Policy Roles in Promoting Affordable Housing for Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence

Abstract

Survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV) face housing insecurity when escaping violence. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act policies were put in place to protect this population. This article uses policy analysis to understand the provisions they provide for survivors. The case of a small city will be presented to understand the local implementation of these policies with regard to survivors’ access to affordable housing in tight housing markets. Finally, recommendations will be presented to strengthen the policies to better meet IPV survivors’ housing needs.

Keywords

intimate partner violence housing policy affordable housing

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a widespread international issue. It is estimated that between 35 and 70% of women worldwide have experienced either physical or sexual violence from an intimate partner in their lifetime (UN Women, 2019). Specifically, within the United States, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (2015) reported that 20 people per minute are affected by IPV, which equates to 10 million men and women. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI, 2015), 1,005 women were killed by an intimate partner in 2015. IPV is also a leading cause of or precursor to homelessness among women in the United States (Fallahi, 2016). According to the Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA, 2016), more than 92% of homeless mothers have experienced severe physical and sexual abuse in their lifetime. Pavao et al. (2007) also found that women who experienced IPV faced housing instability at rates 4 times higher than women who did not experience IPV.

There are multiple factors that lead to housing instability for women who experience IPV. Often, women flee their homes to protect themselves and their children without financial resources to secure their own housing (Davies & Lyon, 2013). Multiple moves in an effort to leave the abuser result in a poor rental history which also works against victims in securing housing (Baker et al., 2010). Financial abuse and ongoing assault from the perpetrator, as well as criminal records related to IPV are other factors that affect securing and keeping housing options. One of the common tactics used by the abuser is economic abuse, which comes in various forms, such as limiting access to family income or preventing the victim from getting or maintaining a job (Lloyd & Talux, 1999). Research shows that abusers frequently stalk and harass victims in their workplace resulting in their loss of employment (Moe & Bell, 2004; Riger et al., 2000). Consequently, the resulting diminished financial ability causes difficulty for victims paying rent, a mortgage, or utility bills, ultimately leading to housing instability (Long, 2015). Having criminal records related to abuse or being coerced by the abuser to participate in unlawful activities poses a significant barrier for victims of IPV (Messing et al., 2015). Many of these incidents remain on criminal records, affecting eligibility for public housing. In this way, housing instability leads to increased homelessness for IPV survivors.

O’Campo and colleagues (2016) provide a conceptual framework to help us understand the lived experiences of housing instability for IPV survivors. According to the study, housing instability for women living with IPV includes not only material instability but also psychological instability, in that the experience of IPV disrupts feelings of security and stability attached to one’s own home (O’Campo et al., 2016). Their study found that the degree of psychological and material housing instability may vary by the period in relation to cohabitation with abusers. These periods were categorized into three different phases in the process of leaving: when residing with the abuser, the time immediately leaving abuser, and long after leaving the abuser. Compared with when living with the abuser or long after leaving, IPV survivors in the time immediately after leaving their abusers tend to face the most heightened housing instability, both in the psychological and material sense (O’Campo et al., 2016). Thus, the need for housing intervention will be increased for IPV survivors in this particular period, when they have just left the abuser, often without any housing alternative.

However, emergency shelter and transitional as well as long-term housing are the most significant unmet needs of survivors. According to the National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV, 2016), more than 12,197 requests for services to domestic violence programs were denied in a single day in 2015, and 68% (7,728) of the unmet needs were for housing. In addition, there is a limited availability of affordable housing currently in the United States which makes it more difficult for IPV survivors to find adequate housing to ensure their safety. For the last two decades, the supply of affordable housing has not grown with the demand, exacerbated further by the 2008 economic crisis and recession (National Low Income Housing Coalition [NLIHC], 2015). Often, this gap in service and lack of affordable housing options left IPV survivors with the perverse choice between abuse and homelessness (Clough et al., 2014). Although this article has mainly focused on policies affecting survivors of IPV within the United States, lack of affordable housing is an international issue for survivors of IPV. Daoud et al. (2016) reported that survivors in Canada struggled to find housing they could afford with rent taking up a high percentage of their income, and these reports of housing instability were also associated with poor health for these women. A study in the United Kingdom describes concern around “affordable” housing rents no longer being affordable and proposes setting living rent rates at 30% of the weekly income of the lowest 25% of earners (Whitehouse & Gouk, 2019). After recognizing the need for more housing, Australia has developed a Social and Affordable Housing Fund (SAHF) which is a partnership of government, nongovernment, landholders, and the private sector that plans to provide thousands of homes and links to services for survivors of IPV (“Australia,” 2017). IPV and housing instability is an issue that touches the lives of many women across the world.

Over the years, policies in the United States have been implemented to address some of these barriers to housing for IPV survivors. However, policies related to IPV and housing have gained little attention in terms of studying their effectiveness on reducing housing instability (Klein et al., 2021). Thus, the aim of this article is to apply a framework through policy analysis and the use of a case example to understand how policies relating to IPV are affecting IPV victims through local housing markets. First, we will examine two interconnected policies which directly address housing issues for IPV survivors: Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act. To understand the local implementation of the two policies, we use the case of a small city in a southeastern state to study the effects of a high-priced local housing market on housing instability for IPV survivors. Finally, we will make recommendations to strengthen policies and programs to assist IPV survivors in their efforts to secure housing, thus helping to pave their path to safety.

Method

Two-pronged approaches were used to examine policy roles in promoting affordable housing for IPV survivors: policy analysis and use of a case example. For the policy analysis, we used Chamber and Wedel’s policy analysis framework to examine the policy goals and benefits as well as the service delivery structure and financing (Chambers & Wedel, 2009). In examining VAWA, this article specifically focuses on housing provisions in the Reauthorized Act of 2005 and 2013 (hereinafter VAWA 2005 and VAWA 2013, respectively) to understand the benefits and protections guaranteed for IPV survivors seeking housing under this policy. This article also examines the provisions specifically addressing the IPV population in the HEARTH Act.

