Understanding the Landscape of Domestic Violence Transitional Housing: Differences in Support Services and Housing for Rural and Non-Rural Clientele

Background and Purpose: Housing support is one of the most powerful and in-demand remedies to address domestic violence (DV) with an estimated 38,608 survivors served per day in DV agency housing programs. Housing remedies, including emergency shelter, rent aid, and vouchers, provide safety and stability to survivors and their children, yet housing needs are exacerbated by rent costs, a lack of childcare, and limited transportation access. Domestic violence transitional housing (DVTH), a supportive model provided by community-based agencies, provides a critical safety net of longer-term (12-24 month) housing for survivors beyond traditional emergency shelters. Despite the wide use of DVTH, little research has documented who is using DVTH, what their needs are, and how program environment and location impact service provision. This study begins to fill this gap by using programmatic data to examine the characteristics of DVTH users, engagement with services, and housing location variation with attention to rurality.

Methods: Five years (2015 – 2020) of programmatic data were obtained through a public information request to the U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) for semi-annual report data for their funded DVTH programs. Individual program progress reports were the unit of analysis, limited to programs in the U.S. The final sample size for reports included for analysis was 1,614. Bivariate tests were used to examine differences in client demographics, service availability, and housing types between programs serving primarily rural clientele (greater than 50%) to those that served non-rural clientele.

Results: Demographic differences exist among those accessing DVTH in rural and non-rural locations with clients with limited English language proficiency (t(1078) = 12.91, p<.001) and clients who were immigrants, refugees, or asylees (t(1283) = 12.93, p<.001) more likely to receive services at non-rural programs. Rural programs saw a larger number of clients that identified as Caucasian (t(463) = -12.93, p<.001), American Indian or Alaska Native (t(372) = -5.06, p<.001), or Hawaiian or Pacific Islander t(360) = -3.13, p<.01). Housing advocacy , (t(1602) = -2.81, p<.01), counseling and support groups (t(689) = -2.35, p<.05), and court accompaniment were used at significantly higher rates by rural clients (t(495) = -3.27, p<.001). Rural programs were more likely to utilize scattered site housing units whereas non-rural programs typically had housing units co-located with domestic violence or homeless shelters. On average, adult (t(1049) = 3.19, p<.01) and child (t(893) = 2.27, p<.05) clients had shorter-term stays within rural programs.

Conclusion: DVTH programs provide a critically important service to many survivors and children, with programs in this study providing an average of nearly 1400 nights of housing to survivors in every six-month period, and an additional 580 nights of shelter to children over the same period. Results highlight the substantial heterogeneity in program structure, participant demographics, and service engagement across OVW-funded non-rural and rural DVTH programs in the United States. The wide range of DVTH program types and supportive service use makes clear that programs need dynamic and flexible support and funding structures to align survivor-defined needs.