Tag: housing

Arrival and Departure – the spatial churn of domestic abuse

Within the UK, many people find themselves forced to relocate, whether due to housing evictions, dispersal of asylum seekers, clearance of housing estates for regeneration projects, or homelessness policies and practice. These non-voluntary mobilities affect individuals differently, but are structurally imposed.

The forced relocation of women and children due to domestic abuse may be seen as somewhat different – with the journeys initially forced by the abusive perpetrator. However, even at that point, there is the question of why the state isn’t holding him accountable – controlling his abuse so that women and children do not have to uproot themselves and relocate…

And, often, after that initial relocation, the domestic abuse journeys are further forced by state policies, availability (or not) of support services, and the implications of crossing administrative boundaries. So the journeys, in their multiple stages over time and place, are often structurally imposed in many ways.

With other non-voluntary mobilities, the flow of forced journeys may be in one direction: forcing people out of areas that are being ‘gentrified’, forcing asylum seekers out of major cities, or out of residential areas. And the focus of those who want to support such displaced persons is therefore on welcoming new arrivals, with the authorities focusing on the ‘arrival infrastructure’ including civil society and social professionals. The ReROOT Project is currently working across a range of locations in Europe, to improve practices, policies and imaginaries of arrival infrastructures; and a workshop in London on 9-10 October will explore the context and responses in the UK.

Thinking about arrival infrastructures, the forced internal displacement due to domestic abuse has parallels – all the difficulties of starting again with your life in a new, unknown, unchosen place. Individuals’ experiences may be similar, in terms of the effects and needs, but there is also a key difference in the aggregate effect in each place. For, at the same time as that arrival, there is also likely to be a departure – another woman, often with children, fleeing domestic violence. They won’t be aware of each other – their journeys will often be secret and hidden to escape the abuser – but domestic abuse occurs in all places; and journeys are from everywhere to everywhere.

Administrative data from services, analysed in this research, shows this spatial churn – that most local authorities experience around the same number of domestic violence departures as arrivals. But the lack of net effect is made up of a mass of journeys and disruption for individuals. So, a rights-based response to the disruption and harms of forced relocation, as well as the harms from the abuse, would create an infrastructure for both arrivals and departures – a coherent infrastructure so that women and children can go as far as they need and stay as near as they can.

Journeyscape or Journeybreak?

Domestic violence isn’t in any way a game, but it is important to use all kinds of ways to prompt discussion and thinking about the issues – and a new card ‘game’ aims to do just that. “Serious games” use the interactions and norms of games – from playing cards or board games to online gaming – to engage and inform in ways that other methods cannot.

Journeyscape or Journeybreak? is a card game about women and children’s journeys to escape domestic abuse. The game draws on the British Academy-funded research project “Women on the Move: the Journeyscapes of Domestic Violence” using examples of the pressure points women experience and the help or hindrance from people, policies, services and luck.

Relocation is only one possible strategy for women but tens of thousands of women and children relocate in the UK due to domestic abuse, often in multi-stage journeys over time and distance, and accessing a range of services and support. The game presents a simplified journey of multiple stages and stopping points, with the players gathering the points they need for the next stage, whilst also experiencing the ‘chance’ elements that can allow them to leap forward or fall back on their journey.

The examples of ‘chance’ – positive and negative – are taken from women’s accounts shared during the research, and the cards showcase women’s images from participatory photography groupwork carried out with Solace Women’s Aid. The cards are therefore an expression of women’s creativity and insights, and the game aims to highlight how journeys away from violence can be either stalled and thwarted by ‘journeybreaks’ or ‘journeyscaped’ by law, policy, services and support.

Journeyscape or Journeybreak? will be launched at the Social Research Association conference on 15th June 2023 in London. It is part of the “Please Do Touch” gallery – emphasising the importance of in-person interaction with each other and with material objects: the value of actually being able to touch…

Journeyscape or Journeybreak? is a game for 2-4 players and could be used by groups of professionals involved in responding to domestic abuse, as well as individuals who want to understand more about women and children’s journeys.

