Outline of the Study

This evidence note provides an overview of research on the intersection between domestic abuse and homelessness, with a particular focus on women survivors. The study examines evidence-based interventions and promising practices that prevent and address homelessness among domestic abuse survivors, and explores how research, evaluation, and policy can improve outcomes for survivors in the UK. The review focuses on studies published in the last 10 years to ensure relevance and currency of findings.

Findings in Brief

• Domestic abuse is a significant contributor to homelessness among women, accounting for 25-33% of homelessness presentations to local authorities across England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
  ‍
• There is a lack of robust evidence on effective interventions for preventing and addressing homelessness among domestic abuse survivors, particularly in the UK context.
  ‍
• Critical Time Interventions (CTI) show promise in reducing unmet care needs and PTSD symptoms for survivors leaving women's shelters, with participants four times less likely to have unmet care needs compared to control groups.
  ‍
• Domestic Violence Housing First (DVHF) demonstrates effectiveness in improving housing stability, with survivors reporting noticeable improvements at 6-month, 12-month, and 2-year follow-ups compared to business-as-usual services.
  ‍
• DVHF also shows modest improvements in reducing repeat abuse, depression, anxiety, and PTSD over two years.
  ‍
• Most housing services and programmes that have been evaluated are gender-blind and fail to address the unique needs of women experiencing abuse and homelessness.
  ‍
• Implementation gaps persist in government support, with 19% more households unable to access safe accommodation services in 2022-23 compared to the previous year, primarily due to capacity constraints.
  ‍
• Routine screening for domestic abuse in healthcare settings shows promise, more than doubling identification rates compared to selective screening.

Recommendations in Brief

• Interventions should not be one-size-fits-all; they should be flexible in both kind and degree, with survivors having agency over how funds are spent and the amount of funding needed.
  ‍
• Responses should include mutually reinforcing components delivered as intervention bundles, as individual components may be necessary but insufficient.
  ‍
• Multi-agency coordinated approaches are essential, as domestic abuse is not an issue housing providers can address alone.
  ‍
• More research is needed on Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conferences (MARAC) and other coordinated responses to understand critical success factors.
  ‍
• Future interventions should leverage evidence from Domestic Violence Housing First models, including flexible financial assistance and survivor-led decision making on timing of housing moves.
  ‍
• Routine screening programmes should be expanded, but with robust evaluation of medium to long-term impacts on domestic abuse and housing outcomes.
  ‍
• Perpetrator-oriented interventions require further evaluation to determine if they add value over survivor-only interventions.

‍