For a case example, we used case study methods, particularly for finding information on housing policies in the city of Asheville, North Carolina, located in the southeast region in the United States (Yin, 2009). The city was chosen as an example because of its high-priced local housing market, which provides a good case for us to examine the effects of housing affordability on the implantation of IPV-related housing policies. For sources of information on the case, we gathered policy documents produced by local government and housing agencies as well as interviewed stakeholders, including a director of the local domestic violence agency and a reporter of a local news media who followed and reported on the housing issue in the city. In addition, the first author of this article worked as an advocate for a local domestic violence agency and had opportunities to directly observe how the local housing market and policies affect provisions of service and advocacy for women and their families with IPV experience. Based on the information collected from these different sources, we assessed the impact of local housing options on the implementation of policies in the city.

Finally, we acknowledge that the issue of IPV affects both men and women; however, given that the majority of IPV victims are women (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017), this article will focus on women who experienced IPV and their experiences with housing instability.

Housing Protection Under VAWA

VAWA was the first governmental response to violence against women and societal recognition that family violence is a crime rather than a private family matter. The first rendition of VAWA included requiring a coordinated community response to IPV, including sharing experience and information between law enforcement, public and private service providers, and survivors (VAWA of 1994, 2018). A major criticism of VAWA 1994 is that the legislation is too focused on the criminal justice system and less so on social services, which could more effectively prevent violent crimes (Messing et al., 2015). Despite the strides made with this landmark legislation, it was not until 2005 that the VAWA addressed the issue of housing instability for survivors of IPV (Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2005, 2018). These modifications to the act added important provisions that aim to protect IPV survivors who face housing instability. In the following section, we will examine the core benefits provided by VAWA housing-related policies and their limitations.

No Denial of Admission to Public Housing and Termination of Abusers

The VAWA of 2005 states that a survivor of IPV can no longer be denied admission to the housing programs administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) based on their experience of IPV, dating violence, or stalking status (Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2005, 2018). VAWA 2013 further expands the denial or termination of safe housing coverage to include all federally subsidized housing programs (Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, 2018).

VAWA also made it possible for a landlord to bifurcate a lease so the abuser–tenant’s lease can be terminated without evicting or penalizing the survivor-tenant (Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, 2018). This rule gives the survivor a chance to establish eligibility to remain in housing (HUD, 2013). If the survivor remains in housing after the abuser has been removed, and it is established that the abuser was the only financially eligible tenant, the survivor must be given a reasonable amount of time to find new housing or establish eligibility by the landlord (Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, 2018). In addition, a new emergency transfer provision mandates that the tenant must be allowed to transfer to a new unit of assisted housing when she believes she is in danger by remaining in her unit (Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, 2018).

Prohibition on Eviction

With VAWA 2005, tenants can no longer be evicted based on domestic violence, dating violence, or stalking history within HUD programs (Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2005, 2018). However, it also authorizes landlords to demand from any tenant requesting VAWA protection a HUD-approved certification form to be completed, signed, and submitted within 14 days of an incident or the survivor can face eviction (Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, 2018). In lieu of this form, a police record, a letter, or an affidavit from any professional, such as a service provider, medical provider, or attorney that assisted the victim, may be submitted.

Any criminal activity that has taken place in the home related to IPV is no longer considered a lease violation that could result in eviction (Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2005, 2018). However, it also makes the exception that the landlord has the authority to evict a victim that commits an unrelated criminal act to IPV if the landlord can show an imminent threat to other tenants (Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2005, 2018). This language could be problematic as the term “imminent threat” is not defined within this legislation. In addition, housing protections under VAWA only cover survivors who reside in HUD-approved housing programs. This excludes survivors in the private housing market from protections around tenancy denial, eviction, criminal activity within the home, lease bifurcation, and emergency transfers. For instance, with regard to mixed-income housing developments that have differing income groups, VAWA rules only apply to units that are funded under HUD programs (Levy et al., 2013). IPV affects women from all socioeconomic classes, thus it is only logical to extend VAWA protection to all types of housing, not just public housing programs.

Transitional Housing

VAWA 2005 added new provisions to provide grants for transitional housing assistance for IPV survivors (Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2005, 2018). Grant funding may be used toward constructing new shelters through the acquisition of land, buildings, or new construction, and the maximum grant assistance for an individual was extended to 24 months (Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2005, 2018). This funding can also be used to provide support services such as employment counseling, occupational training, job retention counseling, and counseling for reentry into the workforce (Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, 2018). Transitional housing assistance has been reported as an important piece in helping women escape violence. In a qualitative study by Melbin et al. (2003), women reported that without the transitional housing program, they would have had to return to abuse or become homeless. A study conducted by Baker et al. (2009) also found transitional housing to be imperative for women to become economically independent when fleeing their abusive partners.

Although supportive services provided to victims and their families assist them to move toward safety, the limited length of stay in this type of housing still warrants availability of permanent, affordable housing units for IPV survivors. In fact, a more fundamental issue for IPV survivors with housing instability is that often there is a lack of affordable housing on the local level. The NNEDV (2016) reported that it can take 6–10 months for a family to secure safe housing due to the shortage of affordable housing options with the common length of stay at an emergency shelter being 30–60 days. Even with housing protections under VAWA, survivors would not be able to benefit from this policy if they do not have access to affordable housing, publicly subsidized or not (Aday, 2015). Survivors need both short- and long-term housing resources to live independently of their abusive partners.

