Preventing Homelessness due to Domestic Violence - CiteSeerX

Social Policy & Administration issn 0144–5596 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9515.2009.00691.x Vol. 43, No. 7, December 2009, pp. 719–735

Preventing Homelessness due to Domestic Violence: Providing a Safe Space or Closing the Door to New Possibilities? spol_691

719..735

Gina Netto, Hal Pawson and Cathy Sharp Abstract Domestic violence has been recognized as a major contributory factor to homelessness in the UK and elsewhere, with women more likely to be affected. In the UK and other countries undergoing welfare reform, moves toward ‘active citizenship’ increase the complexity of the relationship between states and citizens and open up new strategies for both. However, analysts have noted some strategies can create new forms of inequality, including gender-based ones. This article considers the impact of prevention-centred homelessness policy responses to domestic violence, with specific reference to the ‘Sanctuary’ model. Sanctuary schemes support women facing homelessness due to domestic violence to remain in their current residence, protected against attack from outside the home. Drawing on analysis of the literature and empirical work, we compare the experiences of women who have used traditional forms of support and Sanctuary services. We argue that while the model has the potential to provide greater autonomy to some women in these circumstances, it is not appropriate for all. Increased emphasis on Sanctuary schemes could make it more difficult for women who might prefer to move. We conclude that more attention needs to be paid to addressing the origin of women’s homelessness due to domestic violence.

Keywords Domestic violence; Homelessness; Prevention; Sanctuary; Housing; Gender Introduction Both in the UK and elsewhere, domestic violence has long been recognized as a major contributory factor to homelessness (Evans and Duncan 1988; Shinn et al. 1998; Spinney 2006, 2007). Although such abuse is sometimes perpetrated against men, women are far more likely to be victims and to report consequential loss of accommodation (Davis 2005; Housing Corporation 2008). Analysts have noted that homelessness policy responses to such women Address for correspondence: Gina Netto, School of the Built Environment, Heriot Watt University, Riccarton Campus, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS. Email: [email protected] © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ , UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

Social Policy & Administration, Vol. 43, No. 7, December 2009

need to be viewed in the context of larger social, economic and political processes which engender social constructions of homelessness, and which tend to marginalize the issue as it affects women (Watson and Austerberry 1986; Watson 1999). Key to consideration of women’s homelessness is women’s differential access to housing, related to their disadvantaged position in the labour market (Munro and Smith 1989; Watson 1999). Views on the proper role of the state in combating domestic violence are instrumental in informing policy responses. Spinney (2006, 2007), for example, illustrates the ways in which contrasting views about ‘acceptable’ state intervention in this arena have informed competing discourses in England and in the Australian state of Victoria. The perceptions by domestic violence victims of the appropriate role of the state are also significant in terms of how they respond to their homelessness situation. Spinney (2007) suggests that, in England, against the backdrop of local authorities’ legal duties to provide accommodation to homeless households in certain defined circumstances, feminists have been able to imagine their right to permanent resolution of their homelessness situation. This has influenced their responses to loss of their home. In contrast, for feminists in Victoria, where there is a deeply rooted ethos of self-reliance born of the country’s frontier history and an absence of UK-style housing legislation, a resolution of homelessness requires that individuals take responsibility for solving their own housing problems. Following in the tradition of a strand of feminist analysis that has long problematized the distinctions between the public and private, this crossnational comparison illustrates the complex relationship between women’s perceptions of the proper role of the state and their decision-making processes in reconciling housing choices. In countries undergoing welfare reform such as the UK, policy and practice responses to homelessness need to be viewed within the context of the dynamic change in relationships between states and citizens, with the latter expected (or themselves expecting) to play more active roles in handling risks and promoting their own welfare (Johansson and Hvinden 2005). Analysts have used the concept of individuation to describe an erosion of traditional ties that offers the potential of new, more differentiated and reflexive forms of identity (Newman 2005). It has also been observed that moves towards ‘active citizenship’, increased individuation and greater autonomy increase the complexity and diversity of the relationship between states and citizens and open up new strategies for both. However, some strategies of this kind can intensify the marginalization or exclusion of certain groups, including along genderbased divisions (Johansson and Hvinden 2005; Newman 2005). For example, identifying key trends in postmodern societies – the fragmentation of state power, the rising importance of markets, changing patterns of work, family and community, shifting social patterns that produce new forms of identity and agency – Newman (2005) illustrates ways in which governance shifts apparently degender concepts of citizenship, work and care while potentially opening up new patterns of gender-specific inequality. This article considers the impact of recent housing policy responses to domestic violence in the UK in the context of the prevention-centred approach to homelessness promoted by government since 2002 (DTLR 2002; 720

© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd


Scottish Executive 2002; DCLG 2006). Particularly as it has been rolled out in England, the model emphasizes exploration of a range of housing options for homeless or potentially homeless individuals, rather than viewing the resolution of such problems as necessarily involving access to the social rented sector (Pawson et al. 2007a). This needs to be viewed in the context of a contracting supply of affordable housing (including social housing) which will impact mainly on low-income or other marginalized groups. With specific reference to domestic violence, action taken to prevent homelessness has traditionally concentrated on supporting victims who are fleeing domestic abuse rather than being directed against the perpetrator, leading commentators to argue that unequal power relationships manifested in domestic abuse remained unchecked and unchallenged (Malos and Hague 1997). Our specific focus is the ‘Sanctuary’ model, where women facing possible homelessness due to domestic violence are supported to remain in their current residence, protected against the threat of further attack from outside the home. The model has been actively promoted by central government in England since 2003 (HQNS 2004). Its popularity is evident from the fact that about half of England’s councils (171 of 354) reported operating such schemes in 2007 (Communities and Local Government 2007). Such schemes have also been officially encouraged in England by their inclusion within a statutory performance indicator on domestic violence victim support (Audit Commission 2007). However, despite the proliferation of such schemes and their innovative nature, there is, as yet, little published evidence on the effectiveness of the model. Analysis of the Sanctuary model and its operation provides an opportunity to consider the extent to which new ways of ‘governing the social’, which involve citizens, particularly women, in taking more responsibility for their well-being, actually work in their favour. A fundamental question related to this is the extent to which such schemes address existing power imbalances which favour perpetrators of domestic violence, and increase the options for victims. The remainder of this article is structured as follows. The first section provides a backdrop against which the Sanctuary approach to addressing the consequences of domestic violence can be appreciated. We consider how domestic violence has been defined in UK housing legislation as well as traditional housing responses to women facing this problem. The second section considers housing policy responses to women facing loss of accommodation due to domestic violence. We discuss the specific challenges posed by preventing homelessness in these circumstances and outline the main features of the Sanctuary model. We then draw on two evaluative studies of Sanctuary schemes to assess the model’s appropriateness as a means of supporting women facing domestic violence. We also identify factors contributing to the effective operation of such schemes. Finally, we discuss the effectiveness of such schemes in promoting women’s ability to safeguard themselves and to retain their established homes. We argue that the model has the potential to provide greater autonomy to some ‘service users’ in helping them resolve their housing situation satisfactorily. In our view, however, the Sanctuary model is not an appropriate option for all those threatened with homelessness due to domestic violence. Hence, we see © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

721


a continuing need for the provision of more traditional forms of support such as refuge accommodation. We perceive a risk that undue enthusiasm for the Sanctuary approach could place the future of such services in question. This is an outcome which could compound the disadvantaged position already occupied by women who are threatened with homelessness due to domestic violence. We also draw attention to intra-national variations in the Sanctuary concept, which suggest that, at this level, there are different views on the extent to which state support should be made available to women who face this scenario. The article draws on analysis of statistics produced by the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG), the Audit Commission and quantitative data collected in studies undertaken by the authors (Netto et al. 2004; Pawson et al. 2007a; C. Sharp 2008). This is supplemented by analysis of the literature and insights from qualitative data obtained through three studies carried out by the authors, which allow us to compare and contrast traditional forms of service provision for victims of domestic violence against the more recent Sanctuary schemes. The first of these (Netto et al. 2004) included interviews with eight black and minority ethnic (BME) women (four of Pakistani origin, while the others were from China, India, Sri Lanka and South Africa) who had experienced homelessness in Scotland, and twelve homelessness service providers, including agencies whose caseloads included women facing homelessness due to domestic violence This study is referred to below as ‘the 2004 research’. Focusing on England, the second project (Pawson et al. 2007a) included an evaluation of schemes operated in three local authorities, which aimed to combat homelessness resulting from domestic violence. Two of these councils were running Sanctuary schemes. Each case study involved the review of documentary material and interviews with homelessness staff and voluntary agencies delivering ‘prevention services’ under contract. One of the case studies included a focus group discussion with three women forced to leave their homes due to domestic violence. Commissioned by the then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), this study is referred to below as ‘the ODPM research’. The third study, an evaluation of a Sanctuary scheme operated by a Scottish local authority, involved a review of documented material, telephone interviews with six service users and a focus group discussion with staff involved in the scheme (C. Sharp 2008). Commissioned by the Scottish Government, this study is alluded to below as ‘the Scottish Government research’. Each of the three studies investigated women’s experiences of accessing and using homelessness prevention services. Analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data allows us to compare traditional forms of provision against the Sanctuary model and provides insights into a rapidly expanding form of service provision in England and Wales, which, to date, has not been systematically examined.

