Beyond Domestic Violence Shelter: Factors Associated With Housing Placements for Survivors Exiting Emergency Shelters

Abstract

Domestic violence (DV) shelters are a critical resource for many survivors facing housing instability. Although DV shelter programs may address an array of survivor needs, DV survivors often identify the most pressing concerns as the need for safe housing and the financial resources to maintain housing. This study examines the factors associated with housing placements for DV survivors residing in emergency shelters. Data for this study came from program data collected by one organization operating six DV emergency shelters in an urban northeastern city. Among the sample of 347 DV survivors, findings revealed that there were significant associations between sociodemographic variables, services received, and post-discharge variables and post-shelter housing. Among this sample, three out of four residents (74.9%) left the DV shelter with housing in place. However, the findings suggest that there are areas for improved services and policy efforts to further support survivors in accessing safe and affordable housing. Our findings invite researchers and practitioners to consider further examination of best practices around program and policy options that support survivors in gaining economic independence and securing safe and affordable housing.

Keywords

domestic violence battered women intervention/treatment

Introduction

One in four women and one in seven men in the United States have been victims of severe physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime (Black et al., 2011). Domestic violence (DV) is a pervasive social problem with far-reaching consequences. DV is associated with housing instability, employment volatility, and financial devastation (Adams, Tolman, Bybee, Sullivan, & Kennedy, 2012; Pavao, Alvarez, Baumrind, Induni, & Kimerling, 2007) and is among the leading cause of homelessness for women in the United States (Levin, McKean, & Raphael, 2004; Wilder Research Center, 2007).

For many survivors facing housing instability, DV shelters are a critical resource. Emergency DV shelters can be essential services in protecting survivors from abuse and linking survivors facing housing instability to long-term solutions (Baker, Billhardt, Warren, Rollins, & Glass, 2010; Grossman, Lundy, George, & Crabtree-Nelson, 2010; National Network to End Domestic Violence [NNEVD], 2017). For most survivors residing in DV emergency shelters, the need to secure affordable housing is a top concern (Lyon, Lane, & Menard, 2008). Despite the critical need for long-term housing solutions among residents, there is little research examining housing placements of survivors leaving DV shelter programs. This is a striking gap in the literature, given that shelter stays may be a critical juncture in survivors’ path to hope and stability (Lyon et al., 2008). This study attempts to address this gap by examining factors associated with housing placements for DV survivors residing in emergency shelters.

DV Emergency Shelter Programs

DV emergency shelter programs are one of the longest provided services for survivors of domestic violence in the United States (Bennett, Riger, Schewe, Howard, & Wasco, 2004). According to the NNEDV (2017), there are more than 40,400 survivors and their children residing in DV emergency shelter programs on any given day across the nation. Survivors experiencing severe abuse and possessing few financial resources are the most likely to turn to DV shelter programs (Galano, Hunter, Howell, Miller, & Graham-Bermann, 2013; Grossman & Lundy, 2011).

Although evaluations of DV shelter programs are limited, the research that does exist suggests that DV shelters are effective resources for many survivors (Bennett et al., 2004; Lyon et al., 2008; Panchanadeswaran & McCloskey, 2007). Many survivors report feeling safe in DV shelters and often rate shelters are the most effective social service for ending violence in their lives (Bybee & Sullivan, 2005; Few, 2005; Ham-Rowbottom, Gordon, Jarvis, & Novaco, 2005; Panchanadeswaran & McCloskey, 2007; Tutty, Weaver, & Rothery, 1999). However, survivors also report negative shelter experiences. Qualitative studies have documented the dissatisfaction with DV emergency shelter programs that many survivors have shared, especially in regard to DV shelter policies and the isolating experience of living in a DV emergency shelter (Fisher & Stylianou, 2019; Glenn & Goodman, 2015; Gregory, Nnawulezi, & Sullivan, 2021; Wood et al. 2017). In addition, two studies (one with DV emergency shelter residents and one with DV transitional shelter residents) have reported that some survivors are unable to secure safe housing and recommend a wider variety of housing options post-shelter (Clark, Wood, & Sullivan, 2018; Stylianou & Hoge, 2020). Research has also highlighted the White normative approach that many DV shelters utilize in program design and implementation, leaving survivors of color less welcomed and satisfied with shelter programs (Donnelly, Cook, Ausdale, & Foley, 2005; Nnawulezi & Sullivan, 2014).

While residing in a DV emergency shelter, survivors focus on recovering from abuse, addressing their health and mental health needs, providing support to their children, addressing legal issues related to family and criminal court matters, securing employment, locating affordable housing, and more. To accomplish these objectives within the short time frame of emergency shelter programming (NNEDV, 2017; Sullivan & Virden, 2017) is nearly impossible. For many survivors, the result is that they exit the DV emergency shelter program without permanent, affordable, and safe housing in place. For some survivors, entering a DV shelter program becomes the system pipeline to homelessness. Many DV survivors leave shelter programs to move into family homeless shelters or consider other housing alternatives that may be unsafe or temporary living situations. For other DV survivors who cannot find permanent housing, returning to live with the abusive partner becomes the only option.

Housing Options for DV Survivors

Although securing affordable, permanent housing is a top priority for most survivors residing in DV emergency shelters, in reality, survivors often exit shelter programs to a range of post-shelter housing situations. In many communities, where affordable housing is limited and there exists numerous structural barriers against survivors of DV—and specifically survivors of color—in finding housing, the search for permanent, affordable housing can become impossible. For DV survivors who face a range of financial or additional challenges, the search for housing is even more complex. Many survivors, as part of the abuse dynamics, have had employment disrupted or forbidden, their finances controlled, and/or their credit scores ruined by their abusive partners (Adams, Sullivan, Bybee, & Greeson, 2008; Stylianou, 2018). Survivors with poor credit or unstable work histories are less competitive on the housing market. Survivors may have poor rental histories, which may result from multiple moves to escape abusive partners or from evictions that arose from abusers’ actions (Martin & Stern, 2005). Survivors may need to secure housing within specific communities to decrease the likelihood the abusive partners will not locate them, further limiting their housing options. Survivors searching for housing may experience discrimination from landlords who fear that abusive partners might create problems within the residences (Correia & Rubin, 1999). Locating housing is further diminished in many communities due to the overall lack of affordable housing stock (Baker et al., 2010). Although there is a clear link between DV and homelessness, the DV organizations and homeless services typically operate in silos with little coordination between these two systems (Baker et al., 2010), creating additional barriers to DV survivors on the brink of homelessness.

