Domestic violence and
homelessness
Spotlight on: Homeless Women - 20th June
John Bentham
Homelessness and Support Division
Department for Communities and Local Government
Today
• Latest homelessness trends
• DCLG domestic violence research
• Ministerial Working Group on
Homelessness
• Working together
Accommodation plays an important role
The dynamics of domestic violence mean that accommodation can play an important
role in the resolution of interpersonal violence and conflict. It is the foundation to
ensuring that adult and child victims are afforded safety and security.
The homelessness legislation in England provides one of the strongest safety nets in
the world for families with children and vulnerable people who become homeless
through no fault of their own
In 2010/11 1,410 households were accepted by local housing authorities in England
as being owed a main homelessness duty where a household member was
vulnerable because of domestic violence (3%).
In 2010/11 5,930 households were owed a main homelessness duty, by Reason for
Loss of Last Settled Home relationship break down with partner (violent) 13%
Domestic Violence is a devastating crime
It impacts across all communities:
•
Domestic violence accounts for 18% of all violent incidents (crime in England
and Wales 2010/11)
•
In 2010/11, 21 men (5%) and 93 women (52%) were killed by a partner, expartner or lover.
•
Seven per cent of women and five per cent of men reported having
experienced domestic abuse in 2010/11 equivalent to an estimated 1.2 million
female victims of domestic abuse and 800,000 male victims.
•
Twenty-four per cent of women and 12 per cent of men reported having
experienced such abuse since the age of 16
•
The total cost of domestic violence to services amounts to £3.8 billion and the
cost to the economy is £1.9 billion. An additional element is the human and
emotional cost. Domestic violence leads to pain and suffering that is not
counted in the cost of services. This amounts to around £10 billion a year
Domestic violence related homelessness
Households accepted as owed the main homelessness duty by priority
need category (domestic violence) and reason for loss of last settled
home (relationship breakdown violent) - England
Homelessness acceptances
Homeless Acceptances
Age profile of homelessness acceptances
Homelessness
acceptances by
age:
June 2009
March 2012
Female lone parent households
Percentage of female lone parent households accepted as owed the main
Percentage of duty
homeless
acceptances
made up of female lone
homelessness
for England
and London
parent households for London and England
One person female households
Percentage of one person female households accepted as
owed the main homelessness duty for London and England
Single person households London
Homeless single person households accepted as owed the main
homelessness duty in London (male and female)
Homelessness and domestic violence in London
and England
Percentage of households accepted as owed the main homelessness duty
where household member is vulnerable as a result of domestic violence London and England
Loss of last settled home
Reason for loss of last settled home – relationship breakdown
violent for London and England
Loss of last settled home
Reason for loss of last settled home – breakdown of perpetrator
Why did we conduct this research?
• Concerns from stakeholders that single women
without dependent children were not getting the
housing assistance they required to stop them
returning to a violent situation.
• Concerns that there is insufficient accommodation
and support for survivors of domestic abuse .
• Concerns that Sanctuary Schemes were making
survivors ‘prisoners in their own homes’ & some
security measures were inadequate.
Assistance for adults
without dependant children
Research project 1 - assistance for adults without dependant
children
The aim of this research was to establish the extent to which adults who are
neither pregnant nor who have dependant children and who have to leave their
homes due to domestic violence are getting the help they need from local
authorities to ensure they do not have to return to accommodation where they
would be at risk of violence.
The study attempted to establish an estimate of the numbers and
circumstances of adults in such circumstances who do and do not receive
sufficient assistance from local housing authorities to ensure they do not need
to return to accommodation where they would be at risk of violence.
It attempted to establish the types of assistance being provided to these adults
– via both statutory and non-statutory means – and the implications for
households who do not receive the assistance they need.
Findings
• Housing and housing related support play a vital role in
increasing the chances of someone being able to leave
accommodation where they are at risk of violence and not
having to return to it.
• A local authority's initial response is important.
• Good housing options service provide an effective choice of
housing solutions to a wider client group
• Poor data availability – housing outcomes not always clear
• Mixed practice across the country – possible disconnect
between policy and practice
• Suggestion of a link between length of stay in temporary
accommodation and increased risk of return to a violent
situation
Findings
Local authority’s initial response is important.