Context: Domestic Violence and Traditional Housing Responses to Women Leaving Home A critical component of the UK’s homelessness legislation is the concept that there are circumstances which can make it ‘unreasonable’ for a person to 722



continue to occupy their former home (in England codified in the Housing Act 1996, S.175). Hence, such a person becomes ‘legally homeless’. Scenarios of this kind include one where continuing to occupy a dwelling entails the probability that a person may be subject to domestic violence. This is defined as: Violence from a person with whom he is associated or threats of violence from such a person which are likely to be carried out. (Housing Act 1996 S.177(1)) Violence is interpreted as extending beyond physical violence to include threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional). Similar recognition of the broad-ranging nature of domestic violence is contained in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. Some indication of the scale of homelessness attributable to domestic violence can be found in the monitoring data maintained by local authorities. Relationship breakdown was the ‘main reason for loss of last settled home’ for some 12,000 households assessed as homeless and in priority need in England in 2007 (see table 1). Of these cases, two-thirds (12 per cent of all cases) were recorded as involving violence. In Scotland, some 26 per cent of all homelessness applicants in 2007/8 were classed as facing loss of accommodation due to ‘dispute within household’. Within this, 10 per cent of all cases involved domestic disputes which were ‘violent or abusive’ (Scottish Government 2008). Official statistics cannot, of course, be seen as an all-encompassing measure of domestic violence in the causation of homelessness. Domestic violence may Table 1 Households assessed by English local authorities as unintentionally homeless and in priority need: breakdown by (selected) reasons for homelessness

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Relationship breakdown: violent (000)

Relationship breakdown: non-violent (000)

Other reasons (000)

Total (000)

Relationship breakdown: violent (% of total)

19 18 18 18 18 18 17 16 13 10 8

7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 7 5 4

76 79 80 86 92 97 109 103 81 62 53

102 104 105 112 118 124 135 128 101 77 65

19 17 17 16 15 15 13 13 13 13 12

Source: CLG (2008). © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

723


contribute to the loss of accommodation in some cases where another factor is recorded as the ‘main reason’. Furthermore, many women losing their homes in such circumstances do not present immediately to homelessness units, but seek shelter with relatives and friends in the first instance, only seeking formal help later (Jones 1998). Victims may also refer themselves directly to refuge provision from where, instead of making a homelessness application, they may apply directly to a local authority housing register (or ‘waiting list’). By obscuring the scale of women’s homelessness, these factors contribute to the marginalization of the issue. In the UK, and in other countries such as Australia, refuges have traditionally played an important role in providing domestic violence victims with temporary shelter and enabling them to make the transition to independent living (Spinney 2007). Such responses have been typically reactive and crisisdriven, and have often resulted in considerable upheaval for the women and children involved (Netto et al. 2004; Pawson et al. 2007a; K. Sharp 2008). Research on women’s experiences of refuge accommodation in the UK has, nevertheless, found high rates of user satisfaction (Netto et al. 2004; Davis 2005). However, it has also been found that accessing refuge accommodation in a preferred location can prove problematic, due to the overall shortage of provision (Levison and Harwin 2000; Davis 2005). The difficulties for individuals from a minority ethnic background or with a disability are compounded. The former sometimes face racial hostility when accommodated with other women in mainstream refuges, which can result in their returning to the violence from which they had fled (Netto et al. 2004; Netto 2006). Physically disabled victims of violence might be particularly reluctant to leave homes equipped with suitable features. It is also common for refuges to bar women with mental health problems or women with older male children (Davis 2005). Moreover, research has shown that women leaving home due to domestic violence often face other difficulties in accessing appropriate support or do not receive it soon enough, indicating the need for timely and proactive early intervention (Levison and Kenny 2002). Often, the need to leave the home may be of an ‘emergency’ nature, perhaps following a severe incident or threat of violence. This may well mean that homelessness is already a reality before a woman’s initial contact with the local authority or any other agency. Interview data from the 2004 research and the ODPM study confirmed this, revealing difficulties encountered by women in the move to settled accommodation. This included being treated with a lack of respect, not being taken seriously and stigmatized due to their experience of domestic violence: ‘Your battles are just beginning.’ ‘You feel penalized for leaving your partner’ (Service user, ODPM study). Words often used to describe contact with agencies were ‘demoralizing’ and ‘emotionally draining’ (Service users, ODPM study). Interviewees lacked awareness of sources of support and the need for wide-ranging support from police, solicitors, advice agencies and benefits agencies: ‘It was very overwhelming . . . where do I go? Who do I see?’ (Service user, ODPM study) 724



‘It was like being sent from pillar to post.’ (Service user, ODPM study) ‘I had nothing but clothes, handbag and a bottle of milk.’ (Service user, 2004 study) The 2004 research also found that while BME women fleeing domestic violence faced many problems in common with other women forced from their homes by similar events, their difficulties were often compounded by the failure of homelessness services to recognize their specific circumstances, e.g. in relation to culturally specific patterns of domestic violence and/or lack of access to informal support. Quantitative data evidencing the inaccessibility and inappropriateness of mainstream homelessness services for homeless individuals from minority ethnic communities (Netto 2006) highlight the importance of acknowledging a racial dimension to the gendered experiences of victims of domestic violence, and the need for homelessness services which are more attuned to the individual circumstances of women and children involved. The next section contextualizes the option of enabling women to remain in their home within recent developments in preventing homelessness.