Despite the vital role DV emergency shelters play in providing support to survivors and linking survivors to long-term housing stability, there is little research on individual factors that may be associated with housing placements of survivors exiting DV shelter programs. To date, one study conducted by Ham-Rowbottom et al. (2005) interviewed graduate DV shelter residents who received services from one nonprofit organization in southern California. The sample consisted of 81 graduates from both the DV emergency shelter (46% of the sample) and the DV transitional shelter (54% of the sample). Among this sample of shelter graduates, the majority of the participants maintained stable housing after leaving the program. At the time of the interview, 90% of the participants were renting a house or an apartment, 7% of the participants had purchased a home, and two participants made housing arrangements not requiring rent payments. The remaining participants had transferred to another shelter program.

Although these initial findings sound promising (Ham-Rowbottom et al., 2005), there are numerous limitations to the study’s design. Locating the residents post-shelter was a difficult endeavor, and the research team reported interviewing only 24% of the residents who had exited from the emergency shelter program and interviewing only 48% of the residents who had exited from the transitional shelter. It is likely that the sample participating in the study consisted of residents with higher housing stability. Furthermore, the findings combined graduates from both DV emergency and transitional shelter programs, which are vastly different program designs. DV transitional shelter residents, who often reside in transitional programs for six months to two years, are more likely to achieve housing stability than residents exiting short-term emergency shelter programs. Therefore, this sample likely demonstrated higher rates of housing stability due to the recruitment strategy and inclusion of transitional shelter residents.

Given the lack of available research on housing placements of survivors leaving DV emergency shelter programs, the current study examined client-level factors (sociodemographic data, shelter services received, and post-discharge variables) associated with post-shelter housing placements for DV survivors residing in emergency shelter programs. Understanding the housing placements of survivors exiting emergency shelter is critical to informing the field of the needs of DV survivors and to redefining DV shelter programming.

Method

The aim of this study was to examine the client-level factors (sociodemographic data, shelter services received, and post-discharge variables) associated with post-shelter housing placements for DV survivors residing in emergency shelter programs. Data for this study came from program data collected by one organization operating six DV emergency shelters in an urban northeastern city. The six emergency shelters utilized three different program designs, including traditional shelter models, scattered site models, and combination models. The traditional shelter model design includes shared or single apartments in one building where supportive services are offered. Scattered site models place residents in shared apartments located in several different apartment complexes throughout the neighborhood while providing supportive services in one central office. Combination models are ones in which the majority of living spaces are in one building with some scattered dwellings located off-site.

All six shelters utilized staffing models that consisted of residential specialists, case managers, one social worker, and one director. Residential specialists are paraprofessional staff who work all shifts and focus on the practical needs of the shelter residents. Case managers are paraprofessional staff working day and evening shifts; they coordinate services and appointments for residents, such as public benefit and housing applications. Social workers are master’s level positions working the day and/or evening shift and focusing on supporting the emotional safety and parenting/family needs of residents and their children. Shelter directors are master’s level staff working day and/or evening shifts responsible for overall shelter operation. In addition, each shelter operates a children’s program to provide temporary childcare for the residents, while parents conduct housing searchers, job interviews, or other critical activities. The shelters operate on a voluntary service model, so all services are optional for residents.

Design and Procedures

Data for this study came from program data collected by program staff throughout the participants’ stay in the DV shelter. Data for this analysis spanned from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016. Of the 423 survivors who resided in the emergency shelter programs throughout the year, 347 (82%) contained data on the residents’ post-shelter destination and were included in this analysis. The data were extracted from the program database, de-identified, and provided to the organization’s evaluation team who conducted the analysis using SPSS.

Independent t tests and chi-square analyses were utilized to examine differences between the residents in which post-shelter destination was captured in the database (n = 347) and the residents in which post-shelter destination was not captured in the database (n = 76) across all key variables. There were no significant differences between residents with post-shelter destination included in the database and residents without post-shelter data on any of the resident sociodemographic information. However, residents with post-shelter data received a higher number of housing information services (t = −3.62, p < .001), safety assessment services (t = −3.89, p < .001), and advocacy services (t = −2.63, p < .001) than residents without post-shelter destination data available. There was a significant difference in the length of stay in the shelter program (t = −5.35, p < .01). Residents with destination post-shelter recorded stayed on average 88 days longer in the emergency shelter program. The longer length of stay among residents with destination post-shelter data may explain the higher rates of services received.

There were also significant differences in the reason for exiting shelter (χ² = 85.55, p < .001). Residents with post-shelter data available were more likely to leave the shelter with housing in place, whereas residents without post-shelter destination data were more likely to have been administratively discharged, left on their own, or left for another reason. Residents with post-shelter destination data available were also more likely to have income at exit from General Assistance and/or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (χ² = 11.69, p < .01).

Measures

Sociodemographic variables included age, children in shelter, race/ethnicity, primary language, marital status, education, work history, and income. Program staff collected sociodemographic data during the initial shelter intake. Race of the residents was collected by program staff and included a variety of categories including American Indian/American Alaskan, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, White, Multiracial, and Other. In addition, staff collected the ethnicity of the residents in the program data as Hispanic/Latino(a) or non-Hispanic/Latino(a). For this analysis, the race/ethnicity data were collapsed into four categories including Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino(a), White/Caucasian, and Other. If the resident’s demographic data included Hispanic/Latino(a), then the resident was included as Hispanic/Latino(a) in this study. Staff noted the primary language in the resident’s file, and the data set included a long list of languages including English, Spanish, Arabic, Bengali, French, Haitian Creole, Italian, Japanese, Mandarin, Mandingo, Russian, and Thai. As the majority of clients (87.3%) spoke English as their primary language, the language categories were collapsed into English or Other. Marital status included the following categories: single, separated, divorced, common law, living together, married and living with spouse, married and not living with spouse, widowed, and other. For this analysis, the data were collapsed into two categories including not married (common law, divorced, living together, separated, single, widowed, or other) and married (married and living with spouse and married and not living with spouse). Staff collected these data during the initial intake assessment.