If you would like a set of cards, please make a donation to Solace Women’s Aid, and then use the contact form of this website to send your postal address.

Intersections of Art and Policy

Explore how art can influence perceptions of women’s experiences of home and displacement while championing policy change. Join us for a day of talks, poetry, workshops and an exhibition in collaboration with the Marylebone Project, Mental Fight Club and researcher Janet Bowstead.

Intersections of Art and Policy is a collaborative programme that highlights the wonderful and influential possibilities of art as a medium to discuss and challenge perceptions of women’s experiences of home and displacement, while offering ideas on functional policy measures.

Working in partnership with the Marylebone Project, Mental Fight Club and researcher Janet Bowstead, our programme aims to accentuate the outstanding work that these charities and other groups have been engaged in, providing shelter and skills that empower women facing homelessness while simultaneously championing policy change. 

Programme Synopsis – 23 March 2023, 10am to 4.30pm

Join us for a day of talks, poetry performance, exhibition displays and interactive workshops as we mark the close of our Behind the Door Campaign, which aimed to fundraise for women charities and raise awareness of women homelessness.   

At its core, Intersections of Art and Policy is a celebration of the exceptional women who produced the artworks and photography that will be displayed during the day, and acts as a recognition of their courage, resilience and boldness.  Our programme is only a platform to anchor their voices and allow them to be beacons of change and possibly pioneers of practical policies on women’s issues.    

Part I: Art as Agency  

Art as Agency aims to highlight the misconceptions surrounding women homelessness and breakdown stereotypes, exploring ideas of home and feelings of belonging using art as a premise that enables the possibility of changing people’s perceptions.  

10-11am: Breakfast & Viewing Exhibition Displays

Challenging Perceptions of Homelessness (A voice through the Lens): Artworks by the Marylebone Project in collaboration with the Mental Fight Club and Photographer Marysa Dowling.  

Women’s Journeyscapes: Women and Children Relocating due to Domestic Abuse: Artworks by Women working with Janet Bowstead.  

11-11.30am: Beacons of Change: A Reflection on the Marylebone Project.   

11.30am-12pm: Womens’s Journeyscapes:  Janet Bowstead Interactive Talk in Conversation with Gaynor Tutani.  

12-1pm: Lunch

Part II: Towards Change  

Towards Change aims to explore the challenges related to women homelessness through art and creative workshops to encourage positive change and inspire policy.   

1-3pm: Parallel Workshops in Music and Art Making – Final works to be used in Producing a group Manifesto. (Spaces are limited. Booking required).  

3pm-3.30pm: Performance by Artists and Poets

3.35pm-4pm: Music and Art Making Workshop – Manifesto Presentation

4-4.30pm: Final Remarks and Close

Home is where…..?

Women on the move due to violence and abuse are home-less. They, and their children, are forced to leave the home they knew – and do not know when they will have a ‘home’ again.

‘Home’ can mean the four walls – somewhere to stay – but it can also mean much more: a sense of belonging, comfort, safety and happiness.

Sometimes, women on the move due to abuse will say that they can never imagine feeling truly at home again.

The participatory work in this project provided time and space for women to be creative – to communicate their experiences of forced relocation and tentative resettlement. Groups held in women’s refuges and a women’s centre were a temporary creative space – for women who would soon be on the move again.

This short video shows some of their images and captions about home: the temporary sense of ‘home’ in a women’s refuge, the mundane bits and bobs and rubbish of home, and moving into a new home. The images show home-making: beginning to lay out your things in a new place – like Qiana’s perfumes – and creating a space of wellbeing – whether by scented candles, a relaxing bath, traditional home-made food, or symbols of belief and religion. As Marita says – a home is somewhere where you can “Make some noise!”

Images and captions by women on the move due to domestic abuse show their experiences and insights on ‘home’

Location – Location – Location

It matters where domestic abuse services are – of course it does.