Recent Homelessness Prevention Policy Responses to Women Facing Domestic Violence Official policy directions Recent developments in countering homelessness due to domestic violence in the UK have been formulated within the context of a wider drive towards a proactive, interventionist focus on preventing homelessness (Pawson 2007). Under England’s Homelessness Act 2002, local authorities have been required to produce prevention-focused homelessness strategies to tackle the problem, including instances resulting from domestic violence. Similar requirements were introduced in Scotland at almost the same time (Pawson et al. 2007b). A key policy statement on the part of central government in England defined homelessness prevention as activities that enable a household to remain in their current home, where appropriate, or that provide options to enable a planned and timely move and help to sustain independent living. (DTLR 2002: para. 39 – our emphasis) The paper highlighted the wider impacts of homelessness beyond loss of shelter: the severance of social ties, impacts on education, training and entry into employment, and emotional trauma. It outlined three contexts in which homelessness prevention interventions needed to be developed: (a) early intervention: where individuals at risk are identified and services provided to prevent problems from escalating; (b) pre-crisis intervention, for example, in the form of advice services to prevent loss of home; and (c) preventing recurring homelessness, extending beyond rehousing to ensure sustainability of tenancy (DTLR 2002). © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

725


As noted above, in a parallel move, a performance indicator was established by central government to measure the activity of English local authorities in tackling domestic violence and its consequences (Best Value Performance Indicator [BVPI] 225). Under this framework, the operation of a Sanctuary scheme was one among 11 specific measures to tackle domestic violence about which local authorities were required to report annually (Audit Commission 2007). Hence, if an authority was implementing all 11 measures in the year in question, it could report a 100 per cent score. Encouragingly, the median percentage of the measures recorded by authorities as ‘in force’ increased from 64 per cent in 2005/6 to 82 per cent in 2007/8 (BVPI data accessed at: www.audit-commission.gov.uk/performance/dataprovision.asp). While the indicator is not solely concerned with homelessness prevention, it is relevant here in illustrating the ways in which government has promoted the Sanctuary concept against the backdrop of the broader agenda on combating domestic violence. As an approach to policy implementation, this kind of approach clearly typifies central government’s predilection for ‘top down performance management’ techniques (Cabinet Office 2006). National homelessness statistics suggest that the post-2002 focus on prevention has had a major impact. In the four years to 2007 the number of households assessed as unintentionally homeless and in priority need fell by more than 50 per cent (see table 1). This decrease is inexplicable in terms of changes in the underlying causes of homelessness over this period – e.g. the affordability of private sector housing. Particularly given the coincidence of timing with the ‘homelessness strategies’ policy shift, it seems certain that the trend results from ‘administrative factors’ – i.e. changes in the ways that local authorities address the homelessness problem. The interpretation of likely causes of the recently recorded drop in official homelessness numbers (see table 1) has been discussed elsewhere (Pawson 2007; Pawson and Davidson 2008). Within the context of this article, however, it is relevant to note the concerns expressed by some commentators that the ‘homelessness prevention’ interventions apparently underlying this trend may have impeded access to an assessment rather than actually resolved applicants’ housing problems (e.g. Citizens Advice 2004; Flood 2006). Specific matters around homelessness prevention in cases of domestic violence remain to be examined. It is to these that we now turn.

Local authority responses and the role of the Sanctuary model Many of the ‘first generation’ homelessness strategies drawn up by English local authorities saw support for women escaping domestic violence being achieved through closer work with local domestic violence fora working at both the strategic and operational level to provide a ‘one stop service’ (HQNS 2004). These bring together local agencies involved in assisting victims of such abuse, typically involving local authority representatives, victim support projects, the police and the courts. Despite widespread policy-maker recognition of the need for multi-agency working in supporting victims of violence, practice in this area is still developing as agencies grapple with the practical demands for a common terminology, working arrangements for information726



sharing between agencies, an in-depth understanding of the roles of different agencies and the need for specialist support and trained staff. The existence of such fora is illustrative of the shifting nature of governance at the local level, in which the former duties and roles of local authorities are fragmented notwithstanding their retention of statutory responsibility for tackling homelessness. In England and Wales much reliance was placed on the Sanctuary model, to which we now turn our attention. Sanctuary schemes aim ‘to enable victims of domestic violence to remain in their own accommodation, where it is safe for them to do so, where it is their choice and where the perpetrator does not live in the accommodation’ (CLG 2006a: 6). The central feature of such schemes is the installation of additional security measures to a woman’s home to protect her and her family from the threat of violence (CLG 2006b). These can take the form of internal doors, mortise locks, safety glass, personal and smoke alarms and the provision of mobile phones to access immediate help. In conjunction with physical security measures, a Sanctuary scheme may involve the provision of legal advice, e.g. to enable a woman to use the Family Law Act 1996 to remove a violent perpetrator, prevent him from approaching the property, or alter the tenancy such that she becomes the sole rather than the joint tenant. However, K. Sharp (2008) argues that, in reality, obtaining exclusionary orders that have adequate force to protect women while they remain in the family home is difficult due to a lack of victim-centred legal processes and professional attitudes, and that even where orders are obtained, they are often not enforced adequately. Statistics derived from a government survey, as set out in table 2, show more than a third of English councils reporting one or more instances of homelessness prevented through Sanctuary provision in 2006. As might be expected, the incidence of such provision is greater in the London boroughs and in the predominantly urban metropolitan and unitary councils. Significantly, however, the model was also in active use in well over a quarter of (predominantly non-urban) district councils. Table 2 Active use of Sanctuary provision by English local authorities, 2006 Local authority type

