The Domestic Homicide Project report published 2022

[Thelnebriati]

''The number of people killed by a family member has more than doubled in the last year, a study has found.
The Domestic Homicide Project revealed 62 people died at the hands of a family member and 103 people were killed by an intimate partner in 2021-22, increasing by 55%.
The report also looked at domestic violence victims who died by suicide and found almost a quarter of the 370 domestic deaths reported in the last two years were suicides of people who had experienced domestic abuse.''
www.vkpp.org.uk/vkpp-work/domestic-homicide-project/

In all the headlines, I couldn't see one mention of the sex of perpetrators.

indeed. "Whilst female victims remained by far the most common, especially in domestic homicides, proportionately in year two there were more male victims (32%) across all deaths; male victims were more associated with child deaths."

good quality sex segregated statistics which include the sex of the perpetrator seem notably absent at first glance but I haven't read the reports yet; maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.

Yes its in the report, victim demographics are broken down by characteristics including sex, age and ethnicity. Its an improvement on the ONS figures imo.
www.vkpp.org.uk/assets/Files/Domestic-Homicide-Project-Year-2-Report-December-2022.pdf

And "no victims were known to have undergone gender reassignment" (ditto for suspects). But nevertheless the most oppressed and victimised, I'm sure.

Is that quote about proportionately more male victims a direct quote from the report? If so it creates an absurdly misleading impression.

In year one there were 220 deaths, of which 159 were female and 61 were male.

In year two there were 250 deaths, of which 171 were female and 79 were male. And additional 11 female deaths and an additional 18 male deaths.

In year two females represented 68.4% of victims compared to 72.3% in year one, a reduction of four percentage points. (Note percentage points, not percent.)

In year two males represented 31.6% of victims compared to 27.7% in year one, an increase of four percentage points. (Note percentage points not percent.)

In year one, suspected perpetrators were: male = 190 (80%); female = 44 (18.5%). In year two, perpetrators were: male 212 (83.5%); female = 42 (16.5%).

Using the wording “proportionately…there were more male victims (32%) across all deaths” creates a very different impression than using the wording “there was a four percentage point increase in total male deaths”.

Also the statement that there were proportionately more male victims in year two “across all deaths” is misleading. Using “across all deaths” creates the impression that this applies to each category of victim. That’s a false impression. In intimate partners deaths, the number of male deaths was the same in both years - 17 males. The percentage of male intimate partner victims decreased in year two.

The victim demographic with a notable change between year one and year two is in relation to children: in year one similar numbers of girls and boys were victims (11 and 12 respectively); whereas in year two, 3 girls and 13 boys were killed. The profile of suspected perpetrators in children’s deaths also changed somewhat, male perpetrators increasing to 50% of perpetrators in year two from 38% of perpetrators in year one.

So a project run by the National Police Chiefs Council and the College of Policing has chosen to highlight the 18 additional male deaths in year two compared to year one, but not chosen to highlight the 22 additional male perpetrators in year two compared to year one.

I wonder what prompted a project run by male dominated police organisations to focus on an increase in male victims rather than an increase in male perpetrators? I’m stumped.

The tables with the victim data are on pages 132-3. The tables with the perpetrator data are pages 134-5.

caveat: IANAS (I am not a statistician).

Absolutely brilliant breakdown of the stats! You are amazing!

Can I use the breakdown you have given?

@ChampagneCommunist well, if you’re using it for work purposes, I’d suggest double checking the tables etc yourself, and not presenting it as “LoobiJee on Mumsnet says…” as I’m not sure that would help your argument! As I said I’m not a statistician.

Also, I’ve only looked at those four tables, I haven’t read the whole thing. I was going to do a post on the contributory factors table but haven’t had time to look at it properly. A quick glance indicates that a previous history of domestic abuse remains the highest risk factor but what could be grouped as “unhappy life” factors (mental health, depression, substance misuse) are the next significant factor(s), and also coercive control.

Which is interesting. You sometimes hear that police spend much of their time dealing with individuals with mental health / substance misuse issues, and that activity not being regarded as “proper policing” - but this report shows that it’s activity which could potentially be helping to prevent deaths.

Thank you for that breakdown!

The report lists 4 factors for high risk (pages 11 & 12);
''These risk factors did vary by type of death, with coercive or controlling behaviour and prior police record of domestic abuse being particularly prominent in intimate partner homicide and in suspected victim suicides; and mental illness, alcohol and/or drug misuse and carer relationships being more prominent in adult family homicides.''

A lower percentage of the second type (suspects in adult family homicides) had previous contact with the police, they were more likely to have had contact with other agencies. So possibly by the time they are involved with the police, they need police intervention.
So yes, the police are not wasting resources.

Thank you @LoobiJee. It is very disturbing what they've chosen to highlight.

Thanks for that @LoobiJee