Housing Policies for IPV Survivors: Analysis of HEARTH Act

Along with VAWA, the HEARTH Act of 2009 created federal protections and funding support for shelter and housing programs for survivors of IPV. The HEARTH Act acknowledges the lack of affordable housing as the primary cause of homelessness and the importance of rapid rehousing for reducing homelessness within communities. In terms of housing instability related to IPV, this act also encourages homeless organizations and IPV organizations to work together so that housing support is also provided for survivors. This section specifically addresses three major IPV-related provisions: definition of homelessness, confidentiality, and rapid-rehousing programs.

Inclusion of IPV in Definition of Homelessness

The HEARTH Act of 2009 established an important new definition of homelessness that includes survivors of IPV as eligible for services. It includes domestic violence or other life-threatening conditions, which are defined as

any individual or family who is fleeing, or is attempting to flee, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or other dangerous or life-threatening conditions in the individual’s or family’s current housing situation, including where the health and safety of children are jeopardized, and who have no other residence and lack the resources or support networks to obtain other permanent housing. (HEARTH Act of 2009, 2018)

Before this legislation, many individuals would not have been covered under this classification if their partner made sufficient income, even if they were trying to flee their partner (Fallahi, 2016). This definition strengthened the agreed-upon definition of homelessness and extends rights for housing to survivors of IPV.

Providing Confidentiality for IPV Survivors

The HEARTH Act added a requirement for a centralized or coordinated assessment system of those experiencing homelessness in order for IPV services and housing agencies to work together when determining eligibility and providing services (HEARTH Act of 2009, 2018). This system matches participants with the most appropriate resources available for their needs (NNEDV, 2017). When working with survivors, this type of information gathering can jeopardize their safety with respect to confidentiality and personal identifying information. The HEARTH Act of 2009 further strengthened the efforts under VAWA 2005 and the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987 (2018) to protect survivors of IPV by having to share identifying information to Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). The HEARTH Act clarified that any victim service provider should not disclose personal identifying information about a client for the purpose of the HMIS and may only collect nonpersonally identifying information (HEARTH Act of 2009, 2018). These specialized requirements allow survivors of IPV to be a part of the effort to end homelessness while ensuring their safety.

Rapid Rehousing Programs

A major accomplishment of the HEARTH Act of 2009 is on the rapid rehousing program, which is intended to move people out of shelters into permanent housing as quickly as possible (Cunningham et al., 2015). This idea was developed by local service providers who saw many homeless families stuck in temporary shelter because they could not afford permanent housing (Waegemakers-Schiff & Schiff, 2014). Rapid rehousing is one of the most recently implemented homelessness prevention models, but the body of empirical research is quickly growing in support of the effectiveness of rapid rehousing in reducing homelessness rates (Byrne et al., 2016). Findings from evaluation studies by Drake et al. (2016) on rapid rehousing showed that placing homeless individuals and families in housing reduced shelter recidivism and increased housing stability, client quality of life, and child wellness. For instance, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has used rapid rehousing through their Supportive Services for Veteran Families program and demonstrated that rapid rehousing was more effective at promoting housing stability than emergency shelters among homeless veterans (Patterson et al., 2016).

Rapid rehousing allows survivors of IPV to stay within their homes or find new housing and avoid the experience of homelessness, all the while leaving emergency shelter spaces available for those who need immediate safety when fleeing (National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2011). The rapid rehousing model has provided IPV survivors the perception of safety and allowed them the stability needed to focus on goals beyond housing. For instance, the Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence found that their 5-year pilot rapid rehousing program led to long-term housing stability at 18 months after the program, an increase in safety and independence, safer environments for survivors’ children, and the promotion of health and well-being for survivors (Mbilinyi, 2015).

Whereas the rapid rehousing model has proven to be effective in reducing homelessness, there is little research on long-term housing affordability problems in the markets where the affordable housing stock is extremely low (Cunningham et al., 2015). Researchers suggest that the benefits from rapid rehousing programs do not provide the same level of housing stability through their use of short-term assistance within areas with tight housing markets that are distinguished by high rents and low vacancy rates (Katz et al., 2017). In this regard, closer examination of local implementation of housing policies for IPV survivors is warranted. In the next section, we will present the case of Asheville, North Carolina to examine the issue of housing affordability and its effects on homeless intervention programs, and their implications for increasing housing stability and safety for IPV survivors.

Local Implementation: The Case of Asheville, North Carolina

In the United States, housing markets and prices vary depending on the geographic locations, in which certain counties or cities tend to have tighter markets. Due to this variation in housing markets, local governments and other entities may face additional challenges in implementing federally initiated policies to reduce homelessness. In 2017, the city of Asheville, North Carolina gained national attention when it was labeled as the second fastest gentrifying city in the country, which compounded the issue of housing affordability in the area. In fact, it has consistently ranked as one of the most expensive places to live in North Carolina, with wages that do not support housing prices (Boyle, 2017).

Local Housing Market

Increasing housing prices in the city have affected public housing programs and options available for low-income households and IPV survivors. The Housing Authority of the City of Asheville (HACA) has grown to 10 public housing developments with 1,534 units, 248 special program units. It also administers the Housing Choice Voucher Program to subsidize housing for more than 1,355 low-income individuals and families (HACA, 2011). Despite the recent development of public housing units in the area, affordable housing is still rarely available for residents in need. For instance, in 2015, there was only a 1% vacancy rate throughout the Asheville region and a 0% rate within public housing authorities (Cronin, 2015). Although the vacancy rate has gone up from 1–2.7% in 2016, Housing Voucher and Public Housing rates remain at a 0% vacancy in 2017 (Bowen National Research, 2017).

