Women, Domestic and Family Violence and Homelessness: A Synthesis Report 

• 5.1 Prevention of Violence Related Homelessness
• 5.1.1 One response: safe at home programs
• 5.1.2 Other issues and needs
• 5.2 Support and Accommodation for Women
• 5.2.1 Refuges/shelters and the continuum of support
• 5.2.2 Specific housing options for Indigenous women: safe houses and cooling off houses
• 5.2.3 Supportive housing and the Housing First model

5.1 Prevention of Violence Related Homelessness

Preventing domestic and family violence related homelessness is not an easy task. The very nature of the pathway into homelessness because of domestic violence makes addressing this sort of homelessness difficult. Domestic violence related homelessness is reactive homelessness. As MacKenzie and Chamberlain (2003, p. 45) note:

A substantial part of the solution in terms of strategies that prevent domestic and family violence related homelessness are those that prevent domestic and family violence from happening in the first place. Integrated national education and awareness campaigns both have a continuing role to play here. As Amnesty International’s recent report Setting the Standard: International Good Practice to Inform an Australian National Plan of Action to Eliminate Violence Against Women (2008) states:

Chapter four of the Amnesty International report (2008) discusses the context and need for further work in terms of prevention and public awareness strategies in Australia. It also provides some good practice examples of such strategies.

Re-running the Australia Says No to Violence campaign, or developing a new campaign on non-tolerance of domestic and family violence, must be properly resourced and supported by all three tiers of Government. It must be federally spearheaded. Importantly, such a campaign must be adequately resourced, recognising that raising awareness of the extensive and on-going impact of domestic and family violence on Australians will increase demand on existing services.

Any education campaign on domestic and family violence needs to focus on educating women, men and children about respect for each other, how to develop and sustain healthy relationships within families and between partners, and how to deal with stressful circumstances and situations within households that often precipitate violence. An investigation of the types of education programs operating successfully around Australia at the local and state level, as well as internationally, would assist with determining the right approach for a new education campaign for school aged children. Online resources and lesson plans for teachers that are specific to children and youth of certain ages are needed. These could form part of the current or a renewed National Safe Schools Framework ¹⁰or similar such strategy.

While Amnesty International (2008) and the newly established National Council to Reduce Violence against Women and Children (Plibersek 2008) see targeting high school students as the priority, there are also clear and defensible arguments for targeting an education program to primary school children as well. A primary school aged children program must be sensitive and age specific and not cause undue fear, concern or trauma among/to children. The urgent need and justification for an education program for primary school children is demonstrated by recent research that found that children who bully often learn such behaviour from witnessing violence in their home (DEST Safe at Schools Framework).

Early intervention strategies also clearly have a role to play in reducing the level of domestic and family violence related homelessness in Australia. However, Weeks and Oberin’s 2004 study highlights service providers’ concern about the lack of resources to provide early intervention: for ‘services to reach out to women sufficiently early’ (p. 30). They note that resources and early intervention strategies are needed not only for women who may make an initial enquiry about support, but also for women for whom admitting domestic violence is deeply shameful. For example, for older women and women from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Further investigation and evaluation of the strategies and program in place in Australia and other parts of the world to prevent violence related homelessness is clearly needed in this regard.

As discussed earlier, the vast majority of women who end up homeless because of violence do so after reaching a crisis point, and because they have limited independent financial resources to support themselves and their children with accommodation expenses and other costs of living. Given the fact that access to independent financial resources and poverty are central characteristics of many women who end up homeless because of violence, income support and strategies to assist women to secure appropriate employment are paramount. Access to Centrelink’s Crisis Payments (Centrelink 2008a) is important in this situation and this program clearly needs to be reviewed to ensure that it is accessible to those who need it. This issue was mentioned numerous times in the consultations for this project, with many representatives of the domestic violence sector commenting that many women do not know of the existence of this payment or their application for the payment is rejected, often repeatedly, when they are eligible. The role of Centrelink’s Crisis Payments in discussed further in the final section of this report..

Another strategy that could potentially assist women in terms of economic independence is setting up a national funding stream for women’s refuges and shelters so that they can assist women with gaining access to employment through the provision of personal development assistance and improving their education and job seeking skills. This strategy has been developed in the Republic of Ireland (funded through the European Social Fund ¹¹). It is identified by Amnesty International (2008) as an example of international good practice supporting women’s economic independence. Many shelters and refuges in Australia already perform these functions for their clients but are not generally funded to do so. The provision of additional funds for staffing also needs to accompany this strategy. Alternatively, the Federal and State Government’s could provide additional brokerage funding to shelters and refuges so that these services can be provided for women.

Addressing the barriers to women’s economic independence is raised in the Amnesty International report as an important means of preventing and reducing the impact of violence against women. As identified in the report (Amnesty International 2008, p. 46) and emphasised to the authors in the consultations for this report, income support programs and the mutual obligation and other conditions placed on such payments need to be reviewed to ensure that they do not compromise the safety of women and children or contribute to women’s homelessness.

