Home Safe Home

Hilary Botein, Andrea Hetling

• Publisher: Rutgers University Press
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9780813585857
• eBook ISBN: 9780813585864
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Social Policy
• Index: Social Sciences

Housing matters for everyone, as it provides shelter, security, privacy, and stability. For survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV), housing takes on an additional meaning; it is the key to establishing a new life, free from abuse. IPV survivors often face such inadequate housing options, however, that they must make excruciating choices between cycling through temporary shelters, becoming homeless, or returning to their abusers.    Home Safe Home offers a multifaceted analysis that accounts for both IPV survivors’ needs and the practical challenges involved in providing them with adequate permanent housing. Incorporating the varied perspectives of the numerous housing providers, activists, policymakers, and researchers who have a stake in these issues, the book also lets IPV survivors have their say, expressing their views on what housing and services can best meet their short and long-term goals. Researchers Hilary Botein and Andrea Hetling not only examine the federal and state policies and funding programs determining housing for IPV survivors, but also provide detailed case studies that put a human face on these policy issues.    As it traces how housing options and support mechanisms for IPV survivors have evolved over time, Home Safe Home also offers innovative suggestions for how policymakers and advocates might work together to better meet the needs of this vulnerable population.   

Part One

Why Long-Term Housing for Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence?

1

“Why Doesn’t She Leave?”

Intimate Partner Violence and Housing Instability

Intimate partner violence has many names: domestic violence, domestic abuse, couple violence, and, in the past, spousal violence and woman battering. IPV refers to violence in an intimate relationship such as dating, cohabitating, and marriage. The terms of victim and survivor are also used interchangeably, and thus can cause some confusion. Survivor is a relatively newer term. We use it in this book to refer to individuals who are experiencing IPV as well as those who have experienced it in the past. The increasing use of survivor reflects recognition that whether or not someone is currently experiencing abuse or has experienced it in the past, that individual is surviving. Victoria’s story illustrates how escaping an abusive relationship can be an ongoing process that continues long after the physical separation: only after moving out of their shared apartment did Victoria realize how reliant she had been on her abuser financially and psychologically, and she had to garner the internal and external resources to survive on her own. Similarly, her decisions and actions while living with the abuse were strategies to protect herself and her child; they were survival strategies.

The public often misunderstands IPV. The common response of “why doesn’t she leave?” depicts an abusive relationship as one in which the survivor has access to the resources and knowledge that she would need to unilaterally and immediately end the abuse and prevent future abusive behaviors. It also places a level of responsibility and blame on the survivor for the occurrence of the violence. We would not usually ask other crime victims why they did not prevent the crime. This chapter explains the complicated dynamics of an abusive relationship and the related difficulties caused by abuse, which often erect barriers to leaving an abusive relationship and to establishing a new, stable life. Housing is critical to stability for IPV survivors: in itself it provides safety and stability; it also offers a platform for survivors to access other stabilizing resources. For readers working in the IPV field or with extensive knowledge about the issue, this chapter will likely serve as a review of the major topics in the field. For readers new to the issue of IPV, this chapter will provide the basis for an understanding of the complexities related to IPV and a foundation upon which we build our arguments in future chapters.

Dynamics of Abuse

Understanding the dynamics of an abusive relationship sheds light on the question of “why doesn’t she leave?” Coercive control theory summarizes and explains the unique nature of intimate partner violence, specifically “how men entrap women in personal life” (Stark 2007). The coercive control theory frames violence in abusive relationships as purposeful tactics used by an abuser to maintain power and control over his female partner. In contrast to the conflict that occurs naturally within relationships, coercive control is an intentional pattern of behavior, including physical, sexual, psychological, and economic abuse, occurring over a period of time.1 Abusers act in these ways with the intention of controlling and subjugating their partners. As Evan Stark (2007) explains, his book “reframes women battering from the standpoint of its survivors as a course of calculated, malevolent conduct deployed almost exclusively by men to dominate individual women by interweaving repeated physical abuse with three equally important tactics: intimidation, isolation, and control” (14).