The location of domestic abuse services – whether women’s refuges or non-accommodation services – affects whether and how women can access the services and receive the support they need and deserve.

Whilst non-accommodation support can include workers travelling to where women and children are – sometimes called “floating support” with the idea that it floats to where it is needed, rather than expecting individuals to travel to the support – accommodation is in a specific location.

So, where should such services be?

As part of developing an ETHICAL response to service provision for domestic violence against women, Location is a key element to consider (alongside Eligibility, Type, Holistic, Independence, Capacity, and Accessibility). The location of services must enable both staying put and journeys – including return journeys where appropriate. Location is about women’s fundamental eligibility as a survivor of abuse – violence against women as a human rights violation – to go and be wherever is best.

Technical Paper on a formula for the Location of services in England

A technical paper on developing a formula for the Location of domestic abuse services in England has just been published and is available here. It should be read alongside the technical paper on Type and Capacity of domestic abuse services.

The main conclusion is that there should be sufficient accommodation and non-accommodation provision across the country in all types of places, and with no location exclusion criteria or rationing. Despite this formula being based on increasingly historical data of expressed demand, provision of accommodation bedspaces as recorded by Women’s Aid Routes to Support[1] is still below the required minimum level indicated by this formula (and by the Council of Europe recommendation[2]). Overall, the actual count of 4,332 family bedspaces in England in 2022 is below both the minimum from this formula (5,369) and the minimum recommended by the Council of Europe (5,656). And the shortage is more acute in some regions compared to others.

The graph shows that only the West Midlands region currently has higher provision than the minimum of the formula from this research, and that whilst provision in London meets the population-based Council of Europe recommendation, it does not meet the higher minimum calculated by this research by taking into account the distinctiveness of London in terms of length of stay in services.

The initial stage for a policy towards an ETHICAL service provision would be to fund the different types of service up to the minimum capacity. Thinking and planning regionally would be more functional than the current narrow focus on local authorities. After identifying the shortfall per region, actual provision should be in all types of places (all types of local authorities) – but strictly hosted by them and not in any way limited to women and children from that local authority. Planning and funding must be at the scale of women and children’s domestic violence help-seeking and journeys: scale meaning both providing sufficient capacity and provision at the appropriate geographical scale.

[1] Women’s Aid. 2022. Domestic Abuse Provision: Routes to Support. Bristol: Women’s Aid Federation of England. https://www.womensaid.org.uk/domestic-abuse-provision-data-routes-to-support/.

[2] Council of Europe. 2011. Explanatory Report to the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/1680a48903.

Developing an ETHICAL response to service provision for domestic violence against women

This research on women’s domestic violence journeys aims to underpin an ETHICAL response, highlighting seven key elements of an effective service provision: Eligibility, Type, Holistic, Independence, Capacity, Accessibility, Location.