The welfare to work reforms introduced under the Howard Government, and particularly the ‘part-time participation requirements’¹² placed on single mothers receiving parenting payment were mentioned as adding to the stress on women escaping or who had escaped domestic violence. This was particularly determined to be a detrimental policy change for women receiving parenting payment and child support from their former partner (the perpetrator of the violence against them) as for some women their partner was using their need to seek work, undertake education or work, to challenge whether they are appropriately caring for their children. Given that there are exceptions to mutual obligation/’participation requirements’ for women affected by domestic and family violence, it seems that more needs to be done in this area to ensure that women affected by domestic violence (and workers in the domestic violence sector) are aware of such exemptions, and that Centrelink staff are both sensitive and efficient in establishing eligibility for an exemption on the grounds of violence.

The role of Centrelink in assisting women in domestic violence situations was raised many times in the interviews conducted for this report – and with mixed views. Many workers at the coalface in the sector feel that Centrelink staff are unnecessarily obstructive – particularly with the Crisis Payments (mentioned above), while others had established good links with Centrelink staff and offices. New flexibility in dealing with the processing of income support payments for women escaping domestic violence that allowed women to quickly and relatively easily go on and off support as they moved in and out of homelessness, were welcomed.

The Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse (ADFVC) is currently undertaking research into the link between domestic and family violence and income. They believe, as do many in the sector, that the major cause of violence related homelessness is economic and ‘the economic factors that drive women into homelessness due to domestic violence are preventable’ (ADFVC 2008).

Recent changes to the Child Support Scheme and the Family Law Act (Cth) were repeatedly raised by participants in the consultations as two of the most damaging changes for many women escaping domestic violence in some years. Changes to the child support system were of concern for the sector and clients because of the rate of reduction in child support paid by the payer parent because of contact. These arrangements are seen to overly favour payer parents (mostly fathers) and significantly reduce the income of single mothers (McInnes 2008).   

[ top ]

Concern was raised that changes introduced to the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) by the Family Law (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 are resulting in more women staying in unsafe relationships. The changes represent a significant ‘generational shift’ in family law and constitute an attempt to move family law issues away from an adversarial and litigation-based environment towards a family dispute resolution model, facilitated in Family Relationship Centres (for discussion see New South Wales Parliament Legislative Council Standing Committee on Law and Justice 2006; the recent report Behind Closed Doors: Family Dispute Resolution and Family Violence by Kirkwood for the DVIRC (2007); see also the AIFS report by Moloney et al (2007) Allegations of Family Violence and Child Abuse in Family Law Children’s Proceedings: A Pre-reform Exploratory Study).

Several aspects of the new family laws fuel women’s concern. First, there is a belief that it will be less practicable to raise issues of domestic or family violence in the environment of family dispute resolution. Second, the definition of domestic and family violence has been narrowed and now requires proof that fear of violence is ‘reasonable’. Third, this change is accompanied by the threat of a costs order for ‘false’ allegations. Fourth, the presumption of shared parental responsibility, introduced by Section 61DA(2) of the amended 1975 Act is seen as difficult to displace and, even though this is not synonymous with ‘equal parenting time’ (addressed in section 65DAA), there is concern that in practice the two issues may be conflated together. There is also concern that community understanding of the 2006 reforms is patchy, imprecise and incomplete. This can lead to unrealistic expectations being asserted, adding to the crushing stress of already difficult proceedings. It seems necessary then that a broader education campaign and resources about the impacts of the changes to the Family Law Act on women (and their children) escaping domestic and family violence and the protections available to women in this situation must be undertaken, with such education to also extend to the domestic and family violence sector.

A range of opportunities exist for early intervention. These include: providing information and support to women at a range of well known risk points for domestic and family violence, i.e. during pregnancy; immediately post the birth of a first child or post the birth of every child for some women in longer-term violence situations; at ante and post natal services; and when a partner is incarcerated for a drug or alcohol related issue (men should also be provided with information on zero tolerance of violence at this time, and on behaviour change programs). Health services have a particular role here – particularly GPs and staff of emergency departments. GPs and emergency departments are often the front line in detection of domestic and family violence, as such proper training of these health care professionals and provision of domestic and family violence resources for them is essential and should be part of a national campaign to prevent violence against women.

The police and courts also have an important role to play in terms of early intervention. Police, for example, should provide information on who to contact for victims of domestic disturbances as a matter of procedure, as well as providing information in an appropriate manner on legal protections for women, such as AVOs or exclusion orders. What would clearly help here is police providing a checklist/information brochure on available services and options for women in a local area/State. The information card used to inform women about their options for the Staying Home Leaving Violence program is a potential model for this.¹³Family law courts are also a potential place for early intervention – and could direct women to appropriate counselling and support services to cope with the trauma of violence as well as to point women to the right services to contact for legal assistance. Placing a dedicated domestic violence support worker in courts on particular days of the week – as the Eastern Domestic Violence Outreach Service in Victoria were reported as doing back in 2004 at Ringwood Magistrates Court to ensure women have the appropriate exclusion provisions in their Intervention Orders – is another model worthy of further investigation to determine the effectiveness of this support mechanism for women (see DVIRC 2004, p. 23). Family Relationship Centres should also provide women affected with domestic and family violence with information about such violence – and particularly the risk of violence at separation, and services to assist women and their children.   

Because of the tight timeframe for this research further investigation of these strategies was not possible. It is therefore the recommendation of the authors of this report that the Office for Women commission or undertake more detailed research on these early intervention strategies in terms of their success and broad application. Early intervention is clearly an area where more comprehensive work is needed to determine appropriate actions to be followed.