London borough Metropolitan boroughs and unitary authorities District councils England

LAs reporting ‘preventions’ achieved via Sanctuary provision Number

% of total responding

24 29 59 112

75 44 30 38

Source: CLG (2007). © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

727


Official guidance sees Sanctuary schemes as valuable in enabling beneficiaries to maintain access to key services such as education and health and support networks associated with the current residence (CLG 2006a). Potentially, therefore, Sanctuary schemes can deliver a range of benefits to individuals facing domestic violence. Such initiatives are also attractive to local authorities in view of their potential for ‘cost-effectiveness’ – i.e. as a measure which, if successful, can eliminate the need for an authority to provide either temporary or permanent accommodation. The significance of this is apparent in the context of a declining supply of social housing, including limited refuge accommodation, in the UK. Nevertheless, along with other measures badged as ‘homelessness prevention’, such initiatives have been subject to some criticism – in this case, mainly on the grounds that women may be coerced into accepting such help without being properly informed of their legal rights (Curtis and Benjamin 2006). This argument alludes to the fact that, having left their accommodation due to a legitimate fear of domestic violence, a woman with children (or expecting a child) is legally entitled to be rehoused by the local authority. There is also the possibility, acknowledged in the guidance on risk assessment produced by government (CLG 2006a), that women who are encouraged to stay in their current residence rather than move to alternative accommodation might place themselves (and any children) in continued danger of physical violence from the perpetrator. Key questions which remain include (a) the extent to which women offered Sanctuary provision are made aware that, if they actually abandon their homes in fear of violence, they could be owed a full rehousing duty; and (b) how far the choices now open to women facing domestic violence have actually redressed the power imbalances which lie behind the phenomenon.

Sanctuary Schemes: An Evaluation In this section, we examine evaluative data relating to Sanctuary schemes from the ODPM research and the Scottish Government research, drawing on both quantitative and qualitative data. The scheme evaluated in the former will be referred to as scheme A while that examined in the latter will be referred to as scheme B. It is worth noting that the schemes examined differ in crucial respects, including their origins, the client group and the lead agency involved, allowing us to further explore variations in the operation of such schemes and the implications for supporting women facing domestic violence. Evaluating local schemes Scheme A originated in 1996 through the initiative of the local police station and was developed to assist women threatened with violence from outside the home (typically from a former partner). This involved creating a ‘safe room’ in the occupiers’ home, secure against the perpetrator. Initially, the scheme’s limited resources meant that only a minority of people potentially eligible for such help could benefit. In 2002, reportedly prompted by monitoring evidence 728



that a significant proportion of women who had suffered from domestic violence wanted to remain in their own home, the police, in partnership with the local authority, officially launched the Sanctuary project as a joint police/ local authority venture. Provision was targeted at women living in all tenures. In contrast to scheme A, scheme B was set up by the local authority (in Scotland) and was intended to support women living in council tenancies who were experiencing domestic violence. The project, the first of its kind in Scotland, was piloted in 2007 to test whether women experiencing domestic violence would welcome a chance to avoid having to make a homelessness application followed by a move to a new tenancy. It was intended to be offered as another housing option as part of the ‘housing options’ approach adopted by the local authority and not viewed as a deterrent to presenting as homeless. Both schemes were set up within a multi-agency framework. Referrals to both projects came from a variety of agencies, including the police, women’s refuges, social services, housing officers and child protection agencies, and constitute an important source of evidence relating to individuals’ initial perceptions of the scheme and their eligibility for formal support from the state. Of 47 referrals to scheme B within a time period of eight months, 33 were not progressed. Most of these (22) were due to ineligibility – fear of physical threat unrelated to domestic violence (13) or on tenure grounds (9), the scheme being restricted to tenants of social housing only. In ten cases, where individuals referred were eligible, reasons for not progressing the referral included difficulties with establishing contact or access to the property, the individual changing her mind, returning to the violent partner or declining to accept help. This is not an insignificant number, and serves to highlight that, for at least some women, such schemes may not be perceived as an appropriate means of resolving their situation. It is also likely that limited take-up of the scheme reflects the difficulty that many victims of domestic abuse face in making a decisive break in their relationship with the perpetrator. In parallel with a substantial number of Sanctuary installations, monitoring data for Scheme A in table 3 illustrates a sharply decreasing number of homelessness acceptances where domestic violence was recorded as the main immediate reason for the loss of the applicant’s home. Table 3 Scheme A activity 2002/3 to 2006 Year

Number of sanctuaries installed

Number of homelessness acceptances due to domestic violence

2002/3 2003/4 2004/5 2006

64 66 85 28

98 43 17 n/a

Sources: 2002/3 to 2004/5 – authors’ fieldwork; 2006 – CLG (2007). © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

729


Also notable was the local authority assertion (in 2004) that women who had had a Sanctuary installed had never been known to make a subsequent homelessness application. In the authority’s view, this amounted to evidence that the scheme provided a ‘sustainable solution’. However, a more open view of scheme effectiveness would have allowed for the possibility that women who may not wish to continue living in their current accommodation might be discouraged from presenting as homeless to the local authority, thus contributing to the local authority’s reduction in homelessness acceptances. While acknowledging the possibility for variation in the effectiveness of the schemes due to local contextual factors, qualitative data relating to Sanctuary scheme B offers us the opportunity to further explore the appropriateness of Sanctuary schemes.