  • Eligibility
    • rights and needs-based – a service infrastructure designed around women and children rather than forcing women and children to navigate a fragmented and ill-suited infrastructure.
    • no location or risk-assessed criteria or rationing.
    • not excluding women and children due to legal status – such as migration status, criminal convictions or debt – with any proceedings being put on hold until support and security have been provided.
  • Type
    • A range of types of services for a range of needs, including:
      • Women’s Refuge accommodation + support
      • Other accommodation-based support
      • Non-accommodation services – one-to-one support
    • Specialisms – around cultural, health needs, higher support needs.
    • Note that core service needs not addressed in this formula include: Peer support, children’s support, advocacy through complex and hostile systems.
  • Holistic
    • Services as only a part of wider co-ordinated and multi-agency responses so that women and children can journey through at their pace and need – involving and not involving the services and support they choose.
    • Providing support on abuse issues in the context of other issues women and children may be experiencing over time.
  • Independence
    • Recognising the pervasive nature of coercive control within abusive relationships, the interactions and relationships of services with women and children must not replicate coercion, control, or limitations on freedom or autonomy.
    • Service provision must operate with independence from statutory authorities (even if receiving funds from statutory authorities), including not sharing personal information inappropriately.
  • Capacity
    • Sufficient for the level of expressed need – at the point of need.
    • Including an expected level of vacancy/voids/free capacity, so that service provision does not exploit or exhaust the workers or ration the availability of support.
    • Flexibility – able to respond when needed – recognising that women have to seek help when they can and may be unable to wait on a ‘waiting list’.
    • Evidence-based – not reducing, developing or changing services unless there is clear evidence of needs.
  • Accessibility
    • Services must be constantly vigilant about barriers to accessibility – where women and children who deserve and would benefit from a service are unable to access it.
    • This may be due to issues of Eligibility, Capacity, or Location; but may additionally be about addressing aspects of specialist support, legal status, and the attitudes, beliefs and behaviours of service providers.
  • Location
    • Women experience domestic abuse everywhere, so the location of services must enable both staying put and journeys – including return journeys where appropriate.
    • All types of places – so that you can go as far as you need/ stay as near as you can.
    • The location of help-seeking should not necessarily cement the location of longer-term resettlement.
    • About fundamental eligibility as a survivor of abuse – violence against women as a human rights violation – to go and be wherever is best.

Technical Paper on a formula for the Type and Capacity of services in England

The elements of service provision characterised as Eligibility, Holistic, Independence, Accessibility are based on principles, and are evidence-based from past learning, research literature, human rights law, and experience of decades of domestic abuse service provision. These are discussed in other blog posts, briefing papers and publications available on this website.

A technical paper on developing a formula for the Type and Capacity of domestic abuse services in England has just been published and is available here. The minimum required capacity of three types of services is estimated as:

Accommodation – A minimum of 5,369 family bedspaces

  • 4,497 should be ‘Women’s Refuge’ spaces
  • 872 ‘Other’ types of support accommodation

Non-accommodation – A minimum of 1,084 fte (full-time-equivalent) community-based specialist support workers (separate roles from ‘advice’; or risk-based ‘advocacy’) rising to a minimum of 1,543 fte workers to be able to support women with additional needs beyond the domestic abuse

Staying Put – the problems of joint tenancies

Women experiencing domestic abuse should be able to stay put in their homes – whilst safely continuing their lives and connections with friends, family, work and education.

That’s obvious.

Tens of thousands of women and children relocate due to domestic abuse – but for many others, they try to stay put.

However, even if they could safely do this, they are often caught in the trap of a joint tenancy with the perpetrator of the abuse.

Perpetrators may use the joint tenancy as another tool of abuse. They may have originally used coercion to get themselves onto the tenancy, which the woman had in her sole name before. They may threaten to terminate the tenancy and/or continue to maintain control by refusing to remove themselves voluntarily from the tenancy. They may use their name on the tenancy as a means of continuing post-separation abuse – claiming that they could move back into the home. Survivors of abuse may find themselves trapped by the power of the perpetrator threatening to keep/end/keep/end the tenancy – never being free from the control and abuse.

The Government says in its Tackling Domestic Abuse Plan that it has the aim of “bringing victims and survivors more security if the right option for them is remaining in their own home”[1] but there are legal changes urgently needed to make this a reality for women with joint tenancies.

Currently, the legal procedures may be expensive and/or complicated[2] – with survivors often not knowing their options or rights, and finding themselves facing eviction, or being forced to relocate, with all the losses and uncertainties that follow from that.

A real option of staying put is needed.

To provide this, an alternative legal procedure has been proposed[3] – it was raised during the development of the Domestic Abuse Bill; though it was not included by the Government in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. It would provide a simplified legal mechanism for the transfer of a tenancy in the family court if a survivor of domestic abuse shares a joint secured or social tenancy with the perpetrator. It would recognise the tenancy rights within a joint tenancy, but provide a proportionate response to be able to promote the safety, stability, and housing security of the survivor.