5.1.1 One response: safe at home programs

Arguably one of the most appropriate strategies for preventing violence related homelessness are those termed the ‘staying safely at home’ housing models (also referred to as safe at home models, staying home safely or, as in NSW, the Staying Home Leaving Violence project). The models describe relatively new programs (and necessary and related integrated support) that remove and exclude the perpetrator of violence against women (and children) from the home, allowing women and children to stay in their own homes – preventing them from becoming homeless (discussed in detail in Chung et al 2000; Edwards 2004; McFerran 2007; see also Housing NSW 2007). Safe at home models are premised on the fact that the perpetrator of the violence should be held accountable for their actions and removed from the family home, thereby not penalising the women and children for the violence against them.

Before discussing this model in detail it should be noted upfront that there was contention in the domestic violence sector around this model of assistance for women affected by domestic and family violence, and especially around the UK Sanctuary Model also discussed in this section. The reasons for concern over these models are also given in the following discussion.

The NSW Government has been most active in developing and trialling safe at home models in Australia, and has recently committed to funding 16 Staying Home Leaving Violence Projects across the state (Bega Women’s Refuge 2007). The roll out of these projects follows the success of three pilots across the state: in Bega (auspiced by the Bega Women’s Refuge and funded through SAAP), Eastern Sydney (auspiced by the Homelessness Unit, Housing NSW) and Western Sydney (funded by the National Community Crime Prevention Program and auspiced by WASH House, Mt Druitt ¹⁴ ) (VAW Specialist Unit 2007; WASH House 2008).

The Bega Staying Home Leaving Violence Project succinctly summarises the rationale for the project:

As Edwards’ seminal research into staying safe at home models (2004) contends: these models are about challenging traditional assumptions about women leaving domestic violence, i.e. that

• leaving the violence means having to leave home;
• staying at home is not safe for women; and
• the perpetrator of the violence will not leave the family home (from Edwards 2004).

The features of the Staying Home Leaving Violence Project (SHLV) are summarised in Housing NSW’s 2006-07 Annual Report (2007, p. 52):

The NSW pilots, as with safe at home models generally, are about wrapping support around women to ensure they can stay safely in their home. An important and necessary feature of the programs is risk assessment (by police and/or other services). For many women improvements are made to the physical security of their home, e.g. changing locks, installing phone alarms et cetera. Simple and cost effective measures to improve the security and safety of women staying at home, and their perception of safety.

A case study of a woman assisted to remain in her home through the Staying Home Leaving Violence Project in Inner Sydney reported in Housing NSW’s 2005-06 Annual Report is worth reproducing here, as it demonstrates the type of support provided through the program (see Box 5.1).

The success of staying safely at home models for some women is also demonstrated in the UK. In this case such schemes are known as Sanctuary Schemes (see Box 5.2). The schemes are generally delivered by local authorities, as one strategy to meet their obligations to address local homelessness. Funding for the schemes is sourced from central government, from general funds to address homelessness across the UK.

Sanctuary Schemes in the UK have recently received high level political support as a strategy to reduce domestic and family violence related homelessness, with the then Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government announcing that she wants all local authorities in the UK to offer such Schemes as a housing option (Kelly 2006). A paper outlining the Options for Setting up a Sanctuary Scheme has been published by the Department for Communities and Local Government (2006) and usefully outlines the safety improvements made to homes, how the program is funded and gives some indication of success rates for the Scheme.

[ top ]

Box 5.1: Case study – Staying Home Leaving Violence Project, Sydney, NSW

Source: Housing NSW 2007

While the staying safe at home models have had, and are clearly having, success in terms of preventing violence related homelessness for women the models do not suit all women, and do not purport to do so. As noted from the UK experience to date:

Moreover, it needs to be remembered that Sanctuary Schemes are not instant responses to the housing circumstances of women and assessing their risks and developing safety plans. The UK programs average two weeks to set up, meaning some form of temporary accommodation is needed for women in the interim (Department for Communities and Local Government 2006, p. 23).

Safe at home models therefore are about providing choice for women in lower risk violence situations. Women and children in extreme risk of violence from their partner or family member will not benefit from these models. These facts are reinforced in the evaluation of the Bega pilot in NSW which found that certain key factors are necessary for the success of the program (Bega Women’s Refuge 2007; Edwards 2004). These are:

• protocols in place between key agencies involved in dealing with and assisting women in a domestic violence situation to ensure a coordinated response to violence. The Bega Pilot relies heavily on a Memorandum of Understanding between police and domestic violence services and relevant referrals between these parties to assist women;

Box 5.2: Safe at home models – Sanctuary Schemes, UK

Sources: Department for Communities and Local Government 2006; Kelly 2006

[ top ]

• provision of outreach support;
• development of individual safety plans for women (and children) to determine necessary home security improvements; 
• promotion throughout the community of staying at home as a safe option for women and children affected by domestic violence; and
• continual assessment and evolution of the program based on program evaluation, including evaluation of outcomes from clients.

The earlier evaluation of the NSW pilots found that the strength of attachment women had to their homes – and their violent partner being removed from the home by police or court order or leaving voluntarily because he had an alternative housing option – assisted women to remain in their homes and feel safe (Edwards 2004, p. 4).