Service user and staff perspectives Interview data with six service users, a third of those supported by scheme B, provide valuable insights into the impact of Sanctuary provision and the factors which influence its effectiveness. In all cases, the perpetrators were male. It was clear that the scheme had made an immediate and beneficial impact on the lives of the women and their children, providing an important source of support. Women spoke of increases in confidence and enhanced personal safety and mental well-being: ‘It’s made me feel brilliant. It’s empowered me . . . I can’t tell you how lifted I feel. I feel so much better than two weeks ago.’ (Service user, Scottish Government study) ‘I was a bag of nerves – I would have been sectioned the way things were going . . . I could just about say it saved my life. I now feel safe – even in the street. It’s turned my whole life around.’ (Service user, Scottish Government study) Key elements of the service identified as useful involved the extension of the project beyond the provision of security measures, including the establishment of trusting relationships: ‘They’ve been on hand 24/7 – for both of us. She [the project worker] would always make time to deal with the levels of stress I was experiencing.’ (Service user, Scottish Government study) Not being required to report their experiences of violence to more than one agency was also seen as a positive feature of the scheme. Other identified factors contributing to scheme effectiveness included the speed of the initial response and the ongoing availability of round-the-clock support. In one case, the swift police response to a service user’s call led to the perpetrator being arrested and sentenced, and the placing of an interdict and restraining order. Women also appreciated the staffing of the project by an understanding woman: 730



‘I feel safer speaking to a woman. I feel nervous around men. [She’s] on the same wavelength as me. I took to her straight away.’ (Service user, Scottish Government study) However, they also reported that they had felt comfortable dealing with male contractors who had enhanced the security of their homes, since they were informed who they were and what to expect. They were also satisfied with the way issues leading to disclosure of information between agencies were handled. A focus group discussion with staff at the same scheme revealed other positive benefits of the scheme, including the pointlessness for individuals in moving elsewhere within the same small city and the message sent out to perpetrators that their behaviour was unacceptable: ‘[The city] is a really small place . . . it’s not actually possible to hide.’ (Staff, Scottish Government study) ‘Practical measures can highlight [to perpetrators] what’s actually going on. They’re confronted with this idea . . . “someone needs to strengthen the door because of what I’ve been doing.” ’ (Staff, Scottish Government study) Thus, although the project was not intended to prevent domestic violence, such schemes might at the same time reduce such violence. Respite from exposure to partner violence against a mother could also have positive impacts on children. Speaking of her 10-year-old son, one interviewee commented: ‘he thought it was right to shout at me because he’d seen his Dad doing it . . . there’s been a big change now – he’s calmed down.’ (Service user, Scottish Government study) A survey of 19 scheme A service users conducted by the local authority also reported generally high levels of service user satisfaction: ‘I think that having the Sanctuary and panic alarm stopped my ex-husband coming near my home.’ (Local authority data, ODPM study) ‘I was very satisfied . . . I don’t think they could have done anything more to assist me . . . The security measures installed have made me feel extremely safe.’ (Local authority data, ODPM study) However, one participant reported that she felt ‘imprisoned’ and would have preferred to move to another property. Similarly, a scheme B service user also wished to move, but this was related to a lack of perceived safety due to reasons other than the threat of violence from her partner. Such data indicate that while Sanctuary schemes appear to have the potential to be a highly satisfactory option for some individuals, they are not appropriate for all individuals facing homelessness due to domestic violence. Sanctuary schemes are unable to address the wider issues related to broader community safety and the stigmatization of council estates. © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

