beginning, from which the relevant school staff and police co-ordinate with, they are Independent. VBCSM4 stated that whilst his ISVA was 100% engaged with all other services, the other services failed as they contacted him directly and they shouldn’t “give victims/survivors court verdicts over the phone, that should happen in service with the ISVA present” VBCSM2 stated that ISVA does so much connecting with others but sometimes when the ISVA is from a survivor organisation the Police can ignore them and only really engage with SARC ISVAs and that is so badly wrong.
12. Do you feel that the ISVA/IDVA supporting you communicated and linked in well with other agencies and professionals? VBCSM1 and VBCSM2 said that ISVA communicated well with others but it’s the others (mainly Police) that don’t communicate well with the ISVA as they treat charities like they just do tea and sympathy and after thought.
Response to other parts of the Consultation: The following answers are in response to selected further questions felt appropriate to answer through this submission by Survivors Manchester not directly asked in the roundtable, but discussions provided the answers to.
Chapter 1: Meeting Victims’ Expectations 2. What more can government and agencies listed in the Code do to ensure that frontline professionals are aware of what is required of them under the Code? There is a strong feeling with participants that those tasked with providing care, support and process for victims/survivors need to be formally held accountable for failure to not adhere to the 12 points of the Victims Code. Whilst there are complaints procedures in place, participants agreed in the roundtable that it was extremely difficult to step forward to make a complaint as all they want to do at that point is get as far away from the system as possible to preserve their own wellbeing. All agencies involved in delivering on the Victims Code should ensure that every individual is provided with a copy of the code, and it should be the Office of the Victims Commissioner that has some sort of jurisdiction over this, in effect the commissioner should be the bastion of the code. Locally PCCs should have more responsibility to ensure the code is being adhered to through engagement with victims, alongside championing training with experts by experience. We are also aware that the Victims Commissioner has proposed Victims Champions, a model that is used in other countries and works well in New Zealand for male survivors, and we fully support what the Commissioner is saying.
3. What more can government and agencies listed in the Code do to ensure every victim is made aware of the Code and the service they should expect to receive under it? There needs to be a wider national campaign that is led by MOJ to let the public know the code exists. It should be prominent on Police websites and in physical spaces. Health and Justice commissioners should write it into their funding applications “how will you assure that victims are made aware of the code” and have an element of audit. Regular engagement with the public and users of victims services will provide an audit trail and evidence of awareness.
4. Do the current procedures around timing and method of communication between the police/CPS and victims about key decisions work for victims? Are there any changes that could be beneficial? Participants are in agreement that the communication has been questionable at times and examples of lack of care, but it was strongly felt that ISVA was key to ensuring that communication flowed properly, particularly as the length of time from report > court grows and a victim/survivor has a long wait. The methods of communication should be reviewed and what was also felt was how many times ISVA are identified as the key care co-ordinator and primary contact, and yet the Police and CPS can often ignore this and go directly to the victim/survivor and that can cause distress.
5. Should the police and CPS do more to take victims’ views into account in the course of their duties, particularly around decisions to proceed with cases? It’s felt there needs to be more done to include victims/survivors in the process of decision making, particularly as the key to victim/survivor health, wellbeing and healing journey is enhanced and supported with the idea of putting control in the hands of the victim/survivor. A discussion was had with regards to the purpose of a Victim Impact Statement and how within the system it only becomes ‘important’ or ‘of value’ once a guilty verdict is found. However, with the low level of guilty verdicts, it’s thought that a document that is important for the victim should be valued more at the front end of the process. A ‘survivor statement’ could form part of a way of the decision making process be more victim/survivor informed.
10. What changes, if any, could we make to allow victims to be more engaged in the parole process? An important discussion around this topic is that there is a high proportion of male survivors who have been involved in the criminal justice system from a perpetrator of crime (nonsexual) and have experience of the parole process. It was felt that victims of crime should be made more aware of what they can do to view the parole process if required; it be communicated what stages the person going through parole is at and what that means for the victim. Equally, it was felt that the victim (as male survivors) can often have a “hearts and minds” reaction to anything connected to perpetrators and input could be unhelpful to a rational conversation and decision making.
Chapter 2: Improving Oversight and Driving Better Performance 14. How could agencies be encouraged to consistently share data at local and national levels to support monitoring of Code compliance and drive improvements? Before the question of hour could agencies be encouraged to share data, there needs to be a recognition that for statutory agencies, roles such as Data Analyst, etc are common but for the VCSE (Voluntary Community Social Enterprise) they are rare and so in order for more victim services share data, they need support to do that. There is too little investment in the ‘central’ / ‘back office’ of victim services and its here that we get so much data that is rich in use for planning but doesn’t get used.