Now it is being proposed again in response to the Government’s consultation on the impacts of joint tenancies on victims of domestic abuse. The consultation[4] is open until 10th May 2022 – asking landlords, lawyers and individuals about what is currently happening, and what the Government should do about it. We’ll have to see how the Government responds this time….

Women fleeing domestic abuse are fleeing a human rights violation: they should be able to stay put, stay as near as they can, or travel as far as they need without any detriment to their lives.

[1] HM Government (March 2022) ‘Tackling Domestic Abuse Plan’ https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1064427/E02735263_Tackling_Domestic_Abuse_CP_639_Accessible.pdf

[2] National Group briefing on Joint Tenancies and Survivors of Domestic Abuse (2021) https://www.dahalliance.org.uk/media/11058/domestic-abuse-bill-joint-tenancies-qa.pdf

[3] National Group response to MHCLG’s New Deal for renting (2019), https://www.dahalliance.org.uk/what-we-do/national-policy-practice-group/our-national-group-responses-to-government-consultations/

[4] Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (15 February 2022) ‘Consultation on the impacts of joint tenancies on victims of domestic abuse’ https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-the-impacts-of-joint-tenancies-on-victims-of-domestic-abuse

Drawbridges and Moats – the problems of local connection

Despite decades of recognition that domestic abuse forces journeys across local authority boundaries, and the further evidence of the scale of such journeys from this research, so many aspects of the system of services and support remain fragmented down to the local authority scale.

Local authorities can tend to operate as closed systems – like they are surrounded by moats to cut them off from everything else. As soon as you cross that boundary, everything changes – your rights to services, your place on waiting lists, your housing, schooling, college access, and so much else.

Government has further reinforced these boundaries – deepened these moats – by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 devolving needs assessments and strategies for safe accommodation to the local authority scale.

Yet tens of thousands of women and children have to move to a different local authority due to the violence and abuse.

And the problem isn’t just at the crisis point of seeking emergency accommodation – it continues when women try to find housing where they can resettle longer term, and find themselves caught out by residency requirements that they cannot fulfil. The drawbridge that let them cross to another place in emergency, is pulled up again when they try to apply for social housing, and they are turned away.

In 2018 statutory guidance was issued[1] because – to quote – “The government believes that victims fleeing domestic abuse should be given as much assistance as possible to ensure they are able to re-build their lives away from abuse and harm.”

But this clearly isn’t working.

Now the Government has realised that “domestic abuse victims are being denied social housing allocations in some areas because they have no local connection to an area” and identifies the need “to consider further measures beyond statutory guidance”[2]. The proposed solution for England is “to introduce regulations so that local authorities would be prevented from applying a local connection or residency test to victims who have been forced to flee to another local authority district in order to escape domestic abuse.”

But it wants to find out whether this is a good idea.

So there is a consultation at present[2] – until 10th May 2022 – asking local authorities and individuals about what is currently happening, and what the Government should do about it.

Women fleeing domestic abuse are fleeing a human rights violation: they should be able to stay as near as they can, or travel as far as they need, without being forced any further, and without any detriment to their lives.

But many of the consultation questions are not concerned with enabling rights and support, but are concerned that any change should be strictly limited. Proposed limits include that exemption from ‘local connection’ only applies for a limited time period “after the victim has fled domestic abuse” or that the social housing is only being considered “for reasons connected with that abuse”. The consultation asks about limiting it in terms of the current accommodation (eg. refuge, temporary accommodation, private rented), in terms of moving to England from the rest of the UK, and in terms of the kind of evidence of domestic abuse that local authorities require.

The consultation recognises the tensions between neighbouring authorities currently providing different levels of services, and pleads “We wish to see local authorities working together with neighbouring authorities”.

But nothing is proposed to make this happen.

