The Restart programme

Feasibility study

A feasibility study of the Restart programme

Summary

This protocol summarises plans for a feasibility study of the Restart programme, a multi-agency, whole family approach which aims to improve responses to domestic abuse in low-to-medium risk families supported by children’s social care (CSC).

Who, what, why and how?

The Restart programme is delivered by the Drive Partnership, which brings together CSC, housing, and domestic abuse sector services to identify, change, and disrupt patterns of harmful behaviour at an early stage. The programme takes a multi-agency, whole family approach to hold perpetrators accountable for change, in order to prevent escalation of risk and ensure that (ex-) partner and child victim-survivors can remain safe and together at home.

The programme can be broken down into the following four components:

The Safe & Together model: a system-level approach aimed at improving the response to domestic abuse by enhancing the awareness and understanding of CSC, Early Help, and housing workforces. The implementation focuses on holding the perpetrator accountable while ensuring the safety of the (ex-) partner and child(ren) victim-survivors, keeping them together at home where possible.

A one-to-one domestic abuse perpetrator intervention: lasting four to eight weeks, designed to improve motivation and readiness for behaviour change. The goal is to facilitate the perpetrator’s onward referral to a longer-term behaviour change program.

A support pathway for (ex-) partner victim-survivors, which involves parallel support and risk monitoring, identifying their needs while the perpetrator engages in the intervention.

An optional housing pathway for service users. This pathway facilitates access to temporary, diversionary accommodation for the service user, guided by the wishes of the victim-survivor.

We have commissioned Cordis Bright to conduct a feasibility study of the Restart programme (‘Restart’). The feasibility study is adopting an exploratory “test and learn” approach, focusing on building capacity for future impact evaluation of the programme.

Research Questions

The primary objectives of the feasibility study are:

  1. To investigate Restart in more detail, including the underpinning programme theory and evidence base, intended activities and outcomes, and implementation in practice.
  2. To consider whether and how future impact evaluation of Restart can be conducted using experimental or quasi-experimental designs.

The research questions guiding the study are detailed in the protocol and summarised below:

  1. Programme theory validation: To what extent is Restart’s theory of change rooted in evidence?
  2. Implementation feasibility: How effectively has Restart been implemented and delivered according to key implementation dimensions (such as fidelity, dosage, quality, acceptability, reach, responsiveness, and adaptation)?
  3. Evidence of promise: To what extent does Restart show evidence of promise?
  4. Impact evaluation feasibility: To what extent would an experimental or quasi-experimental methodology be feasible and acceptable?
  5. Equality, diversity, inclusion and equity: To what extent do key findings vary by EDIE characteristics?

Delivery Partners

The Drive Partnership

Evaluation partners

Due Date

This project is due to be completed by September 2025.
SHARE

Evaluation protocol

Download

Related Projects

Cost ratings:

Rated 1: Set up and delivery is low cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of less than £100.

Rated 2: Set up and delivery is medium-low cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £100–£499.

Rated 3: Set up and delivery is medium cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £500–£999.

Rated 4: Set up and delivery is medium-high cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £1,000–£2,000.

Rating 5: Set up and delivery is high cost. Equivalent to an estimated unit cost of more than £2,000.

Set up and delivery cost is not applicable, not available, or has not been calculated.

Click here for more information.

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:

Rated 2: Has preliminary evidence of improving a child outcome from a quantitative impact study, but there is not yet evidence of causal impact.

Rated 2+: Meets the level 2 rating and the best available evidence is based on a study which is more rigorous than a level 2 standard but does not meet the level 3 standard.

Rated 3: Has evidence of a short-term positive impact from at least one rigorous study.

Rated 3+: Meets the level 3 rating and has evidence from other studies with a comparison group at level 2 or higher.

Rated 4: Has evidence of a long-term positive impact through at least two rigorous studies.

Rated 4+: Meets the level 4 rating and has at least a third study contributing to the Level 4 rating, with at least one of the studies conducted independently of the intervention provider.

Rating has a *: The evidence base includes mixed findings i.e., studies suggesting positive impact alongside studies, which on balance, indicate no effect or negative impact.

Click here for more information.