The Sanctuary Schemes in the UK have also found that:

The introduction of stay at home models also provide outreach support for women who can remain safely at home. Outreach is a central feature of Sanctuary Schemes in the UK. In the Australian context therefore, additional funds will need to flow on to the domestic violence sector for outreach to support these types of programs. The Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse has been quite vocal on this issue, recommending that the Federal Government establish an Australian Home Security Fund which organisations coordinating safe at home models can access to pay for security modifications to homes. This seems a logical approach that the Federal Government needs to take to support the implementation of safe at home models as a housing option for some women, and something that can be implemented relatively easily. Alternatively, Governments will need to increase the brokerage funds available to the domestic violence sector for outreach and other support for women staying at home – as is needed across the sector generally.

McFerran (2007) in her overview of integrated models which deal with violence and subsequent homelessness notes that staying safe at home models must be delivered as part of an integrated regional domestic violence strategy. This point was strongly made in the evaluation of the Bega Staying Safe Leaving Home Pilot (see Bega Women’s Refuge 2007, p. 10). Such approaches to addressing violence related homelessness, as with approaches to addressing violence related homelessness generally, are unlikely to be effective unless backed up at all levels by efficient and meaningful legislation which allows the perpetrator of the violence to be removed legally from the home. In this respect the priority of the National Council to Reduce Violence Against Women to harmonise and toughen State and Territory domestic violence and sexual assault laws is necessary and must be a Federal Government priority.

Women left in their homes need to be fully supported, legally and socially and have trust in the system in place.  In Victoria this has been enacted, according to McFerran (2007 pp. 9-15), in part due to the strong leadership and support for addressing the impact of domestic and family violence from Victoria Police and particularly from the Victorian Police Commissioner. These models are all only as successful as the legal framework and the local administrations allow them to be (on this issue see the excellent paper on housing options for women escaping domestic and family violence by McFerran 2007). The role of the police is essential in ensuring the successful implementation of the model. Police and courts must also be sympathetic to the aims of the staying safe at home model and have positive and continuing roles with those involved. Trust between all parties is fundamental. This strength of the programs is  also a weakness, as the pilot Staying Home Leaving Violence programs in NSW have shown that staff continuity, and trust in such staff by women, is crucial.

The integrated approaches to addressing domestic violence in the Victorian Women’s Safety Strategy (Office of Women’s Policy 2002); ACT’s Family Violence Intervention Project (ACT Government 2003) and Tasmania’s Safe at Home strategy (DoJaIR 2003) all promote staying safe at home as a choice for women. The strategies are important State/Territory developments and considered by the domestic violence sector generally to be examples of evolving best practice. Importantly, they in many ways re-orient past domestic violence support, placing responsibility for the violence with the perpetrator. The Victorian strategy includes both outreach support as a key factor in assisting women affected by domestic and family violence – whether staying safe at home is an option for them or not, and domestic violence agencies in that state have access to additional brokerage funds that can be used for a range of support for women, including to pay for security modifications to women’s homes to make them secure. For these reasons evaluations of the Victorian Women’s Safety Strategy are being (and should be) closely monitored to demonstrate the importance of an integrated system of support for survivors of domestic violence.¹⁵

It must be noted here that staying safely at home is not a workable option for many women escaping domestic violence, and will only realistically assist a small proportion of affected women. That said, staying safe at home is clearly an option that women should be offered, and an important reorientation of past ways of assisting some women affected by domestic violence. The message these programs send to the perpetrators of violence, and the community generally, is an important one: that violence should never be tolerated and the perpetrators of violence should be held accountable for their behaviour. In some cases such accountability will be demonstrated by them losing their right to their housing, thus prioritising the safety of the ‘victim(s)’ of the violence. The programs require high levels of integration, cooperation and collaboration from a range of partners and continuity in commitment to the principles of the model and in terms of the staff involved (McFerran 2007, p. 7).

Importantly, with these models women must be assisted in whatever ways they need to stay safely at home – and for many this will also mean outreach support and income support. Safe at home models will only be successful if women can afford the rent or outstanding mortgage payments (or negotiate a lower payment with their financial institution) they are left with in their home, and where any breach of a domestic violence order by the perpetrator is treated seriously. The models work particularly well for social housing tenants, where rent is set as a proportion of income, and where a tenancy agreement can be altered because of a domestic violence incident – making the victim of the violence the sole tenant or enacting some other change to the tenancy agreement to meet the needs of the affected woman. For women in the private rental market or living in a home over which they have a mortgage it seems fair to assume that assistance will also be needed with their housing costs – particularly while they re-establish their life post-violence and for those women with limited economic resources and/or with significant caring responsibilities that have/do limit their labour force participation.¹⁶ The Federal Government could assist here by making available some sort of assistance with housing costs – a grant, loan or rent assistance payment/additional rent assistance payment for a particular period of time. This would allow women to stay safely in their own home, reducing disruption to their children if they have any, and allow them some level of affordable housing security and time to make decisions regarding their longer term housing future, as well as their employment and financial position/needs. Of course, this type of assistance is not just needed by women for whom staying safe at home is a workable option. Such assistance is needed by most women escaping domestic violence and should be looked at as a policy priority – particularly given the length of time it currently takes to be allocated a social housing property (where affordability is guaranteed) and as rents in the private rental market and the size and costs of servicing housing loans have escalated rapidly, and continue to do so in some areas of the country. The Family Violence Private Rental Brokerage Program being offered by Domestic Violence Outreach Services in some locations in Victoria as part of the Women’s Safety Strategy (Office of Women’s Policy 2003) presents a possible model for assistance for women in the private rental market. This program was widely praised by the domestic violence services contacted in Victoria.