731


Discussion Comparison of the experiences of women who were forced to leave home due to domestic violence with users of Sanctuary schemes indicates that when the latter are appropriately targeted and offered as a choice among a range of other alternatives, they have the potential to overcome many of the difficulties associated with traditional forms of support. These include the shortage of, and difficulty of obtaining, appropriate refuge accommodation (particularly for minority ethnic and disabled women), the difficulty of finding alternative accommodation in safe areas, severance of links with key services and social networks, and, perhaps most significantly, the need to leave their home. Malos and Hague (1997) have argued that due to the more central position of the home in women’s lives, the loss of a home is a significant element of the trauma that women leaving a violent relationship suffer. We accept that considerably more data are required to provide a satisfactory assessment of the effectiveness of Sanctuary schemes in supporting women threatened with homelessness due to domestic violence. However, we feel that the rapid expansion of these schemes and the significant departure from traditional forms of assistance demand an early initial appraisal of their effectiveness. It seems clear that when appropriately targeted, the schemes widen the range of options open to women facing homelessness due to domestic violence, many of whom would previously have been faced with the stark choice of either fleeing to a refuge or continuing to endure abuse. Our research indicates that Sanctuary schemes have the potential to increase women’s sense of safety from physical threat, ensure their continuing access to key services, and link them to relevant support services. Such schemes therefore provide a mechanism through which the link between domestic violence and homelessness can be broken. Further, as demonstrated by Pawson et al. (2007a), such schemes are highly cost-effective compared to the costs of supporting individuals in temporary accommodation, including refuges, and enabling them to move on to permanent accommodation, which, at least in some cases, might involve social housing. Despite these considerable benefits, Sanctuary schemes appear to operate on the assumption that women will take responsibility for ensuring their continuing safety, for instance, by calling on the police, when threatened with violence despite the enhanced security of their homes. While good practice guidance stresses the importance of risk assessment processes and not pressurizing women to accept Sanctuary schemes as a means of resolving their potential homelessness, the Sanctuary model nevertheless places the onus on victims to protect themselves. Consequently, while the effective operation of such schemes illustrates the potential to empower women threatened with domestic violence, it also entails a shift to increasing individual responsibility after homes have been physically enhanced, compared to traditional forms of support through refuge or other temporary accommodation. Pointing this out does not imply an uncritical acceptance of refuge provision as a means of resolving women’s homelessness due to domestic violence. Rather, what we are asserting is that enhanced physical security alone, with or without legal support, might not afford victims of domestic violence sufficient protection. 732



Our research adds to the literature on different interpretations of the role of the state in informing homelessness policy responses to domestic violence by indicating that in addition to cross-national differences, there is intranational variation in the extent and availability of Sanctuary provision. Such variation is likely to influence women’s responses to resolving their homelessness in terms of the choices available to them. For instance, it would appear that victims of domestic violence living in most parts of Scotland have fewer choices open to them when faced with the threat of homelessness, given the lack of schemes here. However, the expansion of Sanctuary schemes across local authorities in England and Wales calls into question the extent to which other (less cost-effective) forms of traditional support for women, including refuge provision, will continue to be made available on the same scale. There is at least the potential that reduced emphasis on alternative forms of provision might contribute to new forms of vulnerability to homelessness and either maintain or create new forms of gender-based inequality. If this is the case, women who feel compelled to leave their current residence, and are not able to access more traditional forms of service provision or other housing, might feel forced to seek shelter with family or friends, contributing to women’s hidden homelessness (Munro and Smith 1989; Jones 1998). Further research is needed to investigate the extent to which Sanctuary provision is made available to individuals who are not considered (by a local authority) as likely to be owed a main homelessness duty (e.g. single childless women of working age). A related area calling for research is whether Sanctuary provision is available to victims to ensure their safety in parallel with the local authority making inquiries into whether they would be owed a full homelessness duty. This might be appropriate where the victim is willing to stay in the current accommodation only until a planned move to alternative accommodation can be arranged. In sum, the extent to which the state is prepared to support victims of domestic violence threatened with homelessness, even through the cost-effective means of Sanctuary provision, remains to be fully investigated. In the interim period, we argue that the scale of homelessness related to domestic violence and the need to tackle the root causes of domestic violence call for alternative or parallel policy responses in supporting victims through more effective action in dealing with perpetrators. Policy attention could emphasize the provision of alternative accommodation for perpetrators, perpetrator programmes and court action. This would require multi-agency working at the policy and operational level and should be linked to homelessness prevention initiatives. Such measures have the potential to communicate the unacceptability of domestic violence and to eliminate or reduce the need for victims to be protected in their homes. It might also be contended that targeted and sustained action to penalize the perpetrators of domestic violence is, in the longer term, more likely to redress the power imbalances experienced by the women involved. However, such measures call for more interventionist and sustained action by the state, alongside the prevailing trend of encouraging citizens to play more active roles in handling risks and promoting their own welfare. Until strong and concerted action is taken against domestic © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

733


violence perpetrators, women choosing to remain in security-enhanced accommodation will continue to have to be alert to the potential threat of such violence in their homes and the surrounding neighbourhood. Ultimately, it would appear that far more attention needs to be paid to addressing the origin of women’s homelessness due to domestic violence and to addressing power imbalances than has, to date, been evident.