According to the HACA, housing voucher program eligibility is based on extremely low annual income limits. For instance, for one person to qualify for a voucher, the person’s annual income must be below US$12,150, and under US$24,300 for a family of four (HUD, 2017). In terms of securing rental housing, these income levels are very limiting for those who are unable to receive a voucher due to the capacity of housing, or for those attempting to rent outside of public or project-based housing. According to a reporter of the Citizen Times, an Asheville local newspaper, many individuals end up eventually losing their vouchers as they struggle to find landlords that accept Housing Choice Vouchers within a specified amount of time (C. Blake, personal communication, October 11, 2016). This is partially due to the fact that the majority of local rents far exceed the aid that housing vouchers offer. In 2015, the least expensive one-bedroom apartment in Asheville starts at around US$800 a month, whereas subsidized housing vouchers pay around US$630 in monthly rent (Walton, 2015a).

In addition, the current availability and construction of affordable housing cannot compete with need. In 2017, there are 601 households on government-subsidized housing waitlists in Buncombe County, where Asheville is located, showing a strong demand for affordable housing in the area (Bowen National Research, 2017). The waiting time for these lists can take from 6 months to 2 years depending on family size (Walton, 2015a). Of the 33 rental housing projects under construction for 2017, only four of the projects are affordable housing rather than market-rate projects; two of these are for seniors aged 55 and above, and one is for veterans. This leaves only one mixed-income project with 32 affordable and 30 market-rate units for IPV survivors seeking affordable housing. This means that these survivors and their families will be concentrated in one location, making it easier for abusers to locate them. Diversifying housing options for survivors by making more affordable units available in the community can help ensure their safety.

IPV and the Local Affordable Housing Development Plan

Facing these challenges in housing markets, Buncombe County recently developed a 5-year plan to address homelessness and the lack of affordable housing (Homeless Initiative Advisory Committee, 2017). This was made possible by the HEARTH Act of 2009 that supported developing a lead entity, the Homeless Initiative Advisory Committee (HIAC), as the governing body of the Continuum of Care programs to oversee the HEARTH Act’s new rulings and develop a comprehensive plan for the community. The local 5-year plan includes expanding the affordable housing inventory and support services, with the specific designation to develop 100 new units of permanent affordable housing per year targeting chronically homeless individuals and families. It also specifies the development of solutions to remove barriers for housing applicants with challenges such as criminal convictions, poor credit, and mental health issues. The plan states it will advocate for low-income units to be in all newly constructed housing developments (Homeless Initiative Advisory Committee, 2017).

The 5-year plan’s development of specialized housing for the chronically homeless is viewed by local advocates as beneficial to survivors of IPV because there is a high co-occurrence of mental health and substance abuse issues among survivors from dealing with trauma. There is also recognition that the 5-year plan’s inclusion of adding housing stock will help address the largest barrier to housing for IPV survivors. In addition, the plan solidified local collaboration with homelessness services providers because the local domestic violence agency participated in the taskforce to develop the 5-year housing plan (A. Burgess-Johnson, personal communication, March 7, 2017). In this process, they successfully developed interagency collaboration under the HEARTH Act in terms of their information management system service entry and assessment for survivors seeking housing.

However, the Asheville 5-Year Plan does not include IPV survivors as a special category of the homeless population for additional attention, whereas the veteran population and others with special needs are being targeted for the resources. This might be partially due to the fact that rapid rehousing programs within the HEARTH Act mainly focus on those who are defined as “chronically homeless” (HEARTH Act of 2009, 2018). The definition used to determine who is chronically homeless is from the original McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987 (2018) which does not specifically include survivors of IPV. Katz et al. (2017) state that the term chronic homelessness can draw attention away from those IPV survivors who may not fit this category because this could be their first time fleeing their abuser, in which case they face “crisis” homelessness rather than “chronic” homelessness. Moreover, the term “chronic” homelessness has been criticized for focusing on histories of homelessness as a disease rather than conditions that were caused by poverty and a lack of affordable housing (Katz et al., 2017). Communities must ensure that IPV survivors are included in their target population as they are made eligible for services by the HEARTH Act, and that the process involved to receive funding from the Act reflects the needs of survivors (McLaughlin, 2017).

In addition, despite the recognition of the housing shortage in the 5-year plan by local government and entities, no further information is provided on how they intend to support the development of 100 new units of affordable housing options per year. For instance, funding incentives were included in the HEARTH Act that require the HUD to provide more funding for strategies that include rapid rehousing programs as developed by the local housing authority. In 2016, however, among six proposed affordable housing development projects, one was still waiting on the Department of HUD funding for its completion after being rejected twice, and another major project did not receive any funding (Boyle, 2016a; Walton, 2016). According to the HUD (2017), Buncombe County was awarded US$1,206,060 in fiscal year 2016 for their Continuum of Care programs. Of these funds, US$1,103,432 are applied to renew six already existing programs for a publicly managed health care organization and a homelessness service organization providing support and housing services. The bulk of these funds, US$602,775, went to these organizations’ shelter systems, leaving only US$500,657 for pathways to permanent housing. These projects were only awarded enough to renew without any additional project funds to expand these rapid-rehousing programs’ funding, even for the chronically homeless and veteran populations (HEARTH Act of 2009, 2018).

The rapid-rehousing model is difficult to implement in communities such as Asheville with high rents and low affordable housing options, because there is not enough funding in the current system to develop the necessary amount of affordable housing to protect the homeless population, including IPV survivors (Walton, 2015b). In fact, Asheville represents the problem with the process of funding because the funding for rapid rehousing is made available only when evaluation of the program proves its successful implementation in the community showing a reduction of homelessness. This can be problematic for a city like Asheville, because it would be impossible to prove the effectiveness of the program in the first place with the lack of affordable housing. The HEARTH Act supports the evidence-based housing program but does not consider markets where the housing vacancy rates are extremely low. Until local communities can create more affordable housing options, the safety of individuals experiencing IPVs remains at risk.