[ top ]

5.1.2 Other issues and needs

In discussing the issue of preventing violence related homelessness, it is important to also reiterate that a significant proportion of women who experience domestic and family violence return to live with the perpetrator of the violence/abuse against them, and many women do this many times. As such, women often cycle in and out of homelessness, and for some women this may be a long-term process, extending over a number of years. Importantly, this cycling in and out of homelessness is also often part of the pathway out of abuse for women, as repeated contact with domestic violence services builds their strength and trust in such services. It also allows women to have the necessary support wrapped around them while they make the choice to leave the perpetrator. This point was strongly made by the workers at the coalface of the domestic violence sector. These workers, and the sector generally, feel that women returning to domestic violence services (often ‘spasmodically’) over time is not an indication of failure – on the part of either the woman involved or for domestic violence services generally. Instead it is, and should be acknowledged by Governments as a step towards a permanent break from homelessness for some women.

Women who return to the perpetrator of the violence against them and cycle in and out of homelessness over a period of time and those who return and stay put, need support to deal with their experience of violence, to objectively assess the level of risk of future violence and to assist them with understanding and developing healthy relationships. For these women outreach services are clearly necessary. As past PADV research notes:

Outreach services are currently only provided in a systematic way in Victoria, with limited outreach also in South Australia. More funding is needed for these services, and particularly to help women and children affected by domestic violence in Indigenous communities and rural and remote areas, and for men perpetrating violence.

There is some debate within the domestic violence literature and sector about the role of working with the perpetrators of domestic and family violence against women (mostly male partners) as a strategy for increasing women’s safety and security, and preventing the re-occurrence of violent and abusive behaviour. The Victorian government is at the forefront of this policy intervention with the announcement in 2005 of the provision of funding for such programs. While men’s programs have been in existence for over two decades the philosophy supporting these programs has changed over time from anger management to attempting to modify behaviour and making men accountable for their actions. These programs need to meet the No to Violence Standards of safety, accountability, quality assurance, public information and facilitate the safe expansion of the programs (Wheeler 2005). No to Violence considers the provision of behaviour change programs for men as:  

As women’s safety and security is central to this program women’s domestic violence service providers have taken on the responsibility to run these programs. While welcoming these programs there is some concern within the sector regarding their expansion across the country. Such programs require experienced and trained facilitators and the development of the model too quickly may result in facilitators without the requisite skills, potentially placing women and children affected by violence at risk. No To Violence has developed a series of detailed minimum standards and good practice guidelines for men’s behaviour change programs and a Men’s Behaviour Change Group Work: A Manual for Quality Practice.¹⁷

Three final points need to be made here. First, the consultations for this project with people working at the coalface of domestic violence revealed a degree of caution around staying safe at home models. Such concerns were primarily because these models can, and will in reality, only assist a small proportion of women with their housing options, and, as such, there is concern in the sector that implementing these models will direct already overstretched resources away from other housing and support options working for the majority of women. Ensuring that risk assessments are adequately carried out in an objective manner is also a concern among some in the sector. The implementation of these models is likely to require new Government funding.

Second, and related, while there are some evaluations of staying safe at home models, these models are a relatively new addition to the housing options being undertaken to address violence related homelessness. In fact the consultations for this project and the literature revealed a dearth of evaluations of these and other programs to assist women affected by domestic and family violence. This is an issue that has been widely discussed. The Southern Domestic Violence Service in SA commented in recent research into good practice in working with Aboriginal women and children experiencing family violence:

WESNET’s 2004 (Weeks & Oberin 2004, p. 4) report also emphasised the importance of evaluation, commenting that

Regular and comprehensive evaluation of new and existing models must be built into the funding arrangements for all initiatives and programs.

Finally, and as Ludo McFerran of the Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse commented in a recent discussion paper identifying Australian and international models aimed at reducing violence related homelessness (McFerran 2007, p. 16), finding details of the workings of models is difficult; possibly a reflection of the lack of resources available to promote new and working initiatives, as well as to evaluate their progress and broader applicability. 

[ top ]

5.2 Support and Accommodation for Women

IThe discussion in this section focuses on the most successful models and strategies that provide support and accommodation for women (and their accompanying children) who become/are homeless because of domestic and family violence. These models and strategies include: refuges; outreach support; adequate transitional accommodation and, arguably most importantly of all, safe, secure and affordable long-term housing, including social housing and affordable private rental and home ownership options. The appropriateness of each of these options varies among and between women, and is influenced by such factors as socioeconomic and cultural background and age. As the discussion notes, rural and remote Indigenous women affected by family violence, for example, generally require a very different response from non-Indigenous women. Adequately resourced and staffed safe houses and cooling off places are identified as one of the successful, preferred and culturally appropriate housing/support models for Indigenous women and children.

