Creating Opportunities for Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence: Lessons from a Transitional Housing Program Evaluation

Background: Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) can disrupt economic mobility across generations by undermining victims’ financial resources, employment prospects, and housing security. Economic abuse is quite common and can take many forms from limiting victims’ access to money or financial information to forcing them to assume unwanted debt. Economic abuse, coupled with additional experiences of violence and the need for safety increases the likelihood of housing disruptions among IPV survivors, including entering emergency shelter systems for safety, being evicted, and losing housing vouchers. In fact, some IPV victims find themselves in the untenable situation of having to choose between seeking safety and losing their housing. Generic programmatic responses to address the housing and employment needs may fail to address IPV survivors’ specific barriers for self-sufficiency. One housing solution for IPV survivors is transitional housing (TH). TH provides time-limited supportive housing with free or reduced rent, and access to on-going IPV services. Emerging research indicates survivors may prefer TH over other housing programs, particularly when safety, mental health, and immigration status barriers exist.  This study explores how TH services address IPV survivors’ complex needs as they exit abusive relationships.

Method: This study utilized evaluation data from newly established IPV TH program offering coordinated services from IPV and homeless prevention organizations. All current and past service recipients (n=30) were invited to participate. Participants (n=10) were interviewed using a semi-structured guide that explored the intersections of housing with numerous life domains (e.g. family/relationships; health; goals; finances; education; legal involvement) and TH program experiences and received a $20 gift card. Interviews were digitally recorded, lasted 50-90 minutes, and were transcribed verbatim. Survivor timelines were constructed to illustrate patterns of IPV, employment, and housing insecurity over time. Separate case manager discussions and surveys provided additional context about service experiences. Using thematic analysis techniques, data were coded and analyzed within and across cases to better understand TH service delivery successes, barriers, and gaps.

Results: Survivor timelines illustrated the ways in which IPV constrained economic, educational, and housing opportunities, creating unique and complex service needs. TH services allowed many participants to successfully secure employment (or increase employability), create family routines, and re-establish a sense of safety. Case managers helped participants obtain employment, child care, health services, and longer-term housing resources. Several participants received assistance with legal matters, including filing for divorce to receive spousal support, or resolving a drug misdemeanor charge in order to begin a new job. Though some participants benefited from available services, other participants required services the program did not provide, including co-housing options, preferred geographic locations, or culturally specific resources.  

Implications: These findings align with emerging national best practices which include: 1) flexible funding to meet individualized needs of survivors; 2) mobile community-based advocacy services; and 3) survivor-centered, trauma-informed services. Enhanced pubic private partnerships may be especially important in meeting the housing needs of culturally diverse survivors. Future research should explore service models for DV housing and assess the outcomes of transitional housing for diverse survivor populations.