Three strategies, three governments: a recurring policy drumbeat
Since 2010, the UK has attempted to tackle violence against women and girls (VAWG) through a succession of flagship strategies, each backed by political capital and sweeping promises. Yet as police chiefs in 2024 warned about the scale of violence continuing to blight communities, critics argue that policy changes have failed to translate into safer streets, more confident survivors, or fewer attackers.
The first strategic wave emerged under the coalition government, which framed VAWG as a public safety crisis requiring integrated action across policing, criminal justice, and prevention. The aim was to shift from reacting to incidents to preventing violence in the first place, with greater awareness campaigns, specialist roles for domestic abuse coordinators, and a push to improve multi-agency safeguarding. In practice, the reforms often collided with stretched budgets, uneven local implementation, and resistance from some sectors to expanding the criminal justice response beyond high‑profile cases.
A second wave arrived under Labour’s return to government and then continued across subsequent administrations. It emphasised survivor voices, data collection, and policy alignment—trying to knit police, health services, social care, and courts into a more coherent response. The rhetoric underscored a belief that consistent standards across forces would yield measurable reductions in violence. But the disconnect between national targets and on-the-ground realities persisted, leaving many victims feeling unheard and too often re-traumatised by responses that failed to reflect their lived experience.
The most recent refresh, aimed at injecting urgency into the long-standing agenda, sought deeper collaboration with civil society, more robust monitoring, and tougher accountability for perpetrators. Its proponents argued that simply issuing guidelines was no longer enough; authorities needed to demonstrate results, backed by transparent reporting and real‑time data. Yet critics contend that repeated recalibrations have created policy fatigue among practitioners and confusion for survivors navigating a labyrinth of services.
What’s changed on the ground—and what hasn’t
In 2024, police chiefs painted a stark picture: violence against women and girls remains endemic, with record levels of reporting but uneven escalation in prosecutions and convictions. Several factors help explain the gap between policy ambition and everyday outcomes. First, persistent underfunding and high demand across the criminal justice system have left investigators stretched thin, delaying case progression and undermining trust in reporting. Second, the pandemic era’s aftershocks reshaped reporting behaviour and service delivery, complicating comparability with pre‑2020 baselines. Third, cultural and attitudinal barriers persist; the normalization of certain forms of coercion and control still affects how victims perceive safety, justice, and empowerment to seek help.
Jess Phillips has argued that tackling VAWG requires practical, fearless leadership that couples legal reform with a humane, survivor-centered approach. She has repeatedly highlighted the need to address the most intimate and insidious forms of violence—such as strangulation, which she has publicly described as not a normal sexual behavior and not something to be excused or tolerated. This stance reflects a broader push to educate families, peers, and communities about warning signs, risk factors, and the reality that some actions that might be dismissed in private are illegal and dangerous in public life.
The policy‑and‑practice gap: how to move from talk to transformation
Experts say that lasting progress hinges on several converging reforms. These include: creating a sustainable funding floor for VAWG services; ensuring that police and prosecutors consistently use risk assessment tools; expanding access to safe housing and emergency support for survivors; investing in prevention programs that address gender norms; and improving data collection so that policymakers can spot where interventions work—and where they fail. The intention is to build a cycle of continuous improvement, where survivor voices actively shape policy design, not merely inform it.
For Jess Phillips and like-minded advocates, the test is not just counting incidents or issuing new guidelines, but reducing vulnerability and enhancing safety. If governments want to restore faith in VAWG policies, they must demonstrate tangible reductions in violence, faster, fairer justice for victims, and stronger, independent oversight of how resources are spent.
Conclusion: learning from the policy cycle and listening to survivors
The narrative of three governments and a refresh is not merely about timing or rhetoric. It is about the real lives affected when violence persists and trust in institutions wavers. As the debate continues, the emphasis must stay on survivors’ needs, practical reform, and accountable leadership that translates high-minded goals into safer communities for women and girls.