For women who are unable to stay safely at home a continuum of housing and support is required, including outreach support. This continuum must provide housing and support at the time of the crisis (or tipping point into homelessness) and for as long as is required by each woman, including after she has been housed in appropriate long-term accommodation. Consultations with the sector undertaken as part of this research, reveal that at the current time, the severe deficit in exit points from emergency and transitional accommodation (two points along the continuum to permanent housing) into permanent accommodation means this process is and can take up to two years.  

5.2.1 Refuges/shelters and the continuum of support

Refuges or shelters as they are sometimes called are a vital SAAP funded accommodation option within the domestic and family violence sector. Demand for places within shelters continues to outstrip supply, and by a considerable amount.  

The role of these services has changed considerably over time. Shelters have developed from small scale services (some were just a single building, house or flat) to what are now often ‘a complex set of administrative arrangements, buildings, support and housing arrangements’ (Weeks & Oberin 2004, p. 24). They provide a range of services such as safety planning, offering children’s programs, and offering women’s support groups and other specific programs for women such as home support and housing advocacy. Most shelters also provide:

Refuges generally provide communal living arrangements or cluster housing models. For the most part, these two models suit the needs of different groups of women and their circumstances. In addition many refuge services also provide transitional accommodation (discussed further below).

Not all women seek help from or access a refuge. The Keys Young report Against All Odds: How Women Survive Domestic Violence (1998a) identified the reasons for this as:

• limited access both from a locational and capacity perspective;
• some women do not like the rules in place in some refuges; and
• inability to accommodate particular women’s needs, such as for women with disabilities or specific cultural needs.¹⁸

The consultations conducted for this research also highlighted other reasons women remain in precarious situations rather than seeking accommodation assistance through a refuge; aside from not knowing of their existence or how to access such support. These include: women not wanting to leave their home, or move away from family and friends and/or not wanting to disrupt their children’s schooling. Some women also do not want to live in refuges because they do not like communal living situations. This said, the consultations revealed that women’s accommodation preferences were strongly correlated with their stage in the life course. Communal living arrangements generally work best for, and are preferred by, younger women escaping violence, who appreciate the support networks they can build with other women (and children) around them. Older women, on the other hand, have a stronger preference for more independent living, preferring individual properties. A range of crisis accommodation options is therefore needed to accommodate the preferences of different women.

Refuges are designed to be a short term ‘crisis’ housing option, providing accommodation and support for up to three months. However, the lack of exit points from shelters has turned many of them into much longer term accommodation options than they were/are designed to be. One service provider commented that when she started working in the sector it took six to eight weeks to get a woman (and her children) housed whereas now it is more likely to be two years. 

The lack of capacity to meet the ever-increasing demand for housing in the medium and especially long-term has affected the flow and speed of movement of women through and out of refuges and transitional housing. The fundamental consequence of this is that many women are turned away from shelters each day, as their accommodation needs cannot be met. One participant in the consultations summed this up by saying ‘there is no room at the inn’, others commented that the system is ‘blocked’ and ‘clogged’. As has been widely discussed and recognised in the Government’s Green Paper (Commonwealth of Australia 2008) the major cause of blockages in the SAAP responses for women escaping domestic and family violence (and for homeless people generally) is the lack of exit points into social housing – where affordability is benchmarked, but the number of properties is decreasing and despite clear need for such housing from many vulnerable groups and individuals. The need to increase social housing options for women in domestic violence related homelessness was the overriding discussion point in most consultations, with options needed in both traditional public housing and also in community housing – in both association and cooperative housing models. The immediacy for increasing the capacity of the social housing sector was seen as all the more pressing given the current escalating cost of housing in the private sector, especially in the lower cost end of the private rental market where options are limited, competition for tenancies is fierce and costs are escalating (Yates, Wulff & Reynolds2004). The current housing crisis – and housing being the most unaffordable in the 22 years since affordability records for home purchase and rental options have been kept (Dyett in ABC News 2008)¹⁹ – is clearly impacting on the housing careers and movements of women out of SAAP accommodation and into appropriate or safe, secure and affordable permanent housing – a fundamental human right (see Tually 2008c). Access to affordable and safe housing is absolutely fundamental for women escaping domestic violence and for whom their home is an unsafe place to live to re-build and re-establish their lives (Tually 2008a).

The Victorian publication - Developing an Integrated Response to Family Violence in Victoria — Issues and Directions, (DVIRC 2004), identifies the pressures which exist on services and the fact that not only is demand for domestic and family violence services increasing, so too is the range of violations against women and the complexity of women’s needs.

Weeks and Oberin (2004) also make the important point that the lack of resources in the domestic violence sector continues to limit the ability of the sector to add to or take up offers of more housing; further reducing sector-wide capacity to meet demand. Some services have partnered with other organisations, including philanthropists, charities and other government and non-government organisations to increase the range of services and accommodation options available. However, as mentioned in the consultations, most services simply don’t have the resources to fund the costs of maintaining and managing additional properties or to pay additional staff to meet ever-increasing and more demanding workloads.

A lack of permanent housing options places increasing pressure on refuges and the need to find medium term transitional housing. While many services own/manage transitional properties, a lack of housing options at this stage – when women are still very vulnerable, and often highly traumatised – increases the likelihood that they may move into ‘unsavoury’ arrangements. Moreover, they may lose contact with domestic violence services, leaving them without ongoing counselling/outreach support.