The coercive control theory focuses on IPV as a type of violence against women; it is gender-specific. This aspect stands in contrast to some messages that IPV is gender-neutral. While violence does occur in relationships with female perpetrators and male survivors, the more common situation is for the survivor to be a woman and the abuser to be a man. Most scholars view intimate partner violence as connected to larger societal issues, including a patriarchal power dynamic where women have fewer rights than men. Feminist theory states that IPV is related directly to modern society’s patriarchal system (Dobash and Dobash 1979; Walker 1979). Accordingly, male violence within intimate relationships is the result of power differences between men and women that maintain women as subordinate. Violence in same-sex relationships, although it seems to contradict the feminist model, is related as it also derives from power differences and societal oppression of groups like same-sex couples. Violence in other relationships, however, is missing the element of male privilege and is thus qualitatively different from the IPV that occurs as a form of violence against women because the abuse and barriers to escaping it are not reinforced by societal and cultural norms. Moreover, research indicates that often the violence committed by women against male partners is in self-defense (Henning, Renauer, and Holdford 2006; Miller 2001).

Although evidence from national crime surveys, police, hospital and court records, and clinical and shelter samples indicates much higher IPV rates among women, population-based samples offer stronger evidence on the question of gender. Because IPV services are usually designed for women and would likely be underutilized by men, data from those sources may be biased. The most recent nationwide U.S.-based survey, the annual National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, conducted jointly by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Institute for Justice, was completed in 2011 (Black et al. 2011). The survey’s goal is to collect data on the prevalence of intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and stalking victimization on an annual basis through a nationally representative, random-digit-dialed telephone survey.2 In response to questions about IPV, women report higher rates of both abuse and severe abuse experiences, and higher rates of injury and other consequences compared to male victims in both 2010 and 2011. For example, one in four women (compared to one in seven men) reported severe physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime, and one in ten women (compared to one in fifty men) reported having been stalked by an intimate partner during their lifetime (Black et al. 2011).

Types of Abuse

IPV encompasses different types of abuse. The CDC defines abuse as “physical violence, sexual violence, stalking, and psychological aggression (including coercive acts) by a current or former intimate partner” (CDC 2015). Physical abuse is probably the most recognized form of abuse and is the act most associated with responses from the criminal justice system. The definition of physical abuse spans assault with hands and fists to the use of weapons. Sexual abuse includes rape, forced sexual contact, and unwanted sexual experiences. Acts may be completed or attempted, and all are unwanted by the survivor. Consent is absent, including situations in which consent is not possible, such as when the survivor is voluntarily or involuntarily under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Stalking refers to repeated unwanted, uninvited, and obsessive actions and attention. Although stalking may include harassment, legally it is distinct. Individual acts, like making a phone call or sending flowers, viewed alone may seem innocent. Taken together, however, a pattern becomes evident. The intent behind the behavior is also distinct—the actions are intended to intimidate or instill fear. The actions are also completely unwanted by the receiver. In the context of IPV, stalking occurs after a survivor separates from her abuser. Survivors who have left abusive relationships and become the objects of stalking behaviors are at an increased risk of being killed by their abusers (Campbell et al. 2003).

Psychological aggression or psychological or emotional abuse is the most common type of abuse and can have long-lasting negative effects. Based on the coercive control theory, this type of abuse is not only present in all abusive relationships, but constitutes a fundamental element (Stark 2007). The CDC defines psychological aggression as “use of verbal and non-verbal communication with the intent to harm another person mentally or emotionally, and/or to exert control over another person” (CDC 2015). Psychological abuse includes behavior intended to dominate and isolate the survivor as well as verbal and emotional abuse such as degrading her or making her feel crazy (Tolman 1989). Research has shown this type of abuse to predict various mental health issues, including anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (Coker et al. 2002; Lawrence et al. 2009).

