Since you asked...

Islington Council is actually a bit behind. This scheme has been operating for several years - in many parts of the UK - and has been very useful in expanding the choices of *some* women. It started in another area of London - Harrow - in 2001 (I think) and spread rapidly.

So actually, there's been hundreds of women across the UK whose houses have received (free) additional security because they had experienced domestic violence.

The Government, of course, loves it because it reduces homelessness (and thus the money spent on homeless families). In the UK, women fleeing violence are entitled to state subsidised housing so it is now a government indicator of. 'best">http://www.odpm.gov.uk/embedded_object.asp?id=1138325">'best value'

The 'best value' rating of a council has financial implications - not in terms of the overall budget, but in what percentage they get a free decision in how they spend it.

Hence Islington has now developed one - not because they are a big-hearted forward thinking council - but because the lack of one affects their financial decision making power. (yes I am that cynical).

The money making motivation is made worse by what 'counts' in the homlessness totals. Women who get 'panic rooms' don't 'count' as homeless. Like many Government targets it gets subverted and some areas achieve lower rates of homelessness not by ensuring that people have homes (duh! did ya think public services were there to actually help?) but by refusing to accept someone 'as' homeless.

Unsurprisingly then, for some women for whom it is not a safe option, have been 'persuaded' by officials that it's the only (usually by stressing it's by far and away the most timely option).

Women's organisations, like Women's Aid, naturally express">http://www.womensaid.org.uk/policy&consultations/consultationresponses/Regulations_Guidance_Young_Persons_Plan_Dfes.htm">express caution against such schemes becoming a 'one-size-fits-all solution'.

However, when it *is* the woman's free choice to stay in her home with extra security, it really helps in reducing the traumas associated with the aftermath of domestic violence - practically (she doesn't have to move, change the children's schools, maybe move too far away for her job, etc etc) and emotionally (she can keep any friends, support networks like childcare, the children are less disrupted, etc etc.) When it's her choice, abused women *love* this option.

The original scheme in Harrow involved more than just extras locks and 'panic rooms' – it also included the services of an Independent Domestic Violence Advocate (IDVA’s – pronounced Divas - not a lawyer but a specially">http://www.crarg.org.uk/library/pdfs/definition_explanation_inc_MARAC.pdf">specially trained role to help with safety planning and risk management as well as to provide information about all of her choices.

This more holistic approach is now the standard for housing providers in London under the Mayor">http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/">Mayor of London's
domestic">http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/dom_violence/index.jsp#dv2">domestic violence strategy which sets out a framework focused on the needs of victims (rather than the needs of agencies).

It requires schemes to include not just extra physical security but the compulsory offer to any abused woman presenting herself as homeless of an IDVA. The duty of the IDVA is to focus solely on the victim’s safety – including from the dangers of the sometimes shabby treatment abused women get from the 'system'.

I dunno, I think that's kind of weird. I mean, I understand the premise is to keep women who choose to stay, "safe" for the moment. Or do I have it all wrong and they are talking about putting extra security on houses of women who have experienced DV, have moved out, and are now living alone?

If it's referring to creating a "panic room" for women still in abusive homes, it seems to me to conjure up the image of a prison cell! Why isn't the batterer being removed and going to jail? If there have been repeated reports of domestic violence, why is he still there? I don't get it. Let's focus on the real problem which is the batterer, and putting him where he belongs, as opposed to putting battered women in a cell, which seems backward and ridiculous to me.

It doesn't make sense to me--I thought that the point of those things depended on an assaliant not knowing that the room exists. If an attacker knows that the room is there, then I would think that they would plan accordingly.

To clarify...

The scheme is available to any woman who has experienced domestic violence, regardless of tenancy (assuming of course, landlord permission if in the private rented sector) who is no longer living with her abuser.

His absence may be because he is in jail or because he has been evicted by the civil courts or because he has agreed to leave. It may also be because the victim hasleft and moved elsewhere but her abuser has tracked her down and is now harassing her in her new home.

The scheme is not available is the abuser is still living in the same property.