10/06/2025
By Andy Bartlett (Former Police Inspector)
The Growing Delay in Police Response
There is a prevalent perception amongst senior police managers and control room dispatchers that police officers exhibit resistance to attending domestic abuse incidents compared to other call types. A 2022 study aimed to evaluate this belief by investigating structural and psychological influences on police response decisions. Utilising a mixed-method approach, data from 83,652 incidents over two distinct periods was analysed alongside surveys from 109 reactive police officers and thirty-nine control room dispatchers.
The findings revealed substantial delays in police attendance to domestic abuse incidents, a pattern persisting despite allocating additional frontline resources. The research highlighted restrictive and standardised procedures that compelled officers to adopt a rigid, one-size-fits-all approach which frequently acted contrary to victims’ explicit wishes. Officers reported significant pressure to adhere strictly to these procedures, fearing criticism or sanctions, thus limiting their use of professional discretion even when it would have been beneficial to victims.
The study found that psychological factors influenced officers’ decisions. Officers often used mental shortcuts based on past experiences, which led to anchor bias and confirmation bias. These biases made officers hesitant to respond to domestic abuse calls. Therefore, the study suggests revising police training to include education on current domestic abuse risk factors and a better understanding of victims and perpetrators motivations, alongside victim collaboration and pre-court diversions, to give victims and survivors a say in what happens with their case.
Policies at Odds with Victims Wishes
Well-intentioned policies like mandatory or “presumptive” arrest compel officers to make an arrest when there’s evidence of domestic violence. These policies were meant to take pressure off victims. In practice, they often clash with what victims say they want, creating tension between survivors and first responders. Research by Hirschel, and others as far back as the 1990s, found that many victims feared calling police because a mandatory arrest could provoke retaliation from their abuser.
More recent interviews echo this. In one study, just over half of women interviewed wanted their abuser arrested, but the majority did not want to see a criminal prosecution – all they wanted was the violence to stop. For a survivor trapped in coercive control, an arrest might promise short-term relief but also spark new dangers or the loss of economic support. When officers arrive bound to a one-size-fits-all policy (often driven by a checklist rather than the victim’s nuanced needs), survivors can feel ignored or disempowered.
This dynamic breeds mistrust. Victims may hesitate to engage, and officers – sensing that reluctance – can become frustrated. The very policy designed to protect victims can inadvertently alienate them; a sobering contradiction that plays out on the front lines of domestic abuse response.
Why Officers Avoid Domestic Abuse Calls
Domestic abuse incidents are amongst the most challenging and time-consuming calls officers face, and it shows in the officers’ attitudes. Structural, procedural, and psychological factors converge to make many police officers reluctant to wade into these cases.
A recent survey of officers underscores the point: 89% cited the huge amount of paperwork and process requirements as a key reason for their unwillingness to attend domestic incidents. Officers described being saddled with mandatory forms, risk checklists, and lengthy reporting that can be contrary to the victims’ desires and prolong their ordeal.
In the 1990s, the average time taken at a Domestic Abuse call was less than 2 hours. In 2022,that timeframe had moved to in excess of 7 hours with no improvement of outcomes for victims or survivors. Officers felt powerless to collaborate with victims and survivors and, as a consequence, felt stripped of discretion – unable to exercise judgment or adapt to the situation – for fear of breaking protocol and later facing scrutiny from supervisors. In fact, officers report being hyper-aware that any deviation might invite managerial criticism or sanction, which understandably discourages initiative.
Past experiences further colour officers’ perceptions. Many have handled repeat calls where, after all the effort – calming the scene, filling out forms, making an arrest – the case fizzles out with little resolution. It is no wonder that in the survey’s free-text responses, officers lamented that all the extra work often feels “fruitless” especially when victims disengage from the process. Some admitted they had, on occasion, delayed responding to a domestic call – not out of malice, but to delay for backup or to check dangerous history at the address.
More commonly, though, officers simply do not volunteer for these calls in the first place. They cite overwhelming demand and pressure to clear each call quickly so they can rush off to the next incident.
In summary, the combination of heavy workloads, rigid procedures, and a feeling that “nothing I do will change the outcome” creates a perfect storm of demotivation. Officers are often frustrated by not understanding why victims stay or will not cooperate, and without proper training in trauma dynamics, they may default to cynical views. It is a vicious cycle – the system’s complexity breeds officer aversion, which leads to slower responses, which in turn, leaves victims waiting longer for help.
Trauma, Fear and the Victim’s Dilemma
Victims of domestic abuse often face a terrible calculus when deciding whether to engage with the formal justice system. It is not that they do not want protection – they do. But trauma and fear heavily influence their choices. Many victims live in what psychologists describe as a state of “captivity” akin to Stockholm syndrome or complex PTSD, where their abuser’s control has eroded their autonomy and self-worth. After years of cyclical abuse, a victim may have learned to survive by appeasing the abuser, not fighting back. Calling the police can feel like an extreme step that contradicts those survival instincts.
There is also the very real fear of violent escalation. If a perpetrator is arrested today, what happens tomorrow if he returns angrier? Mandatory arrest policies, as noted above, can unintentionally deepen this fear.
Studies confirm that some victims will not call for help because they worry a police intervention will make things worse. Additionally, victims often face institutional fears – will the police believe me? Will they make things harder? Unfortunately, negative past encounters with authorities or a perception that police are indifferent can discourage victims from seeking help.
Many survivors also carry deep shame or self-blame, sometimes instilled by the abuser’s manipulations, which can make them reluctant to expose the situation to outsiders.