15. What should the role of PCCs be in relation to the delivery of a quality service and commissioning victims’ support services, and what levers could be given to PCCs to deliver this role and enhance victims' experiences of the criminal justice system at a local level? As described by the Victims Commissioner, we support the recommendation that there should be a statutory requirement to publish their plans for devolved victim services. This requirement should form part of their Police and Crime Plans which is a basis for more effective local scrutiny of the delivery of local victim services. Equally, PCCs (or similar in devolved administrations such as Deputy Mayors) should be legally required to incorporate effective promotion of the code into commissioning of services, ensuring that the code is part of training and onboarding of staff and volunteers. To ensure service delivery caters for all demographic groups equally, as per the Victims Commissioner, we support the recommendation that PCCs should be required to set out within their Police and Crime Plan how they intend to meet their public sector equality duty (PSED) in relation to victims services and delivery of the Victims’ Code. The collection of a robust set of demographic data will be critical to this function.
19. What are the most critical functions to enable an effective Victims’ Commissioner? Participants felt strongly that the Victims’ Commissioner should be the person that is the champion for victims in England / England and Wales / UK. They should be the person or Office that can hold victim services to account for failing victims and have the authority in law to be able to deliver consequences for failures. Equally, they should be able to hold local and national government to account, for failure to provide victim services and, importantly, failure to provide victims with the points of the code. When the Victims Law is passed, this should be the key piece of legislation that the Victims Commissioner uses to ensure victims in the UK get the best possible treatment. They should
be the person who keeps the Victims Code under review, based on research etc that the Commissioner does. They should be involved in every piece of work that has an impact on victims. We agree with the Victims Commissioner’s eight recommendations in relation to the Victims’ Commissioner’s powers: •
•
•
•
• • •
Firstly, the powers relating to the Victims’ Code should be strengthened so the Victims’ Commissioner is empowered to undertake an effective review of the operation of the Code. Secondly, the Victims’ Commissioner should be given powers to identify weaknesses in the implementation of the Code by reviewing the operation and implementation of the Code (annually at first to establish a culture of compliance and then less frequently perhaps every three years) and reporting directly to Parliament. Thirdly, the Victims' Commissioner must be enabled to consult directly with victims on what constitutes good practice in the criminal justice setting. The Victims' Commissioner should also be enabled to consult with other bodies, and there must be a legal requirement for CJS agencies listed within the Code to comply with the Victims' Commissioner’s work, including, where available, providing data on request. There should be a statutory obligation on public bodies named in the Code to facilitate and co-operate with the Victims’ Commissioners reviews. Relevant agencies should also be required to respond to these recommendations within a designated time period. The Victims' Commissioner should be further empowered and resourced to commission research and run public consultations as part of her research function The Victims' Commissioner should be empowered to recommend changes to the Code if it is found to be inadequate. Victims' Commissioner is empowered to publish an annual report directly to Parliament on the activities of the Victims' Commissioner and the engagement of service providers with the Victims’ Code.
22. What should the consequences be for significant failures in relation to delivering a quality service for victims, including complaints relating to the Victims’ Code? Should those consequences be directed at criminal justice agencies as a whole and/or individuals responsible for the failure(s)? Consequences should be about removal of those in charge to be replaced with someone who can do the job or lead the organisation. It’s too easy to say something should be shut down because then victims loose out altogether. It just needs to be something that swiftly removes the problem and installs a solution.
Chapter 3: Supporting Victims of Crime 34. What can the Government do to ensure that commissioners are adequately responding and implementing the expertise of smaller, ‘by and for’ organisations in line with local need? Commissioners need to better understand that services like Survivors Manchester should be spending as much time as possible delivering quality assured services to victims/survivors, rather than vast amounts of time developing funding bids and trying to learn new commissioning language that suits commissioners, funders and government. There is certainly an advantage to being a big charity with bid writers and funding staff, whereas for smaller organisations its usually the manager that is fighting for funds to run the service, yet at the same time commissioners need the manager of that service to be at meetings and strategic groups to inform them how to best meet victims needs. There needs to be a better feedback loop, that is about conversation, so victim services can present emerging threats information and co-produce actions to meet need.
Chapter 4: Improving Advocacy Services 48. How do ISVAs fit into the wider network of support services available for victims of sexual violence? As stated by the participants, ISVAs are an essential part of a victims journey, essential in lifesaving! They are the care co-ordinator and should receive more respect and acknowledgement than they do by Police, CPS and Courts. Participant [VBCSM8] stated “I also think that if it wasn’t for ISVA support in my own case ( I wouldn’t have really understood what was happening). The police process is traumatic and being aware of this when professionals are communicating info to Survivors needs to be clear- or the clarity of the information should be clear and then understood by the survivor”.
49. How might defining the ISVA role impact services, other sector workers and ISVAs themselves? Depending on the definition , it could really help the Criminal Justice System understand the role better, give protection to ISVAs in the courtroom and enable victims to have better care.
52. How useful is existing guidance, and how can this guidance be strengthened? There isn’t much guidance at present and even the Home Office www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-role-of-the-independent-sexual-violenceadviser-isva isn’t well known about. This needs to be known by all Criminal Justice Agencies.
53. Is more action needed to define standards for ISVAs and to ensure they are met? If yes, who is best placed to take this action? The current LimeCulture standards for ISVA should be a national framework and accreditation should be key!