Program staff collected service utilization data as service type and units of service provided throughout residents’ shelter stays. Service categories included safety assessment, crisis intervention, individual counseling, housing information, practical assistance, and advocacy. Safety assessments included conversations with the residents focused on identifying the safety risks and concerns of the residents and on developing safety plans that identified possible options, resources, and supports available to the resident to increase their safety and the safety of their children. Safety assessments were often conducted during the first session and ongoing as the risks of the residents shifted over time. Crisis intervention services were provided if the resident was in a state of crisis in which there were emergent concerns regarding physical and/or emotional safety of the resident. Individual counseling was provided by case managers and/or social workers and utilized a trauma-informed, client-centered supportive counseling model focused on providing validation, psychoeducation, and collaborative problem solving. Housing information included any conversations and/or support provided by staff to the residents in regard to their housing needs, including discussing housing options, completing housing applications, and supporting the residents’ housing searches. Practical assistance was noted any time the staff provided financial support in the form of public transportation passes, gift cards, food, household items, school supplies, clothing, or other practical needs. Advocacy included any work conducted by the staff on behalf of the client around navigating systems including the housing, education, and criminal justice systems.

Program staff collected post-shelter data on residents’ exit reasons and post-shelter destinations at the end of residents’ shelter stays. Exit reasons included exiting the shelter after using up time allotted in shelter stay, being asked by the shelter to exit the program, leaving for DV transitional shelter, leaving for permanent housing, residents voluntarily leaving on their own, leaving without informing the shelter, safety transfer, and other. Post-shelter destinations of residents included an array of subsidized housing categories, unsubsidized housing categories, transitional housing categories, and several unspecified housing categories. Staff also collected data on income at discharge (< $500/month or $500+/month) and the primary source of income at discharge, which included no income, public assistance, employment, and other.

Data Analysis

First, descriptive statistics were used to examine the sample’s sociodemographic variables and to examine the services received and post-shelter variables recorded in the program database. Second, the dependent variable, post-shelter destination, was examined to explore whether the variable could be divided into conceptually informative groups based on similar post-shelter location. The dependent variable was categorized into five meaningful groups. Group 1 (25.1%), General Homeless System, included residents who moved from the DV emergency shelter into the general homeless system. Group 2 (18.4%), Unsubsidized Housing, included residents who were renting unsubsidized housing or residing with family, friends, or roommates. Group 3 (24.8%), Subsidized Housing, included residents who were residing in any housing through national or city-funded subsidized programs. Group 4 (20.7%), DV Transitional Shelter, included residents who moved from the DV emergency shelter into a DV transitional shelter program. Group 5 (11.0%), Other, included residents who were residing in another DV emergency program due to a safety transfer or whose post-shelter location was noted as “Other” in the database. Finally, bivariate analyses, including ANOVAs and chi-square tests, were conducted to examine the differences in the sociodemographic variables, services received, and post-shelter variables across the five post-shelter location groups (General Homeless System, Unsubsidized Housing, Subsidized Housing, DV Transitional Shelter, and Other).

Sample Characteristics

The average length of stay in the emergency shelter was 186.2 days (SD = 137.7). The average age of the resident was 28.4 years (SD = 7.0), and 89.6% of residents had children residing with them in the emergency shelter. Over half (57.0%) of residents identified as Black or African American, 35.2% identified as Hispanic/Latino(a), 4.2% identified as White/Caucasian, and 3.6% identified as “Other.” The majority of residents spoke English (87.3%) as their primary language, identified as female (99.1%), identified their sexual orientation as straight (95.7%), and reported their marital status as not married (84.6%). More than one third (39.8%) of residents reported having less than a high school degree, half (50.0%) reported having a high school degree or equivalent, and 10.2% reported having a college degree. Approximately one tenth (13.1%) of residents entered shelter with no work experience, 39.9% of residents had up to 1 year of work experience, 29.7% had 1 to 3 years of work experience, and 17.3% had more than 3 years of work experience. Upon entering shelter, 40.4% reported no income, 33.7% reported a monthly income of up to US$500, and 25.9% reported a monthly income of more than US$500.

Results

Relationship Between Post-Shelter Destination and Sociodemographic Variables

One-way ANOVAs and chi-square tests examined whether there were differences in post-shelter location based on age, children in shelter, race/ethnicity, primary language, marital status, education, and work history. See Table 1 for the results. The findings revealed that there were significant differences in post-shelter destination based on the resident’s children (yes/no), primary language, education level, and work history.

Table 1.

Demographic Variables by Discharge Destination.

