New technology and abuse in young people’s relationships: Findings from

a UK expert consultationMarsha Wood, Nadia

Aghtaie and Christine Barter

University of Bristol

Cath Larkins and Nicky Stanley

University of Central Lancashire

www.stiritup.eu

Focus1. Policy Overview2. Challenges 3. Conceptual tensions4. Ways Forward

Participants• Voluntary Sector = 8• Academics = 2• Government = 3

• Young People = 3 Groups, (20 members)

Activities• Policy Overview• Vignette• Small group discussion

• How do you talk about teenage intimate relationship abuse on a website and in questionnaires?

Policy Overview• IPV in YP relationships is recognised by:

Home Office - Domestic Violence Policy and campaigns - March 2013- definition widened to include 16 to 17 yrs. e.g. http://thisisabuse.direct.gov.uk/

Education - PSHE - Expect Respect Toolkit (Home Office and Women’s Aid) DV and Children’s NGOs (e.g Women’s Aid, The Hideout, Respect, AVA, ChildLine, Brook)

• But not by: Government child protection guidance in England and Wales - ‘Working

Together’ (Revised March 2013) reference removed Government Education Policy - PSHE – Not statutory, no mention of IPV in

young people’s relationships in Ofsted Guidance, no mention of young people’s relationships in bullying policy

Anti-bullying NGOs (eg Anti-Bullying Alliance, Beatbullying, Kidscape) - not mentioned on websites

Policy Overview

• But not by: Home Office DV policy – only small mention Safeguarding policy –mentions bullying and cyberbullying but no link to partner

violence Anti bullying & CyberBullying policies - mentions online-safety but no

connection to IPV. Internet safety centres – Some mention sexting & grooming, but not use of

New Technologies as partner violence.

• IPV, YP and New Technologies is recognised by Home Office Guidance (March 2013) Information for LAs on the change to the Definition of DV

and Abuse produced with charity AVA (and on http://thisisabuse.direct.gov.uk/) Other websites - Nottinghamshire domestic violence forum; That’s Not Cool Some projects within NGOs and research - e.g. Women’s Aid film ‘Can you see me’, CAVA, PEACH.

‘There is a lack of guidance in this field’‘the teacher has to make the leap. …as they do not

see IPV as a safeguarding issue.’

Reluctance to enter arena of sexual harm – not mentioned on websites:

‘Sometimes this is due to funding concerns’

2. Challenges

Lack of guidance, fear of consequences

As less PSHE is delivered, teachers are less equipped to have the necessary conversations - they do not have practice / background knowledge.

‘ ‘for every incident like the vignette, there are 30 girls who know about it, who are talking about it and who are being put under pressure to behave

in the same way’, There needs to be a response at the level of the class. ‘The girl may be being called a slut in class and the boys are all saying to other

girls ‘She did it, why don’t you?’.’

2. Challenges

• ‘Schools have taken on the bullying aspect but they have completely separated it off from sexual violence … to [not]address the …sexual …and …gendered nature of it.’

• Media polarisation and exaggeration: either ‘lock them up’ or ‘they’re just kids’ and ‘this is common’

2. Challenges

Definitions and shared understandings

This is not abuse! This could happen in my life!

3. Conceptual Tensions

SpaceConsentLegalityGenderRoles and lead agencies

3. Conceptual TensionsSpace•Adults distinguish between world of intimate relationships and online world – for young people, they are not segregated.

•Young people are (generally) more competent in online environments than adults (eg most teachers).

•Digital images can more easily move from private to public online spaces.

•Practitioners wary about intruding into area of intimate relationships –private territory but, for young people, privacy rules are shifting.

What happens on your phone is more private than what happens face to face!

On/offline

Adult/Child

Public/ Private

3. Conceptual Tensions

Consent• ‘[young people] have an idea that the age of

consent is 16, but not what consent really means. ... There may well be genuine surprise that some of this is illegal.’

• ‘they don’t realise that …being in a relationship does not mean that you consent. We should be talking about more enthusiastic consent!’

• ‘Yes she has given consent to the act, but not for the distribution of images.’

Law/Practice

No/ Not this

3. Conceptual Tensions

LegalityYoung people don’t understand what the law is with regard to posting sexually explicit images on line• ‘It is the distribution that is illegal…’• ’I have had the police say to parents, ‘the first thing

that his defence lawyer will say is OK, the girl has to be prosecuted herself as she sent this image to the boy’.’

• ‘you don’t always want to see this first as a illegal activity …You want a police officer …very well trained, who can go in and talk to the girl.

Legal/ illegal

Victim/perpetrator

Criminalise/Safeguard

3. Conceptual Tensions

Gender

•The victim is seen as the problem•The gender aspect of this issue is conveyed in everyday speach

•’They are constantly bombarded with images and objectification of women, so need to think about how to challenge that effectively and how to engage with this generation, and engage with young men as allies as well.’

Reason/ Response

Structured Masculinity

and Resistance

3. Conceptual Tensions

Roles

‘Everyone presumes someone else will deal with the situation – there’s no ownership’Young people’s privacy and how they want to deal with it have to be respected (age?)Needs response across school, family, community, society.Teacher-child perhaps not the best dynamic for addressing issue

Adult ownership/

child led

Supporting victims/

informing families

4. Ways forward• More voluntary organisations are developing

policy, guidance and resources:• More training is being developed and could be

delivered more widely, eg Ofsted and governors• Coordinated multi agency responses• Peer led and Bystander approaches

• Build on examples of good practice where found.

www.stiritup.eu