Using data from an ongoing longitudinal study, we examined the impact of the COVID‐19 stay‐at‐home orders on a racially diverse population of unstably housed domestic violence (DV) survivors over time. Specifically, we examined survivors' safety, housing stability, and mental health before, during, and after the onset of COVID‐19, and how demographic, social, and familial factors attenuated or exacerbated the effect of the stay‐at‐home orders. Approximately 300 participants were initially interviewed after they sought services from a DV agency, and then again, every 6 months over 2 years. COVID‐19 stay‐at‐home orders occurred midway through the completion of this multi‐year study. Longitudinal mixed effects models were estimated to examine the impact of COVID‐19 on the safety, housing stability, and mental health of survivors over time. We also examined models with several time‐varying (e.g., employment, income, social support, and number of children) and time‐invariant (baseline outcome scores, racial/ethnic identity, education, and disability status) control variables. Results revealed that safety, housing stability and mental health were improving for study participants before the onset of the COVID‐19 pandemic but plateaued after the stay‐at‐home orders were issued. Experiences of abuse, housing instability, and mental health symptomatology did not worsen as a result of the COVID‐19 stay‐at‐home orders. Notably, social support and housing services emerged as important predictors of outcomes, such that participants who received housing‐related services and greater social support reported less abuse, less housing instability, and lower mental health distress. COVID‐19 temporarily disrupted the positive trajectory unstably housed DV survivors were experiencing in regard to safety, housing stability and mental health. These findings provide critical insight into the importance of service access during and after global catastrophes. Additional resources and support may be helpful in assisting survivors to return to their pre‐pandemic recovery and growth trajectories.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a leading cause of homelessness, yet little evidence exists about effective strategies to assist IPV survivors as they work to avoid homelessness while freeing themselves from abuse. An ongoing demonstration evaluation is examining if and how one promising model assists IPV survivors in obtaining safe and stable housing over time. The Domestic Violence Housing First (DVHF) model involves providing IPV survivors with mobile advocacy and/or flexible funding, depending on individual needs, in order to attain these goals. We hypothesized that those receiving DVHF would experience greater housing stability and less re-abuse compared to survivors receiving services as usual. The current study evaluated the short-term efficacy of the DVHF model with a sample of 345 homeless or unstably housed survivors who sought services and who completed in-person interviews shortly after contacting the DV agency, as well as six months later. Those who received the DVHF model showed greater improvement in their housing stability compared to those receiving services as usual, as well as decreased economic abuse. Both groups experienced a sharp decline in all forms of abuse. The Domestic Violence Housing First model shows promise in helping unstably housed DV survivors achieve safe and stable housing. Study findings have implications for DV agencies as well as those funding such services. Understanding which interventions work best for which survivors is critical to ensuring that service providers are effectively working toward long-term housing stability and well-being for IPV survivors and their children.

No abstract

Although prior research has established that intimate partner violence (IPV) often leads to increased depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), little is known about how often abusive partners and ex-partners use survivors’ children as an abuse tactic, nor whether this form of IPV also is detrimental to survivors’ mental health. The current study interviewed 299 unstably housed survivors of intimate partner violence shortly after they sought services from a domestic violence agency. All participants were parents of minor children. In-person interviews asked about abuse experienced in the prior six months, including the ways children were used as a form of IPV. Participants were also asked about their current depression, anxiety, and symptoms of PTSD. As hypothesized, the majority of parents reported their abusive partners and ex-partners had used their children as a form of IPV to control and hurt them. Further, after controlling for other forms of IPV, use of the children significantly predicted both increased anxiety and greater number of PTSD symptoms. Results show the importance of focusing on the use of children as a common and injurious form of abuse used against survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV).

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a widespread and devastating phenomenon resulting in a myriad of long-term consequences for survivors and their children. IPV victimization not only has negative health and economic consequences, it has also been linked to homelessness and housing instability. In response, the Domestic Violence Housing First (DVHF) model is being used in some domestic violence (DV) agencies to help survivors attain safe and stable housing. The model includes using individualized advocacy and/or flexible funding to help survivors meet these goals. Using a longitudinal, quasi-experimental design, the current study involved conducting interviews with survivors and examining agency records to investigate the effectiveness of this model. We hypothesized that survivors who received DVHF would experience less re-abuse and greater housing stability over 12 months compared to those who received services as usual (SAU). The sample included 345 IPV survivors who had been homeless or unstably housed when they approached one of five DV programs for help. Interviews were spaced 6 months apart (when survivors first sought services as well as 6 months and 12 months later). Longitudinal analyses showed that survivors who received the DVHF model reported greater improvements in housing stability at both the 6-month and 12-month time points compared to those receiving SAU. At the 12-month time point, survivors who had received DVHF reported decreased physical, psychological, and economic abuse, as well as the use of their children against them as a form of abuse. This study adds to a growing body of evidence supporting this model’s effectiveness and adds to our understanding of factors impacting the long-term housing stability and safety for IPV survivors.