In addition to the four types of abuse recognized and defined by the CDC, researchers have identified two additional types of abuse. The first is economic or financial abuse, which refers to acts intended to compromise the survivor’s access to and use of resources. Economic abuse is a form of abuse that utilizes behaviors that “control a woman’s ability to acquire, use and maintain economic resources, thus threatening her economic security and potential for self-sufficiency” (Adams et al. 2008, 564). Although economic abuse is usually considered part of psychological aggression or abuse (Brieding et al. 2015), research supports approaching it as a separate construct (Adams et al. 2008; Riger, Ahrens, and Blickenstaff 2000; Stylianou, Postmus, and McMahon 2013; Weaver et al. 2009). Economic abuse can be divided into three subcategories: employment sabotage, resource control, and financial exploitation (Postmus et al. 2012). First, employment sabotage is a group of tactics aimed at preventing access to education, training, and employment. Abusers may prevent survivors from attending school or work by failing to provide childcare, compromising transportation by stealing car keys or draining gas from the car, interfering with personal care by preventing sleep, hiding clothes, or inflicting injuries, and finally harassing the victim at work (Adams et al. 2008; Brandwein and Filiano 2000; Lyon 2002; Moe and Bell 2004; Riger, Ahrens, and Blickenstaff 2000). Second, abusers may exert extensive control of resources by denying access to money or closely monitoring money and spending (Adams et al. 2008; Wettersten et al. 2004). Third, abusers financially exploit survivors through tactics such as stealing cash or debit or credit cards, generating debt in joint credit lines, and compromising credit history by not paying bills or gambling (Adams et al. 2008; Postmus et al. 2012).

The other more recently recognized type of abuse is immigrant abuse, which refers to tactics used by abusers to maintain control and power in circumstances where women are immigrants, both documented and undocumented. Immigrant abuse includes behaviors such as isolation from family, friends, and the larger community (Dutton, Orloff, and Hass 2000) and threats of reports to immigration authorities or deportation (Dutton, Orloff, and Hass 2000; Erez and Ammar 2003; Raj and Silverman 2002). Survivors’ immigration status may be dependent on sponsorship by their abusers, putting abusers in a position of power and knowledge. Other documented immigrant survivors may be on a visa that does not allow for employment, limiting her ability to leave the relationship and support herself. For undocumented women, who may have overstayed a visa or entered the United States without documentation, fear and isolation are exacerbated (Dutton, Orloff, and Hass 2000). Abusive partners may also sabotage efforts to learn English and at the same time insult their partners for not knowing the language (Raj and Silverman 2002). Inability to communicate further isolates survivors by negatively affecting their ability to seek help and to find employment (Dutton, Orloff, and Hass 2000).

Impact of IPV

Experiences of abuse lead to consequences that affect multiple aspects of a survivor’s life (Allen, Bybee, and Sullivan 2004). IPV can lead to poor physical and mental health outcomes, lack of education or work experience, poverty, and limited social support networks. For IPV survivors with children, the consequences of abuse extend to their children as well.

Research on physical and mental health issues associated with IPV is extensive. The consensus in the field is that survivors, compared to those who have never experienced abuse, have worse health outcomes, including injuries and illnesses (Afifi et al. 2009; Bonomi et al. 2009). Work by multiple researchers has demonstrated that women who have experienced IPV also bear a significant mental health burden (Beck et al. 2014; Bonomi et al. 2009; Hathaway et al. 2000; Lipsky, Caetano, and Roy-Byrne 2009; Zlotnick, Johnson, and Kohn 2006). Among the many conditions commonly suffered by survivors of IPV are depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and anxiety (CDC 2015). The estimated prevalence of depression among women who have experienced IPV is about one in every two women (47.6 percent), and the estimated prevalence of PTSD is over three in every five women (63.8 percent) (Beck et al. 2014). In comparison, fewer than one out of ten individuals in the general U.S. adult population are affected by major depression (8 percent) or PTSD (7.8 percent) (CDC 2013). Depression can manifest itself in many ways, but some of the most common symptoms include feelings of worthlessness, helplessness, sadness, or pessimism. People with depression may have difficulty concentrating, feel tired all the time, or lose interest in activities they once enjoyed (National Institute of Mental Health 2015a). The symptoms of PTSD, like those of depression, can affect all areas of life. Although it is usually associated with military veterans, anyone who has experienced trauma can develop PTSD—including a significant proportion of those who have experienced IPV. Some common symptoms of PTSD include traumatic flashbacks, nightmares, depression, emotional numbness, worrying, gaps in memory, feeling tense, and difficulty sleeping (National Institute of Mental Health 2015b).

