Skip to main content

The UK Government ‘mission’ to prevent violence: What should it involve?

Author(s): Luke Billingham & Keir Irwin-Rogers

23/01/2025

As researchers of violence prevention policymaking, we were struck by the new UK Government’s announcement last year of a flagship cross-departmental ‘mission’: they would make the streets safer, including by halving rates of ‘knife crime’. In this blog, we suggest what this mission should involve, if it is to achieve a permanent improvement in our society’s peacefulness.

Our study took a mixed-methods approach to contemporary violence prevention policymaking in England and Wales. We have recently published a briefing summarising our findings and policy recommendations. Here, we first outline two headline findings, before discussing our overarching policy proposals, and their ramifications for the current government.

Headline findings

  1. Progress has been made in recent years. Violence Reduction Units, the Serious Violence Duty, and the Youth Endowment Fund, for instance, have contributed to improved collaboration and coordination, and a stronger evidence base on what causes violence and how to prevent it. These policy initiatives have fed into a much-needed consensus on the value of prevention: violence is preventable, not inevitable, and government action should focus on addressing drivers of violence. These initiatives should continue and be built upon.
  2. At present, though, too much faith is being placed in multi-agency working and discrete, time-limited interventions to reduce violence. Whilst these measures do play a crucial role, they must not crowd out a wider focus on ensuring that the full range of social determinants of violence is addressed, through action at national, regional and local levels.

The way forward

To create a safer society, we need: 

  1. Sustained action to address the ‘macro-social determinants’ of violence in particular – societal factors such as poverty, inequality, inadequate housing, exploitative employment, and a lack of sufficient mental health support. 
  2. Substantial central government action to address these societal determinants. It is right for regional and local bodies to lead the way in designing tailored responses to the drivers of violence in their areas. But they must have adequate resources and powers to do so effectively, and their efforts must be complemented by central government action on national-level drivers. This should enable localised bodies to go beyond remedial activities to deal with the local symptoms of national problems – which is all too often what they are restricted to.
  3. An approach which addresses all ‘four Is’: 1) Inequalities must be reduced; 2) institutions, services and social infrastructure (such as schools, social care, and leisure facilities) must be adequately resourced; 3) effective interventions must be delivered; and 4) the direct interactions and relationships experienced by young people (within their families, communities, and with professionals) must be enriched. 

The Four 'I's of violence prevention

Figure from our ‘A Safer Society for Your People’ policy briefing.

What does this mean for the Government’s ‘safer streets’ mission?

The ‘safer streets’ mission should include these broad-ranging changes. Continued improvements to multi-agency working and to specific violence reduction interventions are welcome, but the UK Government must go beyond these, to address the macro-social determinants of violence.

The Government’s proposed ‘Young Futures’ programme – the component of the ‘safer streets’ mission most directly focused on violence reduction – shows some promise. Prevention Partnerships have the potential to enhance multi-agency working in local areas. ‘Young Futures Hubs’ could become valuable new social infrastructure for young people, supporting their wellbeing, connecting them with opportunities, and helping them to stay safe.

Looking at government activity more widely, it is encouraging to see pledges on issues such as child poverty and inadequate housing, which are national-level drivers of violence. But these pledges must be pursued with sufficient ambition and boldness, rather than only producing a bundle of small-scale and short-lived initiatives. The Government’s resistance to scrapping the two-child limit on welfare payments is concerning, in this regard – given that this would lift 300,000 children out of poverty.

It is heartening to see the Government take action on profiteering within private children’s homes. For too long, companies have been able to make substantial profits from providing inadequate care to our country’s most vulnerable children. Legislation to stop this malpractice represents significant action to address one of the most pressing institutional problems driving vulnerability, exploitation and violence.

Violence prevention policy, then, should not only address the direct, proximal causes of violence. Such an approach could only lead to a temporary containment of violence, rather than its permanent reduction. To create a sustainably safer society requires more substantial institutional, systemic and societal change. The new Government’s activity so far gives a mixed picture: there is some cause for considerable concern, as well as reasons for optimism.

For more information: