Domestic abuse

Children deserve to life free from abuse but we lack the evidence about how to protect children from this severe and widespread issue

Despite its prevalence and severity, the UK evidence for what works to prevent domestic abuse and reduce the impact of trauma where children are affected is weak. There have been very few UK impact evaluations of support for children affected by domestic abuse.  We want to identify the most effective approaches that can be made widely available to support child victims. 

What do we already know?

We know that domestic abuse can have a huge negative impact on outcomes for children. It casts long shadows over children’s lives and their ability to develop the safe, stable and nurturing relationships they need to thrive. But right now we don’t know enough about how to support children and families who are at risk or who are victims of  domestic abuse.  Many of the programmes that are currently available have not been evaluated for impact; we have identified over 100 programmes in this area, two-thirds of which have not been evaluated at all. Even where some evaluations have taken place, they are not robust impact evaluations and therefore they cannot tell us whether the support has worked or not.  

What more do we need to know?  

Long-term, we want to  find out which programmes improve outcomes for children affected by domestic abuse. To get to that stage, we first need make sure that programmes are ready for to be evaluated, and then evaluate them for impact. We also want to understand more about the best way to conduct evaluations, for example working out which outcomes are most appropriate and how to measure them.   

What are we doing about it?

We are working to develop and build consensus around the best evaluation methods and outcome measures in this area. We are also developing the pipeline of programmes that can be evaluated for impact, and we are funding and evaluating promising interventions including preventative approaches, perpetrator programmes and support for parent and child victim-survivors. We will soon be launching an ambitious 5-year plan for the next government, setting out the work and investment needed to significantly improve our understanding of what works.  

The REACH Plan: A five-year plan to find out what works to prevent domestic abuse & support child victims

Strengthening knowledge and awareness in family services of domestic abuse (SKAFADA)

Latest News

Read our latest news and blogs

Blog

July 9, 2024

Four key principles to help turn the new Labour government’s commitments into effective policy 

Blog

May 14, 2024

Building the evidence to support child victims of domestic abuse 

Keep Up to Date

Sign up to receive our newsletter for the latest news, events and research from from Foundations

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. For information on how we process your personal data please review our privacy policy.

Cost ratings:

This rating is based on information that programme providers have supplied about the components and requirements of their programme. Based on this information, EIF rates programmes on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates the least resource-intensive programmes and 5 the most resource-intensive. 

1: A rating of 1 indicates that a programmes has a low cost to set up and deliver, compared with other interventions reviewed by EIF. This is equivalent to an estimated unit cost of less than £100.

2: A rating of 2 indicates that a programme has a medium-low cost to set up and deliver, compared with other interventions reviewed by EIF. This is equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £100–£499.

3: A rating of 3 indicates that a programme has a medium cost to set up and deliver, compared with other interventions reviewed by EIF. This is equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £500–£999.

4: A rating of 4 indicates that a programme has a medium-high cost to set up and deliver, compared with other interventions reviewed by EIF. This is equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £1,000–£2,000.

5: A rating of 5 indicates that a programme has a high cost to set up and deliver, compared with other interventions reviewed by EIF. This is equivalent to an estimated unit cost of more than £2,000.

Child Outcomes:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.

Supporting children’s mental health and wellbeing: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing child maltreatment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Enhancing school achievement & employment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing crime, violence and antisocial behaviour: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing substance abuse: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing risky sexual behaviour & teen pregnancy: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing obesity and promoting healthy physical development: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Evidence ratings:

The evidence ratings distinguish five levels of strength of evidence. This is not a rating of the scale of impact but of the degree to which a programme has been shown to have a positive, causal impact on specific child outcomes.

Level 2: Recognises programmes with preliminary evidence of improving a child outcome, but where an assumption of causal impact cannot be drawn.

Level 2+: The programme will have observed a significant positive child outcome in an evaluation meeting all of the criteria for a level 2 evaluation, but also involving a treatment and comparison group. There is baseline equivalence between the treatment and comparison‐group participants on key demographic variables of interest to the study and baseline measures of outcomes (when feasible).

Level 3: Recognises programmes with evidence of a short-term positive impact from at least one rigorous evaluation – that is, where a judgment about causality can be made.

Level 3+: The programme will have obtained evidence of a significant positive child outcome through an efficacy study, but may also have additional consistent positive evidence from other evaluations (occurring under ideal circumstances or real world settings) that do not meet this criteria, thus keeping it from receiving an assessment of 4 or higher.

Level 4: Recognises programmes with evidence of a long-term positive impact through multiple rigorous evaluations. At least one of these studies must have evidence of improving a child outcome lasting a year or longer.