Impact of the Domestic Violence Housing First Model on Survivors’ Safety and Housing Stability: Six Month Findings

Sullivan, Cris M.; López‐Zerón, Gabriela; Farero, Adam; Ayeni, Oyesola Oluwafunmilayo; Simmons, Cortney; Chiaramonte, Danielle; Guerrero, Mayra; Hamdan, Noora; Sprecher, Mackenzie

doi:10.1007/s10896-022-00381-x

Cited by 6 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These participants may or may not have also received other agency services. After accounting for advocate and agency, logistic regressions confirmed that minority status was not a significant predictor of services received ( Sullivan et al, 2022 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Thirty-six percent of the remaining participants were considered to have received SAU because they had received services but (1) had not received housing-focused advocacy, despite needing such help; and (2) had not received cash assistance. Survivors who had received housing-focused advocacy and/or cash assistance were categorized as having received DVHF (64%) (see Sullivan et al, 2022 for more detail). Eight participants who were not interviewed at the 6-month follow-up were regained into the study at the 12-month follow-up.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This research is part of a longitudinal study examining the impact of DVHF on IPV survivors over 2 years. Earlier analyses established that those receiving DVHF reported greater housing stability and lower economic abuse than did those receiving services as usual (SAU) 6 months after contacting a DV agency ( Sullivan et al, 2022 ). The current study builds upon this initial evidence by examining the extent to which DVHF contributes to survivors’ safety and housing stability across 1 year.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Impact of the Domestic Violence Housing First Model on Survivors’ Safety and Housing Stability: 12-Month Findings

Sullivan

Guerrero

Simmons

et al. 2022

J Interpers Violence

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Impact of the Domestic Violence Housing First Model on Survivors’ Safety and Housing Stability: 12-Month Findings

Sullivan

Guerrero

Simmons

et al. 2022

J Interpers Violence

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We intentionally chose a nonrandomized comparative effectiveness design for this study to capitalize on how services are provided in community settings . Due to staff turnover, fluctuation in agency resources, and other factors typical of nonprofit human service agencies, we knew that some survivors would receive DVHF while others would receive SAU, such as support groups, counseling, legal advocacy, and referrals . Written informed consent was obtained from participants before the start of the study.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Domestic Violence Housing First Model and Association With Survivors’ Housing Stability, Safety, and Well-being Over 2 Years

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ImportanceIntimate partner violence (IPV) is a leading cause of homelessness and a serious threat to public health and well-being.ObjectiveTo determine whether the Domestic Violence Housing First (DVHF) model improves safety, housing stability, and mental health over 2 years.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis longitudinal comparative effectiveness study interviewed IPV survivors and reviewed their agency records. All unstably housed or homeless IPV survivors entering domestic violence (DV) services were eligible to participate in the study, ensuring capture of typical variability in service delivery (eg, some survivors would enter services when agencies had the capacity to provide DVHF and others would receive services as usual [SAU]). Clients from 5 DV agencies (3 rural and 2 urban) referred by agency staff in a Pacific Northwest state of the United States were assessed between July 17, 2017, and July 16, 2021. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish at entry into services (baseline) and at 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month follow-up visits. The DVHF model was compared with SAU. The baseline sample included 406 survivors (92.7% of 438 eligible). Of the 375 participants retained at the 6-month follow-up (92.4% retention), 344 had received services and had complete data across all outcomes. Three hundred sixty-three participants (89.4%) were retained at the 24-month follow-up.InterventionThe DVHF model has 2 components: housing-inclusive advocacy and flexible funding.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes included housing stability, safety, and mental health, which were assessed using standardized measures.ResultsOf the 344 participants (mean [SD] age, 34.6 [9.0] years) included in the analyses, 219 (63.7%) received DVHF and 125 (36.3%) received SAU. Most participants identified as female (334 [97.1%]) and heterosexual (299 [86.9%]). Two hundred twenty-one participants (64.2%) were from a racial and ethnic minority group. Longitudinal linear mixed-effects models showed that receiving SAU was associated with greater housing instability (mean difference, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.42-1.14]), DV exposure (mean difference, 0.15 [95% CI, 0.05-0.26]), depression (mean difference, 1.35 [95% CI, 0.27-2.43]), anxiety (mean difference, 1.15 [95% CI, 0.11-2.19]), and posttraumatic stress disorder (mean difference, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.04-1.04]) compared with receiving the DVHF model.Conclusions and RelevanceEvidence in this comparative effectiveness study suggests that the DVHF model was more effective than SAU in improving the housing stability, safety, and mental health of survivors of IPV. The DVHF’s amelioration of all of these interconnected public health issues—relatively quickly and with long-term continuance—will be of substantial interest to DV agencies and others working to support unstably housed IPV survivors.

show abstract

“…The goal of the intervention is for survivors to achieve safe and stable housing and psychological well-being. In a longitudinal demonstration evaluation comparing survivors who received DVHF with those who received services as usual (SAU), the DVHF model was more effective than SAU in improving survivors’ housing stability, safety, and mental health over a period of 24 months (Sullivan et al, 2023). With growing evidence of the effectiveness of the DVHF model, it is now critical to examine the situational factors that impact the effectiveness of the intervention.…”

Section: Ipv Mental Health and Well-beingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Domestic violence survivors’ housing stability, safety, and well-being over time: Examining the role of domestic violence housing first, social support, and material hardship.

Goodman‐Williams¹,

Simmons²,

Chiaramonte³

et al. 2023

American Journal of Orthopsychiatry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intimate partner violence remains a significant public health issue and survivors often need various forms of support to achieve safety. The increased likelihood of experiencing housing instability and homelessness among survivors has led to an uptake in domestic violence agencies implementing housing-based interventions, such as Domestic Violence Housing First (DVHF), to address survivors’ needs. The present study expands on prior research supporting the effectiveness of DVHF to examine situational factors that moderate the outcomes associated with this model among 406 survivors seeking services from domestic violence agencies located in the Pacific Northwestern region of the United States. Using latent profile analysis, participants were grouped into three latent classes: (a) “high abuse/instability,” (b) “still affected,” and (c) “doing better.” Latent transition analysis was used to estimate the probability that participants would transition into a different latent class over time with social support (SS), material hardship, and receipt of DVHF services included as model predictors. Receipt of DVHF predicted improvements in survivors’ safety, housing stability, mental health, and well-being, such that receiving DVHF was associated with higher odds of survivors transitioning into the “doing better” class. Social support and material hardship also emerged as significant factors predicting class membership, such that higher levels of social support and financial stability predicted membership in the “doing better” class. Additionally, social support and financial stability appeared to augment receipt of DVHF services, with DVHF being more strongly associated with positive outcomes among participants who also had high levels of social support and lower levels of material hardship.

show abstract

Impact of the Domestic Violence Housing First Model on Survivors’ Safety and Housing Stability: Six Month Findings

Cited by 6 publications

References 59 publications

Impact of the Domestic Violence Housing First Model on Survivors’ Safety and Housing Stability: 12-Month Findings

Impact of the Domestic Violence Housing First Model on Survivors’ Safety and Housing Stability: 12-Month Findings

Domestic Violence Housing First Model and Association With Survivors’ Housing Stability, Safety, and Well-being Over 2 Years

Domestic violence survivors’ housing stability, safety, and well-being over time: Examining the role of domestic violence housing first, social support, and material hardship.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About