Demographic Variable	General Homeless System M(SD) or %	Unsubsidized Housing M(SD) or %	Subsidized Housing M(SD) or %	DV Transitional Housing M(SD) or %	Other M(SD) or %
Age	27.6 (7.2)	27.6 (7.0)	30.0 (7.5)	27.3 (4.7)	29.8 (8.0)
Children in shelter***
No	36.1	8.3	30.6	0.0	25.0
Yes	23.8	19.6	24.1	23.2	9.3
Race/Ethnicity
Black/African American	27.2	17.3	22.5	21.5	11.5
Hispanic/Latino(a)	20.3	21.2	29.7	21.2	7.6
White/Caucasian	28.6	21.4	28.6	0.0	21.4
Other	8.3	16.7	25.0	33.3	16.7
Primary language**
English	27.7	17.8	23.1	19.5	11.9
Other	6.8	22.7	36.4	29.5	4.5
Marital status
Not married	24.0	18.0	31.1	18.0	8.9
Married	18.4	16.3	36.7	22.4	6.1
Education**
<High school	34.4	22.7	16.4	18.0	8.6
High school	20.5	16.8	30.4	23.0	9.3
College degree	12.1	18.2	18.2	30.3	21.2
Work History*
No history	36.6	29.3	9.8	14.6	9.8
<1 year	27.2	21.6	22.4	20.8	8.0
1 to <3 years	21.5	9.7	24.7	31.2	12.9
≥3 years	16.7	20.4	33.3	16.7	13.0
Income
<US$500/month	27.8	21.5	24.4	17.7	8.6
US$500+/month	16.4	15.1	27.4	26.0	15.1

Note. DV = domestic violence.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

The findings revealed that there was a significant association between children in shelter and post-shelter destination, χ²(4) = 20.3, p < .001. Residents with children at the shelter had the highest association with discharging to unsubsidized housing (19.6%, compared with 8.3% of participants without children) and DV transitional shelter (23.2%, compared with 0.0% of participants without children). In contrast, residents without children at the shelter had the highest association with discharging to the general homeless system (36.1%, compared with 23.8% of participants with children), subsidized housing (30.6%, compared with 24.1% of participants with children), and Other post-shelter locations (25.0%, compared with 9.3% of participants with children). In addition, there was a significant association between primary language and post-shelter destination, χ²(4) = 13.7, p < .01. Residents with English as their primary language had the highest association with discharging to the general homeless system (27.7%, compared with 6.8% of residents whose primary language was not English) and Other (11.9%, compared with 4.5% of residents whose primary language was not English). However, this finding must be carefully considered, given the majority of the sample (87.3%) was English speaking.

There was a significant association between education and post-shelter destination, χ²(8) = 22.1, p < .01. Residents with less than a high school degree had the highest association with discharging to the general homeless system (34.4%, compared with 20.5% of residents with a high school degree and 12.1% of residents with a college degree) and unsubsidized housing (22.7%, compared with 16.8% of residents with a high school degree and 18.2% of residents with a college degree). In addition, residents without a high school degree had the lowest association of discharging to subsidized housing (16.4%, compared with 30.4% of residents with a high school degree and 18.2% of residents with a college degree) and to DV transitional shelter (18.0%, compared with 23.0% of residents with a high school degree and 30.3% of residents with a college degree).

There was also a significant association between work history and post-shelter destination, χ²(12) = 24.0, p < .05. Residents with no work history had the highest association with discharging to the general homeless system (36.6%, compared with 27.2% of residents with <1 year of work history, 21.5% of residents with 1 to <3 years of work history, and 16.7% of residents with ≥3 years of work history) and unsubsidized housing (29.3%, compared with 21.6% of residents with <1 year work history, 9.7% of residents with 1 to <3 years of work history, and 20.4% of residents with ≥3 years of work history). Residents with no work history had the lowest association with discharging to subsidized housing (9.8%, compared with 22.4% of residents with <1 year work history, 24.7% of residents with 1 to <3 years of work history, and 33.3% of residents with ≥3 years of work history) and DV transitional housing (14.6%, compared with 20.8% of residents with <1 year work history, 31.2% of residents with 1 to <3 years of work history, and 16.7% of residents with ≥3 years of work history).

Relationship Between Post-Shelter Destination and Services Received

Across the entire sample, most participants received a variety of services from the shelter program. The most frequently utilized services included safety assessment (74.2%), housing information (67.6%), individual counseling (58.9%), practical assistance (42.8%), crisis intervention (31.0%), and advocacy (24.6%). ANOVAs were conducted to examine whether group differences existed for services participants received. See Table 2 for the results.

Table 2.

Services Received by Discharge Destination.

Services Received	General Homeless System, M (SD)	Unsubsidized Housing, M (SD)	Subsidized Housing, M (SD)	DV Transitional Housing, M (SD)	Other, M (SD)
Safety assessment	4.5 (6.1)	5.9 (6.6)	7.0 (8.7)	6.8 (7.9)	3.9 (5.4)
Housing information***	4.5 (6.0)	3.3 (5.0)	6.0 (5.9)	2.5 (2.6)	3.9 (6.4)
Individual counseling*	2.2 (3.8)	3.1 (6.3)	3.8 (6.1)	5.2 (7.1)	3.0 (4.0)
Practical assistance	1.5 (3.5)	0.9 (1.5)	2.0 (3.6)	2.1 (3.8)	2.0 (2.9)
Crisis intervention	0.9 (1.6)	0.5 (1.4)	0.8 (1.3)	0.4 (1.0)	0.6 (1.1)
Advocacy**	0.2 (0.5)	0.5 (1.2)	0.8 (1.4)	0.8 (1.2)	0.4 (1.2)

Note. DV = domestic violence.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Residents significantly differed on post-shelter destination based on the number of times they received housing information, F(4, 342) = 5.57, p < .001, individual counseling, F(4, 342) = 3.08, p < .05, and advocacy services, F(4, 342) = 5.60, p < .01. In regard to housing information, Bonferroni post hoc tests revealed significant differences in the amount of housing information services received between individuals exited to unsubsidized housing (3.3 ± 5.0) and subsidized housing (6.0 ± 5.9) and individuals exited to DV transitional housing (2.5 ± 2.6) and subsidized housing (6.0 ± 5.9). In regard to individual counseling, post hoc tests revealed significant differences in the amount of individual counseling services received between individuals exited to the general homeless system (2.2 ± 3.8) and DV transitional housing (5.2 ± 7.1). Finally, in regard to advocacy services, post hoc tests revealed significant differences in the amount of advocacy services received between individuals exited to the general homeless system (0.2 ± 0.5) and subsidized housing (0.8 ± 1.4) and between individuals exited to the general homeless system (0.2 ± 0.5) and DV transitional housing (0.8 ± 1.2).