Policy
Region
a) Always
in priority
need
b) Not in
priority
need
c) Case by
case
basis
No
response
Total
East
1
1
16
3
21
North West
8
0
7
0
15
North East
1
0
5
0
6
South East
2
0
26
0
28
East Midlands
3
0
13
1
17
Yorkshire and the Humber
1
0
3
1
5
West Midlands
4
0
5
3
12
London
0
1
9
0
10
South West
2
0
11
1
14
22 (17%)
2 (2%)
95 (74%)
9 (7%)
128
Total
Reported policy and practice on deciding whether applicants who are a single adult
without children and fleeing domestic violence are ‘vulnerable’
Accommodation and support provision
for households at risk of domestic violence
Research project 2 - accommodation and support provision for households at risk
of domestic violence.
This study identified the current housing options available to households at risk
of domestic violence, and to assess whether this provision meets current need.
It involved establishing:
• The extent and type of temporary and settled accommodation available
for households at risk of domestic violence in England, including the
provision of housing related support services delivered to both
temporary and settled accommodation, and to households’ own homes
• The extent and nature of other options which enable households to
remain safely in their homes
• Whether current provision meets the needs of households at risk of
domestic violence
• What gaps in provision exist
445 accommodation based services
(79% charitable/ 3rd sector, 20% housing
associations 1% local authorities)
301 floating support services
(79% charitable/ 3rd sector, 15% housing
associations 6% local authorities)
Specialist accommodation per 10,000 population
Region
Households in
2011 (000s)
Total
services
Household
Places1
Mean places per
100
thousand
households
Mean
places per
10,000
population
London
333
93
872
26.1
1.1
East
Midlands
199
48
407
20.5
1
West
Midlands
282
55
483
17.1
0.8
Yorkshire
and Humber
233
38
365
15.7
0.7
South East
398
64
608
15.3
0.9
East England
253
39
364
14.3
0.6
South West
273
42
387
14.2
0.8
North East
115
20
153
13.3
0.6
North West
307
46
396
12.9
0.6
2,394
445
4,035
16.9
0.8
Total
Findings
Overall, the provision of accommodation and housing-related support for
households at risk of domestic violence is widespread across England. This
provides a good basis for further development of the sector. However, currently
provision is inconsistent and often relatively thin in terms of offering households
a range of options at any one local level. A more strategic approach to
delivering this provision is required at both a local and national level.
Households at risk of domestic violence (including children) require more than
traditionally defined accommodation and housing-related support. Some
households may have a need for considerable and long-term support that may
encompass issues such as safety and self-esteem alongside a lower level need
for tenancy sustainment support. The immediate risks of violence to this client
group means that services necessarily have to function differently. Services
need to be able to respond to both housing-related and these other very specific
support needs. Specialist services and/or well-coordinated packages of service
are therefore essential. A one model generic floating support service, or
accommodation based service, cannot therefore be made to fit the needs of
households at risk of domestic violence.
Effectiveness of schemes to enable households
at risk of to remain in their own homes
Research project 3 - the effectiveness of schemes to enable households at risk of
domestic violence to remain in their own homes.
The aim of this project was to evaluate the effectiveness of schemes that enable
households at risk of domestic violence to remain in their own homes.
Commonly referred to as ‘Sanctuary Schemes’, they aim to ensure the safety and security
of accommodation occupied by the household at risk of domestic violence, and are often
implemented alongside legal measures such as injunctions and restraining orders.
Although ‘Sanctuary Schemes’ have been an important part of many local authorities’
actions to help prevent homelessness, there has been little research into their
effectiveness and in identifying ‘what works’ in terms of ensuring they are a safe and
sustainable option for households at risk of domestic violence.
This project evaluated a number of case study Sanctuary Schemes in order to identify
what works in the provision of a Sanctuary. It will highlight examples of good practice, and
use the evidence gathered to update the existing government guidance on the provision of
Sanctuaries (see CLG (2006) Options for Setting up a Sanctuary Scheme). It also
gathered evidence and attempted to assess the cost benefits of Sanctuaries.
Findings
Overall Sanctuary Schemes were thought to be successful in
meeting their main aim of providing a safe alternative for
households at risk of domestic violence. Most service users said
they felt much safer following the installation of Sanctuary
measures although there was some evidence that a few
households had moved from their Sanctuary because they did not
feel safe. However, few Sanctuary Schemes were able to provide
detailed information about the sustainability of Sanctuaries
beyond immediate outcomes.