Policy Recommendations

Although there are some gaps identified with VAWA and the HEARTH Act, this legistlation was enacted to protect IPV survivors from housing crises incurred by the abuse they experienced. However, a close examination of their local implementation revealed that these policies could not be fully effective until affordable housing stock is made available on the local and state level. In the following section, we recommend that more adequate funding be provided by the government to increase affordable housing options and that effective rental control be implemented at the local level as ways to reduce housing instability for IPV survivors, thus increasing their safety in the long run. Finally, we suggest housing advocates be engaged in policy practice to increase housing stability for IPV survivors.

Effective Rental Control

In counties such as Buncombe County, North Carolina examined above, rent has increased 22% over the past 8 years; however, the increase in wages has been slower than housing increases for the past 20 years, which is particularly harmful to low-income individuals (Boyle, 2014). This trend is also being seen on a national scale (Katz et al., 2017). Rent control could begin to close this gap between subsidized housing payments and housing cost in areas with tight housing markets, which can provide individuals fleeing IPV with more housing options.

Rent control remains a controversial topic after its first-generation implementation was distinguished by rigid rent freezes and was shown to have a negative impact on the supply and maintenance of units (Skak & Blaze, 2013). However, second-generation rent controls are more flexible in that they allow for small rent increases yearly when approved and it is argued that this type of rent control is necessary to regain equilibrium in a market when there are large sudden rises in rent and the supply has not had time to increase (Lind, 2001). New York City, for instance, implemented rent stabilization in 1974, which has been an important tool in keeping their rents low in the private housing market (Kadi & Ronald, 2016). Currently, the Rent Control Guidelines Board determines each year whether to decrease rent, freeze rent increases, or raise rent generally between 2.5 and 4% (Gibson, 2015). This decision is made based on the price index for operating costs as well as local incomes (New York City Rent Control Guidelines Board, 2015). The board consists of nine members appointed by the mayor; two represent tenant interests, two represent owner interests, and five represent the public to ensure everyone has a voice when making rent control decisions (Arnott, 1995). In 2014, the Department of Housing and Community Development in the District of Columbia also implemented a rent control policy via the Rental Accommodations Division (RAD). This division enforces the allowable increase in rent which is based on an annual adjustment by the Consumer Price Index (CPI-W), and this increase cannot exceed the CPI-W plus 2% for most tenants. There are allowable increases when the housing provider petitions the Rent Administration based on hardship, capital improvements, rehabilitation, or agreement with 70% of the tenants (Rental Control Act of 1985, 2018).

Haffner and her colleagues (2008) point out that one of the arguments against this system is that rent regulations may limit the return for the landlord if rent control is too strong and may cause landlords to withdraw from the market or lessen new rentals. However, rent control can help minimize the turnover of tenants leading to more consistent returns for the landlord (Haffner et al., 2008). In addition, this policy would reduce the widening gap between incomes and housing within tight markets. Currently, rent control is not legal in all states, including North Carolina. There needs to be a push toward enacting a rent control policy on the state level to keep rental units affordable and provide more housing options for survivors of IPV on the local level.

Adequate Funding to Increase Affordable Housing Options

Funding sources need to be increased toward housing solutions to provide enough safe housing for survivors of IPV. For instance, to further avoid first-generation rent control issues around maintenance, the development of a subsidy to fund the upkeep of lower market housing units could be created to ensure units are repaired and landlords are still receiving a profit. This subsidy could be pulled from local property taxes to be used to help owners maintain their units. For example, the property tax in Asheville was projected to bring in US$63 million in 2017 to go toward core city services, affordable housing, transportation, and park projects (Burgess, 2017a). Redistributing a portion of these funds to a subsidy could provide the necessary funding to support supply-side maintenance.

To make rent control policy fully effective, there must still be a focus on the creation of new housing to prevent a further decrease in the supply. According to the NLIHC (2017), each year our nation loses two affordable housing apartments for every one created. More funding is needed to develop affordable housing options and to combat these numbers (NLIHC, 2017). Funding for local affordable housing projects must be sufficient enough to provide a financial incentive for developers to keep units at affordable housing rates rather than market rate (Burgess, 2017c). However, in the 2018 Trump Administration Budget proposal, funding for Continuum of Care programs received US$1.988 billion, which is a decrease of US$295 million from the previous year, and these cuts will result in an estimated 25,000 more people becoming homeless (National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2017). In addition, the Trump administration proposed to completely cut the Housing Trust Fund and HOME program, which was established in 2008 as the first affordable housing production program for low-income housing in a generation (National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2017). Such federal budget cuts leave it up to local governments to find creative ways to fund new affordable housing while lobbying for more federal Continuum of Care program funding.

Another way to boost funding for affordable housing would be to lobby on the state level to change the laws around occupancy tax usage. An occupancy tax is when guests pay an additional amount as a percentage of their lodging rate and is applied to hotels, bed and breakfasts, cabins, condominiums, and rental homes for short-term stays, which includes Airbnb (Magellan Strategy Group, 2016). For instance, occupancy tax in Asheville, NC is used toward the promotion of tourism (Sen, 2017). According to the Magellan Strategy Group (2016), there are seven counties in NC that can use these funds for nontourism purposes, but Asheville is not among them. This type of nontourism-funding usage is no longer approved after the implementation of the 1997 Uniform Tax Guidelines that now requires that all taxes must be used toward tourism-related expenditures. The report states that in Asheville in 2014, the occupancy tax brought in US$9,184,430 to be spent 100% locally, and in 2017, it is said to have brought in US$16 million. Asheville is already such a popular tourist destination that funding for advertising and promotion could be better used to help local citizens (Boyle, 2016b). Organizing efforts around lobbying state legislators to update the 1997 Uniform Tax Guidelines to include nontourism-related purposes could make much needed funding available for the development of affordable housing projects by local governments.