Complicating the effect of poor mental health, IPV survivors face other barriers to establishing stable lives. Due to the controlling nature of abusive relationships, survivors often lack education and work experience. Experiences of IPV, particularly psychological abuse and employment sabotage, can hinder a woman’s ability to find and maintain a job (Kimerling et al. 2009; Swanberg, Logan, and Macke 2005). Coupled with other experiences of economic abuse and lack of access to financial resources, this inexperience often results in poverty (Lein et al. 2001). Abusers further limit resources by isolating survivors from their family and friends.

Finally, the difficulties associated with experiences of IPV are compounded when the survivor has children. Studies indicate an increased risk of child abuse in families where the mother is experiencing IPV (Holt, Buckley, and Whelan 2008; Jouriles et al. 2008). Many children witness acts of physical or psychological violence against their mothers. Children who live in homes with IPV are at an increased risk of emotional and behavioral problems (Holt, Buckley, and Whelan 2008). Considering the well-being of their children is often central in the decision-making process of IPV survivors (Randell et al. 2012).

Barriers to Leaving

For survivors of IPV, the decision to leave an abusive relationship is complex. We began this chapter addressing the question, “Why doesn’t she leave?” Many of the impacts of IPV we just reviewed directly answer this question. While not all IPV survivors experience all types of abuse, all types of difficulties, and all types of barriers to leaving, all survivors experience some combination. The interconnection of difficulties and barriers has a multiplicative impact on survivors. For example, as explained earlier, IPV experiences can lead to both depression and limited work experience. These outcomes, in turn, may hinder efforts to gain employment and acquire financial resources, which, in turn, may compromise the process of leaving an abusive relationship.

Safety is a critical barrier to escaping abuse; the most recognized, easily understood, and fundamental impact of IPV is physical and psychological injury and death. For some survivors attempts to escape an abusive relationship lead to escalations of the frequency and severity of abuse (Johnson and Bunge 2001). For survivors who need protection and secrecy to hide from their abusers, particularly those without financial or family resources or support, emergency shelters are the most common way to escape.

Poverty and lack of financial resources pose significant barriers to leaving abusive relationships. Studies have identified lack of financial resources as the largest predictor of whether a woman stays in, leaves, or returns to an abusive relationship (Anderson and Saunders 2003; Barnett 2000; Kim and Gray 2008). Specifically, lack of income to secure safe housing often prevents women from leaving abusive situations (Anderson and Saunders 2003; Hardesty and Campbell 2004; Hirst 2003; Sheridan 2001). As Bybee and Sullivan (2002) note, as IPV survivors acquire resources and support, they are protected against further victimization.

Coping with mental health issues can increase the difficulty of stabilizing financial and legal situations after escaping an abusive relationship. Depression can negatively affect a woman’s ability to create and sustain relationships, increasing her social isolation while decreasing her ability to access social support (Carlson et al. 2002). Depression can also diminish motivation, affecting survivors’ abilities to behave proactively in establishing their independence or making positive health decisions such as seeking tre...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface and Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Part One
• Part Two
• Part Three
• Part Four
• Appendix: Methods
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index
• About the Authors