Yet again, Government is not considering the larger scale over which tens of thousands of women and children travel – and is not taking national responsibilities – but is hoping that local authorities will make boundary-crossing work a bit better for a limited number, within limited circumstances.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/improving-access-to-social-housing-for-victims-of-domestic-abuse

Statutory guidance: Improving access to social housing for victims of domestic abuse

Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, 10 November 2018

[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-local-connection-requirements-for-social-housing-for-victims-of-domestic-abuse

Consultation on local connection requirements for social housing for victims of domestic abuse

Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, 15 February 2022

When is a ‘refuge’ not a refuge?

There has never been sufficient accommodation for women and children who need to go elsewhere due to abuse: for somewhere safe, secret and supportive away from the abuser.

Women’s refuges provide both the (temporary) accommodation in places all around the country and the holistic specialist and peer support that is recognised as needed to begin recovery from abuse. Refuges provide much more than just safety[1].

But there has never been enough refuge space for women and children.

Space has become even tighter in the last decade, due to both the closure of some services, and the fact that women are often staying longer in refuges as they wait for some more-settled housing. Other forms of temporary accommodation are filling the gap between the acute need, and the lack of provision, and there is increasing concern about what these types of accommodation really provide. They are known as ‘exempt accommodation’ because they are exempt – like women’s refuges – from the usual Housing Benefit rules that limit rents, due to offering additional support.

However – do they really offer the support that is needed? A Commons Select Committee of Parliament is currently carrying out an inquiry to find out what is going on – prompted by concerns about “unscrupulous landlords failing to provide the support and care that vulnerable tenants need”. In contrast to the quality standards developed with and by women survivors and women’s organisations, there is widespread concern that other providers are unregulated and drive down standards to increase profits.

So, what is a refuge?

The Government has stated key factors that are necessary for a refuge, such as “a planned programme of therapeutic and practical support from staff”, that the “address will not be publicly available”, that it will be “single gender or single sex accommodation”, that “the service will enable peer support from other refuge residents”, and that the “duration of support to be based on needs and not pre-set timescales”. However, there has been a sharp increase in providers who may claim to provide refuge accommodation, but do not meet these minimum standards. And yet they are currently using the status of ‘exempt accommodation’ to claim high levels of public money under Housing Benefit regulations.

The short timescale of the inquiry call for evidence may mean that there are few responses. Indeed, there were only 133 responses to the Government consultation on the whole issue of ‘safe accommodation’ under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. However, there are due to be further public evidence hearings, and it is vital that the Select Committee identifies the rules and regulations needed so that the accommodation women and children have to flee to due to abuse really provides them with what they need.

For women and children’s support and safety, they need and deserve specialist and supportive services – including genuine refuges if they have been forced to relocate.

[1] Bowstead, Janet C. 2019. “Spaces of Safety and More-than-Safety in Women’s Refuges in England.” Gender, Place and Culture 26 (1): 75–90. doi:10.1080/0966369X.2018.1541871.

Women’s struggle to be free

Women and children’s journeys to escape abuse are often complex and multi-stage.  From initially staying put, both the behaviour of the abuser and the support (or lack of support) of services and authorities may then force relocation.

Women’s help-seeking strategies may mean that they get the support and protection they need – involving a range of different services – or they might encounter closed doors, judgement and prejudice, lack of belief, misunderstanding, and service responses that make things worse.

This conference presentation video outlines the individuality of women’s domestic violence journey trajectories – as women try to get themselves and their children to a life free from abuse.

Video of conference presentation showing journey-graphs of women’s help-seeking strategies due to domestic violence revealing unique trajectories and ongoing housing insecurity.

The ongoing displacement is striking – both practically and emotionally – as is shown by the example of housing tenure, and ongoing housing insecurity.

These individual examples are taken from tens of thousands of domestic violence journeys – known and unknown to services and the state – and highlight the responsibilities on the state and those services to respond better: to journeyscape:

  • Through effective policies, laws, professional practice, and awareness
  • To build the infrastructure and map the terrain
  • To minimise the losses so women and children retain their rights and status
  • But not to determine the route that any woman takes

The principle should be that women – and their children – go as far as they need / stay as near as they can; and have a right to a life free from abuse.