Of importance in the continuum of housing options is the need to minimise the number of times women (and their accompanying children) must move before they are housed permanently. Moving is very disruptive to women’s lives, and is especially unsettling for children (changing schools, leaving friends et cetera). Bartholomew (2002) argues that transitional housing systems are by their nature problematic. This is because while they provide accommodation, and often develop the living skills of women (through learning budgeting et cetera), there is an assumption that all women will have an increased potential to move into permanent housing after their time in transitional housing. The fact is that for many women this is not the case. Many women who are homeless because of domestic and family violence are highly traumatised because of their experience and this can, and does, affect their capacity to adequately meet and undertake certain everyday activities, including household budgeting, minimising debt et cetera. Some women have also never had to manage their household and personal finances, let alone apply for or hold down paid employment, and this may have been part of their abuse. An important part of the move from crisis into transitional housing is the recognition of these challenges for women – which many refuges and domestic violence services already do, with some offering extensive life skills and other education programs. Funds must be available to assist women to develop the skills and capacities they need to rebuild their lives.

Consultation with the domestic violence sector – and the relevant literature – supports the critical role of, and need for, refuges or shelters and transitional accommodation as options on a continuum of support (including housing support) for women in domestic and family violence related homelessness. These services are central to women being able to re-build and re-establish their lives, post-violence and its damaging impacts. However, as Bartholomew notes ‘Placing families into crisis, emergency, short term transitional housing and then recording such exercises as successful is fundamentally flawed’ (Bartholomew 2002, p. 13). These important and necessary options for women, can and will only deliver permanent success if they are part of a continuum of support that includes a pathway into permanent, safe and affordable accommodation. The length of time women are considered homeless also depends on clear transitions and progression along the continuum of support.

Before moving on to discuss a clearly working and workable strategy to support Indigenous women affected by or escaping domestic and family violence, and as this report is fundamentally about the housing options and supports that best assist women in violence related homelessness, it would be remiss not to mention here the (increasing) role of motels in accommodating women. The use of hotels, motels and caravan parks as a form of crisis accommodation is not seen by the service sector as a suitable solution for any group of women. Despite this, Weeks and Oberin’s (2004, p. 40) study of 137 service providers across the country in late 2003 found that 41 per cent of providers had resorted to such accommodation to deal with extra demand. This is particularly so in South Australia, where motels are often used to accommodate women (and children) while a crisis or transitional accommodation place is located. The SA Government has a six night maximum on motel nights – as they are considered too costly, however, evidence from the sector in SA reveals that this limit is not always able to be met because of the strain on services.

The use of motels as a crisis accommodation option also taxes the minimal brokerage funds domestic violence services are provided with and that are used to pay for essential needs for women (transport, food, clothing et cetera). Motels are also seen as providing inappropriate space for children, inappropriate (non-existent) kitchen and laundry facilities, are unsafe and are isolating, as there are no support services attached to motels as there are with refuges. Weeks and Oberin (2004, p. 125) claim placing women and children in hotels, motels and caravan parks ‘is a totally inadequate service response to women and children suffering the socio-emotional impact of the experience of domestic and family violence’. They state that this practice ‘verges on system neglect’, and if motels must be used then it is essential that support services are provided to women while they are accommodated in them.

Motels are also not considered as an adequate option for the perpetrators of violence against women by many in the domestic violence sector. Primarily this is because men can come and go as they please from motels, without any supervision. This raises security concerns for many women.

[ top ]

5.2.2  Specific housing options for Indigenous women: safe houses and cooling off houses

Consultations with workers in the domestic violence sector specifically assisting Indigenous women affected by family violence, and a review of the relevant literature for the Indigenous population, revealed safe houses and cooling off houses or spaces as their preferred option.

SAAP data (AIHW: Al-Yaman et al 2006) and other statistical data (Southern Domestic Violence Service and Nunga Mi:Minar 2007; ATSISJC 2006) clearly identifies the disproportionately high rates of domestic and family violence that occur within Indigenous communities. This reflects, and is a consequence of, the disadvantaged position Indigenous people generally occupy within Australian society.

As stated in a publication on Family Violence among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples by the AIHW (AIHW: Al-Yaman et al 2006, p. 6) which reviewed and compared the impact and extent of violence in Australia and the United States, Canada and New Zealand:

Domestic and family violence has permeated some communities to the extent that it has become commonplace. Consequently, the levels of violence experienced in many communities is described by the South Australian Southern Domestic Violence Service (SDVS) and Nunga Mi:Minar (2007) as ‘destructive to the spiritual, social, economic, physical health and cultural identity of Aboriginal women’. There is considerable need within Indigenous communities for domestic violence services and means by which women and children can seek haven in a safer environment.

The review of Good practice in Working with Aboriginal Women and Children When Experiencing Family Violence by the SDVS and Nunga Mi:Minar (2007) notes however that Aboriginal women have a distrust of government services and support services (for a number of reasons including fear that their children may be taken away, fear of what will happen to the perpetrator in custody) and without appropriate services many Aboriginal women remain in violent situations. Solutions to family violence and the provision of housing are best provided within the communities as Aboriginal women have strong kinship ties and in the main will not leave their community.

