The issue of affordability of housing is a barrier in women fleeing domestic abuse.
Connected to this is housing instability meaning that affordability is not the sole issue
in women seeking alternative housing. Clough, et al. (2014) point out that few studies
examine the interaction between domestic abuse and housing instability (See also
Burman and Chantler, 2005; Pavao et al., 2007; Rollins et al., 2012). They define
housing instability as:
‘Difficulty paying rent or a mortgage; being denied housing because of past credit or rental history problems; eviction threats or notices; moving frequently;
living in over-crowded conditions, or ‘doubling-up’ residence with family or friends’ (Kushel et al., 2006, p.673).
Studies of women’s experiences of domestic violence have consistently shown that a major reason why women stay in, or return to, violent relationships is lack of safe,
affordable, independent accommodation (Morley, 2000; Aguirre,1985; Horn, 1992;
70
reform and housing agendas from 2010 have weakened the safety net role that
housing benefit and social housing used to offer.
Whilst domestic abuse is experienced across all social classes (Holtzworth-Munrow et
al., 1997) the issue of intersectionality whereby gender, sexuality, race and social class
combine to cause multiple levels of discrimination (Crenshaw, 1989) is an issue for
women accessing social housing. Browne and Bassuk (1997) argue there had been
little research into the prevalence of poor women and children and research into
homeless women found many had experienced domestic abuse where the lack of
economic resources exacerbated their situation and this is still the case today. Fahmy,
Williamson and Pantazis (2016) argue that women experiencing domestic abuse often
become single parents with limited capacity to earn independently. They are more
likely to experience financial difficulties compounded by continuing financial abuse
from abusive former partners by withholding child support payments. They further
assert economic insecurity creates patterns of interpersonal dependency and thereby
traps people in abusive relationships, and places a financial penalty on those escaping
domestic abuse.
Towers (2015) argues there is a connection between economic inequality and
domestic abuse against women, concluding that access to economic resources is an
important risk factor. She found that women living in households with low incomes had
3.5 times higher odds of reporting domestic abuse in the preceding year compared to
women living in high income households. This thesis is not suggesting that domestic
abuse is a phenomenon of social housing and thereby adding to the existing negative
71
in all tenures and social classes. Towers (2015) makes a crucial point that economic
inequality is an important factor in terms of barriers to leaving an abusive relationship.
Her findings can perhaps be partially explained in that those living in low income
households had less resources at their disposal to leave an abusive relationship than
those with resources so consequently had higher odds of experiencing domestic
abuse.
Walby and Towers (2017) point to the resilience of victims of domestic abuse being
compromised due to lack of access to structural and in particular, especially economic,
resources (Walby et al., 2016). Using data from the Crime Survey for England and
Wales they highlight the relationship between violence, economy and society arguing
that the more serious forms of domestic violence are impacted by the ‘the lesser resilience’ of the victim and in particular their lack of economic resources. They found that in relation to repetition of domestic violent crime and economic inequality; two-
thirds of domestic violent crime victims lived in rented accommodation (social and
private rented); compared to one-third (34%) of the population (owner occupation).
They observed that as the number of repeated domestic violent crimes increased, the
percentage of female victims living in rented accommodation also did (66% for a single
crime, to 67% for two to ten crimes, and rising to 84% for more than 10 crimes). Walby
and Towers (2017) found that for both employment status and housing tenure status,
victims of domestic violent crime were more likely to have access to fewer economic
resources compared to the overall population. In essence, they found the economic
resilience of the victim as a more important source of variation in the frequency and
seriousness of domestic violence than the gendered motivation of the perpetrator. Put
72
Walby (2018) makes a crucial point arguing that minimum standards for access to housing as more important than increasing criminalisation of domestic abuse. She suggests the evidence (Walby, Towers, Francis, 2018) challenges perspectives focused on perpetrators and is consistent with perspectives focused on the material situations of victims (Dugan, 2003).
Some twenty years previously, Pascall and Morley (1996) argued that women without
men are disadvantaged in access to housing with many unable to afford owner
occupation meaning less housing choice. Pascall and Morley’s arguments can be further demonstrated by figures from the Fawcett Society (2012) indicating that that
women experience a full-time pay gap of 14.9% and citing 64% of low paid workers
are women meaning that housing costs can be a barrier to women leaving abusive
relationships and having the opportunity to seek a variety of housing options.