References Audit Commission (2007), AC Best Value performance indicators guidance 2007/08: Community Safety and Wellbeing. Available at: www.audit-commission.gov.uk/ performance/downloads/0708_13_CommunitySafetyWellBeing.pdf. Cabinet Office (2006), The UK Government’s Approach to Public Service Reform: A Discussion Paper, London: Cabinet Office. Available at: www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/ cabinetoffice/strategy/assets/sj_report.pdf. Citizens Advice (2004), Memorandum by Citizens Advice to House of Commons Select Committee on Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions. Available at: www.publications.parliament. uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmodpm/1116/1116we28.htm. Communities and Local Government (CLG) (2006a), Options for Setting up a Sanctuary Scheme. Available at: www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/ optionssetting. Communities and Local Government (CLG) (2006b), Homelessness Prevention: A Guide to Good Practice, London: CLG. Available at: www.communities.gov.uk/documents/ housing/pdf/150973.pdf. Communities and Local Government (CLG) (2007), Homelessness Statistics June 2007 and Local Authority Survey of Homelessness Prevention, London: CLG. Available at: www. communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/homelessnessstatisticslocal. Communities and Local Government (CLG) (2008), Live Tables: Table 633 – Statutory Homelessness: homeless households accepted by local authorities – reason for loss of last settled home. Available at: www.communities.gov.uk/housing/ housingresearch/housingstatistics/housingstatisticsby/homelessnessstatistics/ livetables/. Curtis, P. and Benjamin, A. (2006), Councils fund panic rooms for domestic violence victims, Guardian (22 February). Available at: www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/ feb/22/socialcare.politics. Davis, C. (2005), Domestic Violence and Housing in the Eastern Region: Summary Report, Salford: University of Salford. Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2006), Homelessness Prevention: A Guide to Good Practice, London: DCLG. Available at: www. communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/homelessnessprevention. Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2008), Homelessness Statistics, London: DCLG. Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) (2002), More than a Roof, London: DTLR. Evans, A. and Duncan, S. (1988), Responding to Homelessness: Local Authority Policy and Practice, London: HMSO. Flood, C. (2006), Pushed into private, Roof (September/October): 9. Housing Corporation (2008), Behind Closed Doors, London: Housing Corporation. Housing Quality Network Services (HQNS) (2004), Local Authorities’ Homelessness Strategies: Evaluation and Good Practice, London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

734



Johansson, H. and Hvinden, B. (2005), Welfare governance and the remaking of citizenship. In J. Newman (ed.), Remaking Governance: Peoples, Politics and the Public Sphere, Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 101–19. Jones, A. (1998), Out of Sight Out of Mind: Women’s Homelessness, London: Crisis. Levison, D. and Harwin, N. (2000), Reducing Domestic Violence . . . What Works? Accommodation Provision, London: Home Office. Levison, D. and Kenny, D. (2002), The Provision of Accommodation and Support for Households Facing Domestic Violence in England, London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Malos, E. and Hague, G. (1997), Women, housing, homelessness and domestic violence, Women’s Studies International Forum, 20, 3: 397–409. Munro, M. and Smith, S. (1989), Gender and housing: broadening the debate, Housing Studies, 4, 1: 3–17. Netto, G. (2006), Vulnerability to homelessness, use of homelessness services and BME communities, Housing Studies, 21, 4: 581–603. Netto, G., Fancy, C., Lomax, D., Pawson, H. and Singh, S. (2004), Black and Minority Ethnic Communities and Homelessness in Scotland, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. Newman, J. (2005), Regendering governance. In J. Newman (ed.), Remaking Governance: Peoples, Politics and the Public Sphere, Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 81–99. Pawson, H. (2007), Local authority homelessness prevention in England: empowering consumers or denying rights? Housing Studies, 22, 6: 867–84. Pawson, H. and Davidson, E. (2008), Radically divergent? Homelessness policy and practice in post-devolution Scotland, European Journal of Housing Policy, 8, 1: 39–60. Pawson, H., Netto, G., Jones, C., Wager, F., Fancy, C. and Lomax, D. (2007a), Evaluating Homelessness Prevention, London: CLG. Available at: www.communities.gov.uk/ publications/housing/preventhomelessness. Pawson, H., Davidson, E. and Netto, G. (2007b), Evaluating Homelessness Prevention Initiatives in Scotland, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. Scottish Executive (2002), Helping Homeless People: An Action Plan for Prevention and Effective Responses, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. Scottish Government (2008), The Operation of the Homelessness Legislation in Scotland in 2007/08. Available at: www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/09/29091120/9. Sharp, C. (2008), Safe as Houses Evaluation, Edinburgh: Scottish Government Homelessness Prevention Innovation Fund/City of Edinburgh Council. Sharp, K. (2008), Perceptions of successful interventions in Scotland for women experiencing domestic abuse who wish to remain in the family home. MPhil, Housing Studies, University of Glasgow. Shinn, M., Weitzman, B. C., Stojanovic, D., et al. (1998), Predictors of homelessness among families in New York City, American Journal of Public Health, 88, 11: 1651–7. Spinney, A. (2006), A comparative investigation of policy responses to homelessness in England and Australia. Paper presented at European Network for Housing Research conference, Ljubljana, 2–5 July. Spinney, A. (2007), The effect on policy responses of differing constructions of homelessness attributed to domestic violence. Paper presented at European Network for Housing Research conference, Rotterdam, 25–28 June. Available at: www. enhr2007rotterdam.nl/documents/W06_paper_Spinney.pdf. Watson, S. (1999), A home is where the heart is: engendering notions of homelessness. In P. Kennet and A. Marsh (eds), Homelessness: Exploring the New Terrain, Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 81–100. Watson, S. and Austerberry, H. (1986), Housing and Homelessness: A Feminist Perspective, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.


735