Relationship Between Post-Shelter Destination and Post-Shelter Variables

ANOVAs and chi-square analyses were conducted to examine differences in post-shelter destination based on the number of days in shelter, discharge reason, income at discharge, and source of income at discharge. There were significant differences in post-shelter destination based on the length of time in shelter, discharge reason, and income source at discharge. See Table 3 for the results.

Table 3.

Post-Discharge Variables by Housing Placement.

Post-Discharge Variables	General Homeless System, M (SD) or %	Unsubsidized Housing, M (SD) or %	Subsidized Housing M (SD) or %	DV Transitional Housing, M (SD) or %	Other, M (SD) or %
Days in shelter***	140.8 (118.6)	159.0 (145.3)	282.6 (153.3)	162.0 (58.8)	163.1 (137.7)
Discharge reason***
Left with housing in place	0.00	5.9	49.7	42.0	2.3
Administrative discharge	72.0	15.9	1.2	1.2	9.8
Left on own	18.3	65.0	0.00	0.0	16.7
Other	33.3	13.3	0.00	0.0	53.3
Income at discharge
<US$500/month	26.4	17.9	27.4	18.9	9.5
US$500+/month	21.0	18.0	24.0	24.0	13.0
Income source at discharge**
No income	35.0	25.0	5.0	10.0	25.0
Public assistance	29.2	18.9	22.2	22.7	7.0
Employment	12.7	13.9	31.7	27.8	13.9
Other	26.7	22.2	28.9	6.7	15.6

Note. DV = domestic violence.

p < .01. ***p < .001.

The number of days in shelter was significantly associated with post-shelter destination, F(4, 342) = 17.00, p < .001. Bonferroni post hoc tests revealed significant differences (p < .001) in length of stay between individuals who exited to subsidized housing (282.5 ± 153.3) compared with individuals who exited to the general homeless system (140.8 ± 118.6), unsubsidized housing (159.0 ± 145.3), DV transitional housing (162.0 ± 58.8), and Other (163.1 ± 137.7).

There was a significant association between exit reason and post-shelter destination, χ²(12) = 387.8, p < .001. Participants leaving the shelter with housing in place had the highest association with discharging to subsidized housing (49.7%, compared with 1.2% of individuals administratively discharged and 0.0% of individuals who left on their own or Other) and to DV transitional housing (42.0%, compared with 1.2% of individuals administratively discharged and 0.0% of individuals who left on their own). Participants leaving the shelter with housing in place had the lowest association with discharging to the general homeless system (0.0%, compared with 72.0% of individuals administratively discharged, 18.3% of individuals who left on their own, and 33.3% of individuals who left for Other reasons), to unsubsidized housing (5.9%, compared with 15.9% of individuals administratively discharged, 65.0% of individuals who left on their own, and 13.3% of individuals who left for Other reasons), and to Other (2.3%, compared with 9.8% of individuals administratively discharged, 16.7% of individuals who left on their own, and 53.3% of individuals who left for Other reasons).

In contrast, individuals who were administratively discharged had the highest association with discharging to the general homeless system (72.0%, compared with 0.0% of individuals who left with housing in place, 18.3% of individuals who left on their own, and 33.3% who left for Other reasons). Finally, individuals who left on their own had the highest association with discharging to unsubsidized housing (65.0%, compared with 5.9% of individuals who left with housing in place, 15.9% of individuals who were administratively discharged, and 13.3% of individuals who left for Other reasons).

In regard to income source at exit, the findings revealed that post-shelter destination significantly differed by income source at exit, χ²(12) = 29.45 p < .01. Individuals with no income had the highest association with discharging to the general homeless system (35.0%, compared with 29.2% of individuals receiving public assistance, 12.7% of individuals with employment income, and 26.7% of individuals with Other forms of income), to unsubsidized housing (25.0%, compared with 18.9% of residents with public assistance, 13.9% of residents with employment income, and 22.2% of residents with other forms of income), and to other forms of housing (25.0%, compared with 7.0% of residents with public assistance, 13.9% of residents with employment income, and 15.6% of residents with other forms of income). Residents with employment income had the highest association with subsidized housing (31.7%, compared with 5.0% of residents with no income, 22.2% of residents with public assistance, and 28.9% of residents with other forms of housing) and DV transitional housing (22.7%, compared with 100% of individuals with no income, 2.7% of individuals receiving public assistance, and 6.7% of individuals receiving Other forms of income.)

Discussion

This study aimed to contribute to the literature by examining how sociodemographic factors, shelter services, and post-discharge variables are associated with DV shelter residents’ post-shelter locations. Among this sample of 347 DV survivors residing in emergency shelter programs operated by one large urban nonprofit organization, the findings revealed that there were significant associations between sociodemographic variables, services received, and post-discharge variables and post-shelter housing placements. Overall, among this sample of DV residents, data suggest that approximately three out of four residents (74.9%) left the DV shelter with housing in place, which included unsubsidized housing, subsidized housing, DV transitional housing, or other housing options. As one of the main goals of a DV emergency shelter is to link survivors with safe, affordable housing (Baker et al., 2010), these data suggest that for many survivors, residing in a DV shelter is associated with accessing alternative housing options. This finding is consistent with research conducted by Ham-Rowbottom et al. (2005) that found, among a sample of 81 DV survivors, the majority of survivors maintained stable housing after exiting the DV emergency shelter program.

However, it is also critical to highlight there were 25.1% of residents who left the DV emergency shelter to move into the general homeless system. Furthermore, the limitation of the study’s cross-sectional design means that we cannot examine whether the 74.9% of residents who exited with housing in place—and specifically among those exiting to DV transitional housing or other housing options—remained in housing longer term.