Another suggested change in occupancy tax allocation laws is to enforce the “accessory dwelling rule” for Airbnb to ensure more affordable housing options. Essentially, vacation rentals such as Airbnb take away these units as potential dwellings for local residents. Sen (2017) reported that residents in Asheville, for instance, began to see the negative effect that rental units, such as Airbnb, were having on their housing market through the reduction of housing stock and thus started putting certain restrictions on these units. These restrictions permit only two rooms of a resident’s home to be eligible for rental and these units must obtain a permit to rent their dwelling. These rulings also included that renting out an entire home or an “accessory dwelling unit,” a unit attached to a home with a separate entrance, or a free-standing addition such as a backyard cottage, be considered a short-term rental and must be rented for at least 1 month at a time. Enlisting the help of Airbnb to regulate these units as they have done in Chicago, Philadelphia, and New Orleans could open up these “accessory dwelling units” to local residents and create more options for IPV survivors in need of safe and affordable housing (Burgess, 2017b).

Policy Advocacy to Address Social Inequalities

We must not forget that policies for affordable housing, while being very critical to ensuring the safety of IPV survivors and their families, is part of many other essential policies that could support survivors in the process of making decisions to leave their abusers in pursuit of their health and safety. In other words, there is a need for policies that address the intersection of cultural and systemic conditions, such as poverty, sexism, and racism, which can severely limit the opportunities some groups of IPV survivors have to achieve their safety and well-being (Velonis et al., 2017). For example, racial discrimination and sexism may affect how law enforcement responds to survivors of IPV (O’Neal & Beckman, 2017) and poverty can be a definite risk factor affecting their access to health care and employment (Gilroy et al., 2018). Velonis and her colleagues (2017), who developed a theoretical framework to help us understand women’s decision-making in the face of IPV and social inequalities, also state:

shrinking levels of support for social welfare programs and ongoing vilification of women who do not make the decisions that popular opinion would have them make (i.e., they do not leave abusive partners when we think they should), it is particularly important to pay close attention to the numerous ways in which structural forces shape the options women have. (p. 3340)

Therefore, in addition to housing policies, it is important for us to advocate for policies that could help ameliorate negative effects of multiple social inequalities on survivors’ lives by ensuring to put in place such policies and programs as affordable health care, nonpunitive public assistance, and equal protections by the government, regardless of their gender, race, and immigration status.

Efforts have also been made to increase the level of economic empowerment among IPV survivors through related policies and programs, such as asset-building, postsecondary education, and financial literacy training (Hahn & Postmus, 2014; Postmus et al., 2013). Enhanced economic power of IPV survivors will better prepare them to secure housing when affordable housing is made available in their communities. In this regard, organizing efforts and policy advocacy to create more supportive programs at the federal, state, and local levels must be one of pathways to achieve the safety and well-being of IPV survivors who often lack affordable housing as well as face other social and structural inequalities.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the intersection of housing insecurity and IPV continues to be a major barrier for survivors’ safety and self-sufficiency. VAWA and HEARTH Act policies have addressed many of survivors’ needs relating to housing and are important policies for survivors’ protection. However, these policies could still be improved. VAWA provisions have made important housing-related changes for survivors around eviction and securing subsidized housing, but fail to include protections for the private housing market. The HEARTH Act has helped recognize survivors as eligible for services based on the definition of homelessness, confidentiality, and the introduction of rapid rehousing programs, but these programs fail to acknowledge markets with high rent and low vacancy rates. After examining the local implementation of these two important policies, it became clear that the issue of limited affordable housing stock makes these federal policies less effective than they could be. This lack of affordable housing on the local level as a main barrier to escaping IPV remains a key finding within our policy analysis and examination of a case example. To address this issue, increased funding, rent control, and advocacy work for policies addressing intersections of social inequalities have been suggested as possible solutions to overcoming barriers for affordable housing to ensure safety for IPV survivors.

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

Rachel Keefe

Author Biographies

Rachel Keefe, MSW, LCSWA, is a College Counselor at Warren Wilson College. Her previous work was for Helpmate, an intimate partner violence shelter in Asheville, North Carolina, where she provided case management for clients. During this time, she noticed that the lack of affordable housing options for survivors was a primary barrier to survivors escaping violence. Her research interests have focused on intimate partner violence and poverty in Western North Carolina. She received her Master of Social Work from Western Carolina University and her BA in Psychology from the University of North Carolina, Asheville.

Sur Ah Hahn, PhD, MSW, MA, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Social Work at Western Carolina University. Her research interests have focused on the intersection of poverty and intimate partner violence and the integration of advocacy and clinical services for IPV survivors. Her other major interest lies in the impact of intimate partner violence on women’s physical and mental health. She received her PhD in Social Work and MSW from University of Kansas and her MA in Women’s Studies from Ewha Womans University in Seoul, South Korea.

References

Aday

(2015). The effectiveness of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in creating system-level change. SPNHA Review, 11(1), 5–24.

Arnott

(1995). Time for revisionism on rent control? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(1), 99–120.

Australia: Social and affordable housing fund first phase to deliver thousands of homes. (2017). MENA report. http://proxy195.nclive.org/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1891087173?accountid=14968

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(6), 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(4), 460–481.

Bowen National Research. (2017). Apartment market update: Buncombe County. https://www.ashevillenc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Buncombe-County-Apartment-Market-Summary-2017.pdf

Boyle

(2014, March 31). Why are decent pay, decent housing elusive in Asheville? Asheville Citizen Times. http://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2014/03/29/decent-pay-decent-housing-elusive-asheville/7066755/

Boyle

(2016a, April 26). Answer man: Why the holdup on RAD lofts? Asheville Citizen Times. http://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2016/04/26/answer-man-why-holdup-rad-lofts/83537618/

Boyle

(2016b, March 12). Is it time to trim spending to boost Asheville’s tourism? Asheville Citizen Times. http://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2016/03/12/time-trim-spending-boost-asheville-tourism/81498168/

10.