Difficult to draw firm conclusions about the relative merits of
different types of Sanctuary Scheme installations in the absence
of detailed data on outcomes for individual households.
159 sanctuary schemes (with
68% providing service floating
support)
Last quarter 1070 preventions
using Sanctuary Schemes
Barriers and good practice points
• people being/feeling unsafe outside their homes;
• problems with information sharing and inter-agency
working;
• a reluctance on behalf of service users to pursue
legal remedies;
• funding issues;
• a reluctance amongst some RSLs to make a
contribution to the costs of Sanctuary Schemes.
Good practice points
• Agencies developing Sanctuary Schemes must
consider how the Sanctuary Scheme will operate as
part of a package of measures to support service
users and to prevent further incidents of domestic
violence.
• Sanctuary Schemes should consider how they will
monitor and evaluate their service from the outset.
• All Sanctuary Scheme service users should have a
full needs assessment. This should be undertaken
by a specialist domestic violence worker. It is
recommended that all Sanctuary Schemes use a
standardised needs assessment and personal safety
planning tool
Ministerial Working Group
on Homelessness
• Cross-Government Ministerial Working Group to address the
complex causes of homelessness and rough sleeping:
• Clear strategic commitment from Ministers in eight Government
departments; Defence, Health, Education, Work and Pensions,
Home Office, Justice, DCLG, Business, Innovation and Skills
• Shared responsibility for preventing and tackling homelessness
• Aligning national strategies
• Removing bureaucracy on local organisations.
First MWG report: Vision to End Rough Sleeping – No
Second Night Out nationwide
•
Published July 2011
•
Focused on addressing the complex causes of single
homelessness and rough sleeping.
•
Departmental commitments across six broad priorities:
1. Helping People Off the Streets
2. Helping People Access Healthcare
3. Helping people into Work
4. Reducing Bureaucratic Burdens
5. Increasing Local Control Over Investment of Services
6. Devolving Responsibility for Tackling Homelessness
•
Flagship policy announcement was the national roll out
of No Second Night Out (Mayor of London’s approach
to getting new rough sleepers off the streets)
Second report: Preventing homelessness – the
rationale
We know that homelessness is not just about housing
Recent evidence on Multiple Exclusion Homelessness (MEH) has suggested that there is a high
degree of overlap between these needs[1]. A survey of homelessness service users in 7 UK cities
found:
•
•
•

98% had been homeless at some point
70% had experienced substance misuse
67% had been involved in street culture activities; and
62% had experienced some kind of institutional care.
•
There was a high degree of overlap between these experiences with almost half (47%) of service
users reporting all four experiences, demonstrating that many homeless individuals have complex
and multiple needs.
•
This leads to increased costs and increased burden on other services. Research shows that many
come into repeated contact with range of services before they become homeless – schools, care
system, criminal justice system, drug and alcohol services
•
[1] Fitzpatrick et al, Heriot-Watt University, Sept 2011 Multiple exclusion homelessness across the UK: A quantitative survey. A multi-stage survey conducted
in Belfast, Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Glasgow, Leeds and Westminster
Second report: Preventing homelessness – the
strategy
• Broader focus on preventing all forms of homelessness – families
as well as rough sleepers and single homeless
• Intervening earlier to tackle underlying problems by embedding
homelessness prevention activity into the work of the range of
agencies that come into contact with those at risk before they
lose their home
• Delivering integrated services (like Community Budgets) that will
tackle the complex causes of homelessness and support an
individual’s recovery.
• Working towards a Summer publication
Working together in the context of the MWG
1) Addressing underlying problems
Do local authorities and the voluntary sector have a role in preventing domestic
violence and homelessness by addressing underlying problems? What should
this look like?
2) Prevention and other agencies
How can we embed prevention activity into the work of agencies? What can
agencies do to help tackle domestic violence homelessness?
3) Leadership
What forum would work best to help bring the wider services involved in
tackling domestic violence and homelessness?
Do appropriate local structures exist that could be adapted for this purpose?
4) Integrated services
How can we deliver better integrated local services? What are the barriers?