In addition, this finding cannot be discussed without rooting the results within the broader social context that considers the ways in which interlocking systems of oppression interact to shape experiences of survivors. As described by Crenshaw (1990),

In most cases, the physical assault that leads women to these shelters is merely the most immediate manifestation of the subordination they experience . . . the multilayered and routinized forms of domination that often converge in these women’s lives . . . These burdens, largely the consequence of gender and class oppression, are then compounded by the racially discriminatory employment and housing practices women of color often face, as well as disproportionately high unemployment among people of color. (pp. 1245-1246)

We must understand the results from this sample of DV survivors within a macro context in which race, ethnicity, and gender are primary identities in unequal distribution of resources, which are reflected in our society. Although three quarters of the sample left the DV shelter with housing in place, we know that these survivors face numerous barriers—both individual barriers and system barriers—in building their financial and housing independence over the long term.

This study’s primary focus was to understand the sociodemographic variables, services received, and post-discharge variables associated with post-shelter housing placements to identify potential areas for programmatic and policy enhancement. In regard to sociodemographic variables, there were significant associations between numerous sociodemographic variables (children in shelter, primary language, education, and work history) and post-shelter location. Residents without children at the shelter had the highest association with discharging to the general homeless system (36.1%, compared with 23.8% of participants with children). The DV shelter system, by design, is a family shelter model, catering to the needs of residents with children, thereby limiting services and available resources to residents without children.

The findings also highlight how the most economically vulnerable participants—those participants without a high school degree or work history—are most likely to exit to the general homeless system. Previous research has found that women, and specifically women of color, are more likely to live in poverty, to experience DV, and to experience more severe and prolonged DV due to restricted access to economic resources (Alcalde, 2006). Research has also documented historically higher rates of unemployment and job loss among people of color (and specifically individuals who identify as Black and Latino/a), disparities that cannot be explained by educational attainment alone (Cajner, Radler, Ratner, & Vidangos, 2017). This economic vulnerability is further compounded when considering the impact of violence and abuse survivors must contend with, given that DV is negatively associated with employment stability (Goodman, Smyth, Borges, & Singer, 2009). Individual enhancements to employment support services in DV emergency shelter programs may very well aid some survivors in developing work histories which may subsequently result in optimizing post-shelter housing options; however, such enhancements on their own may not fully address the drivers of employment instability. This study points to the potential impact of bolstering employment support assistance programming within DV emergency shelters; however, such programming must be done alongside work to dismantle the social systems of marginalization contributing to shelter entry and constraining post-shelter options.

In regard to services received at the emergency shelter programs, residents significantly differed on post-shelter destination based on the number of times they received housing information, individual counseling, and advocacy services. Residents who received more individual counseling sessions and advocacy services were less likely to exit to the general homeless system. Furthermore, residents who received more housing information services were more likely to exit to subsidized housing than to unsubsidized housing or DV transitional housing. These findings suggest that systems navigation, information, and support services are critical to securing post-shelter housing. With that said, the effectiveness of these services also point to the challenges of maneuvering through a challenging housing landscape and the expertise and doggedness required for residents to avoid entry into the general homeless system.

In addition to receiving shelter services, the length of time residing in the DV emergency shelter was significantly associated with post-shelter destination. Participants who exited to subsidized housing resided, on average, in the emergency shelter for 282.6 days, whereas participants who exited to the general homeless system resided in the shelter for 140.8 days. These findings suggest that services provided at DV emergency shelter programs, and specifically housing information, individual counseling, and advocacy services, may be effective services for some residents in accessing DV transitional housing and subsidized housing.

Residents significantly differed on post-shelter destination based on income source at exit and exit reason. Residents who had no income at exit were more likely to exit to the general homeless system or to move into unsubsidized housing. In contrast, residents who exited with employment as their primary source of income were more likely to move into subsidized housing or a DV transitional housing program. This finding highlights the importance of modifying DV shelter programming to support survivors in securing and/or maintaining employment and provides additional insight on the impact of longer shelter stays. Finding employment and saving for a security deposit take time. This is particularly important among DV shelters, as researchers have demonstrated the impact DV victimization has on the employment and financial stability of survivors (Adams et al., 2012).

It also raises concerns that the DV shelter programs are less effective in supporting the most financially vulnerable clients—those with no income—in accessing housing post-shelter stay. While DV advocates face numerous barriers to locating housing options for survivors—lack of affordable housing, employment with livable wages, affordable childcare, and work documentation among immigrant survivors in combination with discrimination in the housing and labor markets—the field needs to commit to practice and policy work that can create opportunities for survivors most vulnerable to the intersections of racism, poverty, and violence. The argument for additional resources and support for DV shelter residents becomes particularly resonant given that the residents in the sample who exited shelter into the general homeless system were more likely survivors with limited to no work experience and who had not completed high school. As Bograd (1999) emphasizes, “the trauma of domestic violence is amplified by further victimization outside of the intimate relationship, as the psychological consequences of battering may be compounded by the ‘micro-aggressions’ of racism, heterosexism, and classism” (p. 281). While survivors may seek safety in DV shelter, additional social and economic risks may be created.

Finally, residents administratively discharged from the DV shelter were at the highest risk of discharging into the general homeless system. Almost three quarters (72.0%) of those administratively discharged moved into the general homeless system. Residents of DV emergency shelters are administratively discharged due to noncompliance with shelter regulations. Such noncompliance can include revealing the location of the confidential shelter, not returning to the shelter by curfew, and difficulties living in communal settings and getting along with other residents. Researchers have documented the impact DV has on survivors, especially in regard to how the trauma of DV can increase survivors’ emotional dysregulation and/or behavioral difficulties (Bonomi et al., 2009; Devries et al., 2013; Dillon, Hussain, Loxton, & Rahman, 2013). Communal living models and a lack of sufficient funding and resources often leave DV shelters unable to meet the needs of all residents, and especially residents who may need additional support around mental health, substance use, and/or trauma reactions or residents struggling to manage all the responsibilities and strict regulations of DV shelter programming. Unfortunately, this lack of needed support leaves a subset of DV survivors at high risk of discharging into the general homeless system. Additional funding, resources, and program models are needed to support the needs of DV shelter residents struggling to live within the DV communal shelter model.