The English Housing Survey Report (2016-17) showed that the social rented sector
accounted for 3.9 million households or 17% of all households. Among those social
renters, 43% were working, with 29% in full-time work and 13% in part-time work. One
in five (21%) social renters were classified as ‘inactive’ (including those who have a long-term illness/disability and those who were looking after the family or home).
As the above figures suggest, the economic resources at the disposal of many women
in the social rented sector are already narrow meaning that options for women to
73
providers need to be better equipped to recognise and respond to victims and
perpetrators of domestic abuse.
More recently, Quilgars et al., (2018) for Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) found
that 43% of social renters were in poverty after housing costs, compared with 29%
before housing costs. They make reference to Stephens (2014) who found that people
with settled social renting housing pathways experienced much higher rates of chronic
poverty than those with other pathways. These factors can present further barriers to
women attempting to leave an abusive relationship. Quilgars et al. (2018) found that
half of the social renters in their study, across all age groups, had moved into the sector
as a result of one or more significant adverse life events, including domestic violence.
Whilst there has been an increase in people renting privately, increasing from 8% to
19% with rent increasing by up to 33% (IFS 2017), this twinned with the insecurity of
the private rented sector means that social housing is very often the only option
available for some women fleeing violence. As well as the impact affordability has on
tenure choice, Bell and Kober (2008) found whilst the act of leaving the relationship
meant that victims were no longer experiencing the violence; leaving their home, re-
establishing their family and furnishing a new home, placed considerable strain on
often financially limited resources. Sharp (2008); Bell and Kober (2008) argue that
many women encounter further hardship and have had to give up employment and
some may have debts incurred from financial abuse within the past relationship.
‘It changed my whole life, I found it very difficult to pack up everything I had for so long, move it all and start afresh, this was very hard emotionally mostly due
74
to the fact that I was already stressed due to abuse but that I had to start again
decorating a new place and buying furniture with very little money.’ (Scottish Women’s Aid, 2016, p.47).
SafeLives (2017) cite Wendt et al. (2015) who found that immediately after leaving an
abusive relationship, 49.6% of women lived in temporary accommodation and that the
rest moved in to rental accommodation (26.7%) or stayed with friends/family (33%).
They state that for the majority of women (67%), housing costs increased after
separation.
O’Campo, Dunn et al (2015) and Ponic (2007) highlighted in their research on housing instability that many women stated that their housing was stable in terms of things such
as being at risk of eviction or arrears in mortgage and rent payments; but that it was
actually the violence, and associated consequences that made housing unstable for
them. Women said they felt trapped, isolated or controlled in their homes which in turn
made their housing psychologically unstable (O’Campo et al., 2015).
Research by O’Campo et al. (2015; p.7) included one woman’s experience of economic abuse which had included lies about finances and resulted in her and her
partner’s eviction.
‘I’ll never forget the day that I found out that we were evicted. I found the eviction notice in the glove box. He had been lying to me since October that he was
paying the rent. We were in March. He got the eviction notice back, I believe it
75
For those women who are employed or have some financial means, securing
accommodation may have less financial impact but for those women who need to
access a refuge for their safety can often find that the high cost of living in refuge
accommodation mean it is not financially viable as an option.
Clough et al. (2014) found women who had experienced domestic abuse referred to
the lack of housing resources in their community as having some impact on their ability
to leave or stay safe from their abusive partners. More recently, Daoud et al. (2016)
argued that domestic abuse has been demonstrated to increase women’s risk of housing instability. The impact of domestic abuse on employment can in turn impact
in housing choices:
‘Thinking I could continue working was really not a good idea. There was an altercation and I wasn’t offered any assistance, there was a scene, just walked out of the grocery store and couldn’t come back. From that point on, ah, employment was more than difficult because of moving to so many different
places.’ (O’Campo et al., 2015 p.10).
O’Campo et al. (2015) argue their findings highlight the importance of the psychological aspects of housing instability and that studies of domestic abuse and
housing regularly ignore such connections (see also Pavao et al., 2007). In addition to
the psychological aspects of housing instability, Alves et al. (2017) contend that
76
of financial assets as part of coercive control. Pavao et al. (2007) found in their study
of housing instability that domestic abuse was also an important predictor of:
‘Difficulty paying rent, mortgage, or utility bills; frequent moves; overcrowded living conditions; doubling up with family or friends; and having to live
somewhere that they do not want to’ (2007, pp. 43-46).
This body of research makes an important point that for many women it is not simply
a case of finding a new home.