Boyle

(2017, January 24). Asheville gentrification pace makes top 10 list. Asheville Citizen Times. http://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2017/01/24/asheville-gentrification-pace-makes-top-10-list/96992182/

11.

Burgess

(2017a, April 18). How Asheville does (and doesn’t) tax you. Asheville Citizen Times. http://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2017/04/18/how-asheville-does-and-doesn’t-tax-you/100420704/

12.

Burgess

(2017b, March 3). Most in state by far: Asheville area Airbnb sales $13.1M in 2016. Asheville Citizen Times. http://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2017/03/02/asheville-area-airbnb-sales-131m/98636488/

13.

Burgess

(2017c, June 17). 64 apartments, half below market rate, coming to Asheville downtown. Asheville Citizen Times. http://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2017/06/16/64-apartments-half-below-market-rate-coming-asheville-downtown/402955001/

14.

Byrne

Treglia

Culhane

D. P.

Kuhn

Kane

(2016). Predictors of homelessness among families and single adults after exit from homelessness prevention and rapid re-housing programs: Evidence from the Department of Veterans Affairs Supportive Services for Veteran Families Program. Housing Policy Debate, 26(1), 252–275.

15.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2017). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010-2012 state report. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

16.

Chambers

Wedel

(2009). Social policy and social programs: A method for the practical public policy analyst (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon/Pearson.

17.

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(5), 671–688.

18.

Cronin

(2015, May 5). Asheville plans to address lack of affordable housing. Asheville Citizen Times. http://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2015/04/25/ashevilles-plans-address-lack-affordable-housing/26378639/

19.

Cunningham

Gillespie

Anderson

(2015). Rapid re-housing what the research says. Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/54201/2000265-Rapid-Re-housing-What-the-Research-Says.pdf

20.

Daoud

Matheson

F. I.

Pedersen

Hamilton-Wright

Minh

Zhang

O’Campo

(2016). Pathways and trajectories linking housing instability and poor health among low-income women experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV): Toward a conceptual framework. Women & Health, 56(2), 208–225.

21.

Davies

Lyon

(2013). Domestic violence advocacy: Complex lives/difficult choices (2nd ed.). Sage.

22.

Drake

Coman

Parikh

Fifield

(2016). An evaluation of the Connecticut rapid re-housing program. Connecticut Coalition to End Homelessness. http://cceh.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Rapid-Re-housing-Final-report_final.pdf

23.

Fallahi

B. B.

(2016). A review of housing policies for homeless on women who confronted to violence. Online Journal of Counseling & Education, 5(2), 1–13.

24.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2015). 2015 Crime in the United States. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide

25.

Gibson

D. W.

(2015, July). How to dump tenants and make a fortune: The chaotic, abusive process by which New York’s affordable housing is vanishing. The Nation, 300(27), 16–20.

26.

Gilroy

McFarlane

Fredland

Cesario

Nava

Maddoux

(2018). Using a model of economic solvency to understand the connection between economic factors and intimate partner violence. Journal of International Women’s Studies, 19(6), 305–325.

27.

Haffner

Elsinga

Hoekstra

(2008). Rent regulation: The balance between private landlords and tenants in six European countries. European Journal of Housing Policy, 8(2), 217–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616710802037466

28.

Hahn

S. A.

Postmus

J. L.

(2014). Economic empowerment of impoverished IPV survivors: A review of best practice literature and implications for policy. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 15(2), 79–93.

29.

Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act of 2009, 42 U.S.C §§11371 et seq. (2018).

30.

Homeless Initiative Advisory Committee. (2017). Five-year strategic plan on homelessness in Buncombe County (2017-2022).

31.

Housing Authority of the City of Asheville. (2011). Housing authority communities. http://haca.org/index.php/public-housing-developments/

32.

Kadi

Ronald

(2016). Undermining housing affordability for New York’s low-income households: The role of policy reform and rental sector restructuring. Critical Social Policy, 36(2), 265–288. https://doi.org/10/1177/0261018315624172

33.

Katz

A. S.

Zerger

Hwang

S. W.

(2017). Housing First the conversation: Discourse, policy and the limits of the possible. Critical Public Health, 27(1), 139–147.

34.

Klein

L. B.

Chesworth

B. R.

Howland-Myers

J. R.

Rizo

C. F.

Macy

R. J.

(2021). Housing interventions for intimate partner violence survivors: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 22(2), 249–264.

35.

Levy

D. K.

McDade

Bertumen

(2013). Mixed-income living: Anticipated and realized benefits for low-income households. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 15(2), 15–28.

36.

Lind

(2001). Rent regulation: A conceptual and comparative analysis. European Journal of Housing Policy, 1(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616710110036436

37.

Lloyd

Talux

(1999). The effects of male violence on female employment. Violence Against Women, 5(4), 370–392.

38.

Long

S. M.

(2015). Navigating homelessness and navigating abuse: How homeless mothers find transitional housing while managing intimate partner violence. Journal of Community Psychology, 43(8), 1019–1035.

39.

Magellan Strategy Group. (2016). 2016 Profile of North Carolina occupancy taxes and their allocation revised and updated to reflect 2015 changes. http://www.magellanstrategy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/NC-Occupancy-Tax-Profile-ver-3.0.Final_.pdf

40.

Mbilinyi

(2015). The Washington State Domestic Violence Housing First program: Cohort 2 final evaluation report. Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. http://wscadv.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/DVHF_FinalEvaluation.pdf

41.

McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, 42 U.S.C. §§ 11431-11435 (2018).