Accessing affordable, permanent housing is critical to the long-term safety and well-being of survivors and their children. Yet, studies have documented the lack of available housing supports for DV survivors (Baker, Niolon, & Oliphant, 2009; Clough, Draughon, Njie-Carr, Rollins, & Glass, 2014; Dichter & Rhodes, 2011). According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition (2017), the United States has a shortage of 7.2 million rental homes affordable and available to extremely low-income renters. In addition to the lack of affordable housing stock, DV survivors face a multitude of additional individual and systemic barriers to obtaining housing. Survivors may be unemployed or have disrupted employment, have poor credit or poor rental histories, and may face discrimination from landlords (Adams et al., 2008; Stylianou, 2018). These barriers are exacerbated for survivors of color, LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer) survivors, and immigrant survivors who often face discrimination from landlords both for their abuser’s behaviors and for their identity.

Although DV programs should focus on enhancing and/or redesigning services to support survivors in accessing housing, there must also be continued coordinated advocacy between DV organizations and housing coalitions. Funding must be made available to increase affordable housing stock, decrease discrimination that occurs on the rental market, and design new housing models for DV survivors. The Safe Housing Partnership (www.safehousingpartnerships) is a model for a collaborative approach to address the intersection of DV and housing. The Partnership brings together organizations with deep expertise on housing and DV to build and strengthen technical assistance to providers on improving policies, identifying promising practices, and strengthening collaborations. The field must invest in building partnerships with housing coalitions to shift housing options for survivors from a macro perspective.

These findings should be considered within the context of the study limitations. The data set consisted of missing data, and residents with no post-shelter housing data available in the data set were excluded from the analysis. Residents who dropped from the analysis received significantly less housing information services, safety assessment services, and advocacy services than residents included in the analysis. This may have been due to the significantly shorter length of stay among residents not included in the analysis. In addition, residents not included in the analysis were more likely to have been administratively discharged, left on their own, or left the shelter for another reason than residents included in the analysis. In addition, the data set utilized in this study consisted of program data collected from one urban nonprofit organization. Findings must be understood within the context of a sample of DV shelter residents within one organization in the northeast. Finally, the sample of residents in this study was almost exclusively heterosexual women of color who primarily spoke English, limiting the findings across a broader representation of survivors. Thus, by design, further research is needed to determine whether the findings are generalizable to the greater population of DV shelter residents. Additional research is also needed to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the post-shelter housing placements for DV shelter residents. Research should invest in collecting data from residents, rather than utilizing program data, and follow residents over a longer period post-shelter. Larger research projects should focus on differences in housing placements based on both individual-level data and community-level data to build knowledge that can be used for program redesign, building coalitions, and forwarding policy advocacy.

Conclusion

This study contributed to the literature by examining how sociodemographic factors, shelter services, and post-discharge variables are associated with DV shelter residents’ post-shelter location. Among this sample, three out of four residents (74.9%) left the DV shelter with housing in place. However, the findings suggest that there are major areas for improved services and policy efforts to further support survivors—and specifically survivors of color—in accessing safe and affordable housing. Furthermore, there must be continued coordinated advocacy between DV organizations and housing coalitions. Funding must be made available to increase affordable housing stock, decrease discrimination that occurs on the rental market, and implement new affordable housing models for DV survivors. Our findings invite researchers and practitioners to consider further examination of best practices around program and policy options that support survivors in gaining economic independence and securing safe and affordable housing.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Amanda M. Stylianou

Author Biographies

Amanda M. Stylianou, PhD, MSW, focuses her career on improving services at the intersection of health, trauma, and poverty. In her role as Director of Quality Improvement at Rutgers University Behavioral Health Care, one of the nation’s largest behavioral health care providers, she works with her team to ensure the organization is providing the most effective and efficient services to consumers throughout the state. Her current research focuses on understanding the needs of victims/survivors of violence and on understanding and evaluating practices in the field.

Changnary Pich is the director of Strategic Initiatives at Safe Horizon’s Counseling Center. She is dedicated to making data and research useful and accessible to the field and practitioners. Her recent work focuses on understanding the implementation of multidisciplinary interventions. In addition to her management experience, she has evaluation and direct service experience among survivors of domestic violence and with marginalized communities.

References

Adams

A. E.

Sullivan

C. M.

Bybee

Greeson

M. R.

(2008). Development of the scale of economic abuse. Violence Against Women, 14, 563-588.

Adams

A. E.

Tolman

R. M.

Bybee

Sullivan

C. M.

Kennedy

A. C.

(2012). The impact of intimate partner violence on low-income women’s economic well-being: The mediating role of job stability. Violence Against Women, 18, 1345-1367.

Alcalde

C. M.

(2006). Migration and class as constraints in battered women’s attempts to escape violence in Lima Peru. Latin American Perspectives, 33, 147-164.

Baker

C. K.

Billhardt

K. A.

Warren

Rollins

Glass

N. E.

(2010). Domestic violence, housing instability, and homelessness: A review of housing policies and program practices for meeting the needs of survivors. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 430-439.

Baker

C. K.

Niolon

P. H.

Oliphant

(2009). A descriptive analysis of transitional housing programs for survivors of intimate partner violence in the United States. Violence Against Women, 15, 460-481.

Bennett

Riger

Schewe

Howard

Wasco

(2004). Effectiveness of hotline, advocacy, counseling, and shelter services for victims of domestic violence: A statewide evaluation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 815-829.

Black

M. C.

Basile

K. C.

Breiding

M. J.

Smith

S. G.

Walters

M. L.

Merrick

M. T.

. . . Stevens

M. R.

(2011). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Bograd

(1999). Strengthening domestic violence theories: Intersections of race, class, sexual orientation, and gender. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 25, 275-289.

Bonomi

A. E.

Anderson

M. L.

Reid

R. J.

Rivara

F. P.

Carrell

Thompson

R. S.

(2009). Medical and psychosocial diagnoses in women with a history of intimate partner violence. Archives of Internal Medicine, 169, 1692-1697.

10.