Beyond fear and shame lies a stark, practical reality: a victim may see no viable alternative to enduring the abuse. If reporting the violence means losing their partner’s income, or disrupting their children’s lives, or facing social judgment, the status quo can seem like the lesser evil. The formal criminal justice route – with its court dates, public testimonies, and uncertain outcomes – often fails to offer the immediate safety and long-term solution victims desperately need. This is why so many survivors tell researchers that what they want is for the violence to stop – not necessarily for a courtroom battle to begin.
Moving Beyond a Criminal Justice-Only Approach
Given these challenges, it is clear that simply doubling down on a police-and-prosecution model is not enough. We need to expand the toolkit.
Experts and practitioners are increasingly calling for trauma-informed, community-led interventions that can work in tandem with (or sometimes in place of) the traditional criminal justice response. The idea is to meet victims where they are and to address the root causesdriving abuse, rather than treating domestic violence as solely a crime to be punished after the fact.
Indeed, research recommends pursuing alternative outcomes instead of relying solely on the courts and urges multi-agency cooperation to tackle the complex family issues underpinning abuse. This means police, social services, healthcare, and community organisations all working together. A holistic approach can offer victims options like emergency housing, counselling, and advocacy alongside (or instead of) criminal proceedings.
It also means engaging perpetrators with interventions aimed at changing behaviour – before abuse escalates to tragedy. Promising examples are emerging. For instance, in Hampshire (UK) the police partnered with a local charity to run the CARA programme (Cautioning AndRelationship Abuse) which diverts low-risk offenders into workshops that challenge their attitudes and teach healthier conflict resolution, in lieu of immediate prosecution. Early evaluations showed positive results in reducing re-offending. Such efforts treat domestic abuse not just as a law enforcement incident, but as a public health and community safety problem – one that can be prevented and curtailed through education, support, and accountability outside the courtroom.
The Chrysalis Centre: A Holistic, Trauma-Informed Model
The most compelling blueprint for this innovative approach can be seen in the Chrysalis Centre. This Home Office-sponsored project embodies the kind of integrated, trauma-informed early intervention that could transform how we manage domestic abuse. At its core, the Chrysalis Centre operates as a triage and support hub for domestic abuse cases – coordinating across health, justice, and behavioural services to tailor a response for each family.
When a case comes in (often a first-time offender or lower-risk situation), the Chrysalis team does not rush straight into conventional arrest-and-charge. Instead, they first screen for underlying causes and risk factors probing issues like mental health, substance abuse, adverse childhood experiences, and other drivers that might be fuelling the abusive behaviour. This careful assessment is key to their trauma-informed ethos. It recognises that many perpetrators have their own histories of trauma or learned behaviour that need unpacking even as they are held accountable.
Based on a thorough needs assessment, the Chrysalis Centre can refer the individual to an appropriate intervention programme. It maintains a network of intervention providers and can match people to the help they need, whether that is a psycho-educational course on healthy relationships, addiction treatment, mental health support, or parenting programmes. Crucially, these referrals span a range of risk levels and situations – from young people showing early abusive behaviours to high-risk intimate partner violence cases to first-time offenders receiving a conditional caution (an alternative to prosecution that requires the offender to engage in intervention).
In parallel, the Chrysalis Centre makes sure survivors are not forgotten in this process. Victims are connected with support services in their own community; at minimum, they areoffered an initial meeting to map out their needs and create a safety plan.
Through Chrysalis’s links, victims can access help with mental health, housing, financial advice, and legal guidance – the full spectrum of assistance that a traumatised family might require to break free from the cycle of abuse.
The brilliance of the Chrysalis model lies in its holistic collaboration. By collaborating withpolice, courts, healthcare providers, and domestic violence charities, it creates a wraparound response. The goal is to make families safer by addressing the root drivers of abuse (like untreated trauma, alcohol misuse, or ingrained power-and-control behaviours) and by providing avenues for change that the traditional justice system alone is not equipped to offer.
It is not a soft option – participants are closely monitored and failure to engage can still trigger criminal proceedings – but it is a smarter option. Early reports suggest that this kind of victim-led, community-coordinated approach can reduce repeat incidents and increase victim wellbeing, all while easing the burden on police.
Embracing Innovation to Protect Families
For domestic abuse practitioners and policymakers, the implications are clear: we cannot continue with the same strategies and expect improved outcomes. Police forces will persistently face challenges such as slow response times and strained victim relationships if responses remain solely reliant on traditional criminal justice approaches.
It is critical now to fully embrace innovative, multi-sector solutions, putting victims at the heart of interventions and holding offenders accountable in more constructive and effective ways. This involves significantly investing in and scaling up initiatives like the Chrysalis Centre, enhancing training for officers in trauma-informed practice to better understand victim psychology, and empowering officers to exercise informed discretion without fear of repercussions. Success should no longer be measured merely by arrests or convictions, but rather by sustained safety and long-term healing for families.
Policymakers should recognise that these innovative, solution-oriented approaches are aimed at stopping violence before it escalates, healing the trauma it leaves behind, and breaking intergenerational cycles of abuse.
Coordinated efforts involving law enforcement, healthcare, and social services signal to victims that seeking help does not necessarily trigger an intimidating and punitive process, but rather initiates a compassionate, victim-led plan. Domestic abuse is a complex social problem requiring equally nuanced and flexible responses. Real progress demands empowering victims, addressing abusive behaviours at their root causes, and adapting responses to meet each family’s unique reality. The safety and wellbeing of countless families depend upon our courage and commitment to innovate now.