42.

McLaughlin

(2017). Housing needs of victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking [National Low-Income Housing Coalition 2017 Advocates Guide]. http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/AG-2017/2017AG_Ch06-S01_Housing-Needs-of-Victims-of-Domestic-Violence.pdf

43.

Melbin

Sullivan

C. M.

Cain

(2003). Transitional supportive housing programs: Battered women’s perspectives and recommendations. Affilia, 18(4), 445–460.

44.

Messing

J. T.

Ward-Lasher

Thaller

Bagwell-Gray

M. E.

(2015). The state of intimate partner violence intervention: Progress and continuing challenges. Social Work, 60(4), 305–313. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/swv027

45.

Moe

A. M.

Bell

M. P.

(2004). Abject economics: The effects of battering and violence on women’s work and employability. Violence Against Women, 10(1), 29–55.

46.

National Alliance to End Homelessness. (2011). Homelessness prevention and rapid re-housing for survivors of domestic violence. https://endhomelessness.org/resource/homelessness-prevention-and-rapid-re-housing-for-survivors-of-domestic-viol/

47.

National Alliance to End Homelessness. (2017). FY 2018 budget proposal rundown. http://endhomelessness.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/FY-2018-Budget-Rundown_5.25.pdf

48.

National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. (2015). Domestic violence national statistics. https://ncadv.org/statistics

49.

National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2015). A brief historical overview of affordable rental housing. https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/Sec1.03_Historical-Overview_2015.pdf

50.

National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2017). Advocates’ guide 2017: A primer on federal affordable housing & community development programs. http://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/2017_Advocates-Guide.pdf

51.

National Network to End Domestic Violence. (2016). Domestic violence counts 2015. https://nnedv.org/mdocs-posts/census_2015_handout_report/

52.

National Network to End Domestic Violence. (2017). Housing policy. https://nnedv.org/content/housing-policy/

53.

New York City Rent Control Guidelines Board. (2015). Process by which the rent guidelines board determines the guidelines. http://www.nycrgb.org/html/guidelines/guidelines.html

54.

O’Campo

Daoud

Hamilton-Wright

Dunn

(2016). Conceptualizing housing instability: Experiences with material and psychological instability among women living with partner violence. Housing Studies, 31(1), 1–19.

55.

O’Neal

E. N.

Beckman

L. O.

(2017). Intersections of race, ethnicity, and gender: Reframing knowledge surrounding barriers to social services among Latina intimate partner violence victims. Violence Against Women, 23(5), 643–665. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216646223

56.

Patterson

D. A.

West

Harrison

T. M.

Higginbotham

(2016). No easy way out: One community efforts to house families experiencing homelessness. Families in Society, 97(3), 212–220. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.2016.97.22

57.

Pavao

Alvarez

Baumrind

Induni

Kimerling

(2007). Intimate partner violence and housing instability. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32(2), 143–146.

58.

Postmus

J. L.

Plummer

S.-B.

McMahon

Zurlo

K. A.

(2013). Financial literary: Building economic empowerment with survivors of violence. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 34, 275–284.

59.

Rental Housing Control Act of 1985, 42 U.S.C §2-3501.01 et seq. (2018).

60.

Riger

Ahrens

Blickenstaff

(2000). Measuring interference with employment and education reported by women with abusive partners: Preliminary data. Violence and Victims, 15(2), 161–172.

61.

Sen

(2017, July 8). Airbnb’s magazine features Asheville, where some Airbnbs are illegal. Asheville Citizen Times. http://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2017/07/08/airbnb-mag-features-asheville-where-some-airbnbs-illegal/459206001/

62.

Skak

Blaze

(2013). Rent control and misallocation. Urban Studies, 50(10), 1088–2005. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098012470390

63.

UN Women. (2019, November). Facts and figures: Ending violence against women. https://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/ending-violence-against-women/facts-and-figures

64.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2013). The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013; Overview of applicability to HUD programs. https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/VAWA2013.PDF

65.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2017). Income limits. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html

66.

Velonis

A. J.

Daoud

Matheson

Woodhall-Melnik

Hamilton-Wright

O’Campo

(2017). Strategizing safety: Theoretical frameworks to understand women’s decision making in the face of partner violence and social inequities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(21), 3321–3345. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515598953

67.

Violence Against Women Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C 13701-14040 (2018).

68.

Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. §§13701 et seq. (2018).

69.

Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 42 U.S.C. §§13701 et seq. (2018).

70.

Waegemakers-Schiff

Schiff

R. L.

(2014). Housing First: Paradigm or program? Journal of Social Distress & the Homeless, 23(2), 80–104.

71.

Walton

(2015a, April 21). Asheville struggles with enough housing for the poor. Asheville Citizen Times. http://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2015/04/20/asheville-struggles-enough-housing-poor/26092151/

72.

Walton

(2015b, June 10). Asheville’s homelessness on the rise. Asheville Citizens Times. http://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2015/06/09/ashevilles-homelessness-rise/28756943/

73.

Walton

(2016, August 19). Lee Walker Heights redevelopment postponed. Asheville Citizen Times. http://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2016/08/17/lee-walker-redevelopment-postponed/88888198/

74.

Whitehouse

Gouk

(2019, February 20). The affordable housing people just can’t afford: The amount of social housing being built in Cornwall has plummeted while affordable housing has soared nationwide—but is it truly affordable? Local Democracy Reporter Richard Whitehouse and Annie Gouk investigate. Cornish Guardian. http://proxy195.nclive.org/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/2183522848?accountid=14968

75.

Yin

R. K.

(2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Sage.

76.

Young Women’s Christian Association. (2016). Housing and gender based violence. Week Without Violence campaign. https://www.ywca.org/wp-content/uploads/GBV-Housing-Fact-sheet.pdf