Bybee

Sullivan

C. M.

(2005). Predicting re-victimization of battered women 3 years after exiting a shelter program. American Journal of Community Psychology, 36, 85-96.

11.

Cajner

Radler

Ratner

Vidangos

(2017). Racial gaps in labor market outcomes in the last four decades and over the business cycle (Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2017-071). Washington, DC: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. doi:10.17016/FEDS.2017.071

12.

Clark

Wood

Sullivan

(2018). Technical report: Exploring domestic violence survivors’ need for transitional housing. Retrieved from https://safehousingpartnerships.org/node/391

13.

Clough

Draughon

J. E.

Njie-Carr

Rollins

Glass

(2014). “Having housing made everything else possible”: Affordable, safe and stable housing for women survivors of violence. Qualitative Social Work, 13, 671-688.

14.

Correia

Rubin

(1999). Housing and battered women: A case study of domestic violence programs in Iowa. In Building comprehensive solutions to domestic violence policy and practice paper series. Harrisburg, PA: National Resource Center on Domestic Violence. Retrieved from https://vawnet.org/sites/default/files/materials/files/2016-07/BCS3_IA.pdf

15.

Crenshaw

(1990). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241-1299.

16.

Devries

K. M.

Mak

J. Y.

Bacchus

L. J.

Child

J. C.

Falder

Petzold

. . . Watts

C. H.

(2013). Intimate partner violence and incident depressive symptoms and suicide attempts: A systematic review of longitudinal studies. PLoS Medicine, 10(5), e1001439.

17.

Dichter

M. E.

Rhodes

K. V.

(2011). Intimate partner violence survivors’ unmet social service needs. Journal of Social Service Research, 37, 481-489.

18.

Dillon

Hussain

Loxton

Rahman

(2013). Mental and physical health and intimate partner violence against women: A review of the literature. International Journal of Family Medicine. 2013, 1-15.

19.

Donnelly

D. A.

Cook

K. J.

Ausdale

Foley

(2005). White privilege, color blindness, and services to battered women. Violence Against Women, 11, 6-37.

20.

Few

A. L.

(2005). The voices of Black and White rural battered women in domestic violence shelters. Family Relations, 54, 488-500.

21.

Fisher

E. M.

Stylianou

A. M.

(2019). To stay or to leave: Factors influencing victims’ decisions to stay or leave a domestic violence emergency shelter. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34, 785-811.

22.

Galano

M. M.

Hunter

E. C.

Howell

K. H.

Miller

L. E.

Graham-Bermann

S. A.

(2013). Predicting shelter residence in women experiencing recent intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 19, 518-535.

23.

Glenn

Goodman

(2015). Living with and within the rules of domestic violence shelters: A qualitative exploration of residents’ experiences. Violence Against Women, 21(12), 1481-1506.

24.

Goodman

L. A.

Smyth

K. F.

Borges

A. M.

Singer

(2009). When crises collide: How intimate partner violence and poverty intersect to shape women’s mental health and coping? Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10, 306-329.

25.

Gregory

Nnawulezi

Sullivan

C. M.

(2021). Understanding how domestic violence shelter rules may influence survivor empowerment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(1-2), NP402-NP423. doi:10.1177/0886260517730561

26.

Grossman

S. F.

Lundy

(2011). Characteristics of women who do and do not receive onsite shelter services from domestic violence programs. Violence Against Women, 17, 1024-1045.

27.

Grossman

S. F.

Lundy

George

C. C.

Crabtree-Nelson

(2010). Shelter and service receipt for victims of domestic violence in Illinois. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 2077-2093.

28.

Ham-Rowbottom

K. A.

Gordon

E. E.

Jarvis

K. L.

Novaco

R. W.

(2005). Life constraints and psychological well-being of domestic violence shelter graduates. Journal of Family Violence, 20, 109-121.

29.

Levin

McKean

Raphael

(2004). Pathways to and from homelessness: Women and children in Chicago shelters. Chicago, IL: Center for Impact Research.

30.

Lyon

Lane

Menard

(2008). Meeting survivors’ needs: A multi-state study of domestic violence shelter experiences. Hartford: School of Social Work, University of Connecticut.

31.

Martin

E. J.

Stern

N. S.

(2005). Domestic violence and public and subsidized housing: Addressing the needs of battered tenants through local housing policy. Clearinghouse Review: Journal of Poverty Law and Policy, 38, 551-560.

32.

National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2017). The gap: A shortage of affordable homes. Retrieved from https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/Gap-Report_2017.pdf

33.

National Network to End Domestic Violence. (2017). Domestic Violence Counts 2017. Retrieved from https://nnedv.org/mdocs-posts/2017-report/

34.

Nnawulezi

N. A.

Sullivan

C. M.

(2014). Oppression within safe spaces: Exploring racial microaggressions within domestic violence shelters. Journal of Black Psychology, 40, 563-591.

35.

Panchanadeswaran

McCloskey

L. A.

(2007). Predicting the timing of women’s departure from abusive relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 50-65.

36.

Pavao

Alvarez

Baumrind

Induni

Kimerling

(2007). Intimate partner violence and housing instability. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32, 143-146.

37.

Stylianou

A. M.

(2018). Economic abuse within intimate partner violence: A review of the literature. Violence and Victims, 33, 3-22.

38.

Stylianou

A. M.

Hoge

G. L.

(2020). Transitioning out of an Urban Domestic Violence Emergency Shelter: Voices of Survivors. Violence Against Women. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801220954270

39.

Sullivan

C. M.

Virden

(2017). An eight state study on the relationships among domestic violence shelter services and residents’ self-efficacy and hopefulness. Journal of Family Violence, 32, 741-750.

40.

Tutty

L. M.

Weaver

Rothery

M. A.

(1999). Residents’ views of the efficacy of shelter services for assaulted women. Violence Against Women, 5, 898-925.

41.

Wilder Research Center. (2007). Overview of homelessness in Minnesota 2006: Key facts from the statewide survey. Saint Paul, MN: Wilder Research.