Restart

A feasibility study

Restart

Highlights

  • The Restart programme addresses a critical gap in support for families affected by domestic abuse, providing timely, coordinated responses to low and medium risk perpetrators.
  • The programme generated buy in from Children’s Social Care, Early Help and Housing professionals, who valued the model’s rationale and core focus on perpetrator accountability.
  • Victim/Survivor voice is an invaluable component to evaluations in the domestic abuse sector – involving experts by experience enriched the feasibility study by grounding findings in lived experience and enhancing credibility.
  • The feasibility study identified challenges in evaluating the Restart programme which mean that further work is needed to prepare the programme for an impact evaluation. The two programme components are at different stages of maturity, and the report sets out clear next steps to strengthen delivery, data systems and evaluation design.

Report

Download

Summary

The Restart programme seeks to improve statutory responses to low-to-medium risk domestic abuse by working both at the family and systems levels. It was developed by the Drive Partnership and is delivered across six London Boroughs.

At the systems level, it implements the Safe & Together model through workforce training for professionals in Children’s Social Care, Early Help, and Housing to adopt child-centred, perpetrator-focused practices.

The Restart intervention works at the family level through a direct intervention with perpetrators, support for victim-survivors, and an optional housing pathway to safely remove perpetrators while allowing families to remain in their homes.

We commissioned Cordis Bright to conduct a feasibility study to explore how Restart is being delivered and whether an evaluation of the programme would be possible.

Aims

The feasibility study aimed to assess whether the ideas behind the Restart programme are based on evidence, if it is delivered as described, and if there are signs of that it could drive positive changes in outcomes for families. The study also assessed if it would be possible to conduct an impact evaluation, to further explore the effect of the programme on child outcomes. Finally, an overarching aim of the study is to assess if findings vary for families from minoritised backgrounds.

Method

Cordis Bright interviewed professionals and stakeholders involved with the Restart components as well as looking at data collected by the Restart programme to understand how it was working in practice. They also observed Safe & Together training sessions and strategic programme meetings. Finally, they analysed all the information to see what was working well, what could be improved, and whether a full evaluation would be realistic and useful. Five experts by experience co-facilitated and analysed 20 out of the 37 interviews with professionals to ground the research in lived experience.

Key Findings

A full-scale impact evaluation of Restart as a single programme is not currently feasible due to differences in maturity, design, and delivery across components, and the absence of a shared overarching aim or set of objectives. The report sets out clear next steps to strengthen delivery, data systems, and evaluation design:

  • Safe & Together model implementation is well established and delivered consistently, showing early signs of practice change and strong potential for a future pilot randomised controlled trial. The report recommends co-designed preparatory work to refine outcome measures, strengthen data collection and scope an ethical and feasible evaluation design.
  • The Restart intervention is at an earlier stage of development, with clear value but inconsistent referral volumes and data capture. The report recommends focused model refinement, capacity building and strengthened monitoring to enable a future pre- and post-cohort study as an appropriate next step toward impact evaluation.
  • The study found that local stakeholders valued the Safe & Together model’s rationale and core aims, and that the training model is reliably and consistently delivered which lends itself to a potential future impact evaluation, subject to further preparatory work. Stakeholders reported early signs of practice change such as a focus on perpetrator accountability and increased practitioner confidence to address domestic abuse.
  • The Restart intervention was seen as filling a critical gap in support by local stakeholders. Families who took part in the intervention were from a range of marginalised background and local practitioners suggest that perpetrators who take part in the one-to-one Restart intervention show improved motivation for behaviour change. However, no participants of the one-to-one perpetrator intervention chose to take part in the feasibility study research. This limits how much the study could learn about the intervention or how possible it would be to conduct an impact evaluation that could assess the effect of the intervention.
  • Five experts by experience—three young people from SafeLives Changemakers group and two adults from SafeLives Pioneers group—were trained and supported to co-facilitate 20 of 37 professional interviews during the Restart feasibility study, contributing to analysis, reviewing the report for accessibility, and helping shape final recommendations. Their involvement was invaluable and enriched the feasibility study by grounding findings in lived experience.
SHARE

Related Publications

See all publications
  • Report

Domestic Abuse

Selecting and validating outcome measures for the Domestic Violence and Abuse Core Outcome Set (DVA-COS)

Learn More

Domestic Abuse

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

Learn More

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.