Aboriginal women have clearly identified that they want culturally appropriate and community controlled safe houses and respite centres. One of the recommendations from the South Australian State Aboriginal Women’s Gatherings 2002-2005 (SAWG 2006) was:

‘Safe houses’ in the Australian context refers to the Indigenous concept of a ‘place where women can go before or after crisis, and stay for a time, without actually “leaving” their partner’ (Weeks & Oberin 2004, p. 24). As an accepted form of crisis accommodation within Aboriginal communities safe houses are important in working with individuals to break the cycle of violence and in providing support and responsiveness to community needs. Ideally, this requires strong formal relationships with government departments and community agencies for the provision of services and ongoing support. 

The Orana Far West Women’s Safe Houses project funded by the NSW Department of Community Services under SAAP saw the establishment  of five safe houses in far west NSW between 1992 and 2001. The establishment of these services was seen as ‘an opportunity to implement a community driven approach that had the potential to support and empower women, in circumstances of enormous adversity and disadvantage, and to bring about real change in women’s lives and the well being of families and communities as a whole’ (NSW WRM, NSW DoCS and Orana Far West Women’s Safe Houses 2006, p. 8).

Safe houses, however, offer only very short term accommodation and if longer term services are required for Aboriginal women and are not available in the region, women need to contemplate leaving town and this means not only leaving the perpetrator but also leaving their community and land. According to information collected in the consultations for this report often rural women who come to urban centres to access services don’t last long. It is difficult to come to services that have access limits – restricted visiting. Most Indigenous women from regional and rural areas will return to the community from which they came as it is difficult to ask, and expect them to live in a different way – away from family and friends in an almost foreign environment. Leaving your home can make you ‘homeless’ for two to four years. Whether Aboriginal women stay or leave, choices of longer term housing options are often very limited by discrimination and high costs in the private rental market and the long waiting lists for public housing accommodation (NSW WRM, NSW DoCS and Orana Far West Women’s Safe Houses 2006; SDVS & Nunga Mi:Minar 2007).

As kinship ties within Aboriginal communities are strong and many women will not ‘abandon their men’ one successful approach to domestic violence within Aboriginal communities is to provide men’s houses or what have been termed ‘cooling off houses’. Research by the NSW Maari Ma Aboriginal Health Corporation indicates these have been very successful in remote NSW as women and children do not need to move from their home, it is the perpetrator of violence that moves for a short period of respite. These men’s ‘homes’ provide a supportive environment where men can talk to each other about their issues or a place they can go voluntarily or be taken if they are affected by alcohol and are possibly aggressive. The men stay here until they become sober, can sleep and have had a meal (Memmott et al 2003, p.19). Such houses – along with the appropriate services – allow the issue of domestic violence within communities to be identified and tackled, whereas in communities where no such crisis service exists domestic violence remains largely hidden.

[ top ]

Despite the desire for safe houses and cooling off houses, studies and consultation discussions have identified a number of difficulties in establishing and maintaining these houses:

• a lack of progress in the provision of safe houses;
• a lack of funding or limited funding for such approaches sets them up for failure;
• concerns regarding the security of safe house for women and children in rural and remote areas. The SDVS & Nunga Mi:Minar (2007) quotes concerns raised by the Warndu-Wathilli-Carri Nguru Aboriginal Legal Service that safe houses in rural and remote regions were ‘identifiable by community people’. They commented that ‘any future planning on safe houses needs to take into account the difficulty of maintaining confidentiality around locality and the risks this imposes’;
• not all safe houses have met the security requirements necessary to keep women and children safe;
• Weeks and Oberin (2004, p. 67) reported that in WA safe houses were under-funded, ‘unstaffed and in poor repair’;
• the distance of some communities from formal services;
• as the wish of communities is that these services be run by local staff where  possible, issues around conflict of interest and safety for the employed local community members have been raised; and
• where local staff cannot fill the required positions it is difficult to recruit suitability qualified non Aboriginal staff who have a cultural understanding of Indigenous people.

In addition there is a need for research into safe houses. Weeks and Oberin’s (2004) report on behalf of WESNET indicates that research is needed into ‘the range of circumstances in which they operate, their preferred approaches and processes, and documentation of the resources needed to increase their effectiveness for Indigenous communities’ (p. 3). 

The urban Indigenous population requires different services. While they have competency in English, they are frequently service resistant. As one participant in this research stated ‘they are sick of being treated in a systematic way’ and they ‘don’t trust services particularly when children are involved’, which they invariably are. Often Indigenous women stay with a service for a longer period than other women because they have more extensive issues.

The best housing option for Indigenous women in terms of long-term housing is clearly social housing. However, as with all women escaping violence the waiting list for public properties is still around two years for those in most need.

Service providers indicate that in terms of supporting Indigenous women it is important to develop services and responses that are appropriate to their culture and circumstances. That is, it is important:

• for Indigenous specific services and mainstream services to be available to provide choice;
• to try to establish meaningful services that enable women to keep ties with their community;
• that there are ways of managing the violence within the community and Indigenous women often are very knowledgeable in this area;
• Indigenous housing is fraught with a whole range of issues including the humbug issue (a Northern Territory term to describe the way Indigenous people hassle other people for money, food, accommodation and so on). Women are often the target for all other family members and this can place increasing pressure on a tenancy. Strategies need to be developed to manage this situation; and
• greater availability of social housing, as this is the best option for Indigenous people generally.

5.2.3 Supportive housing and the Housing First model

Reviews of international and Australian support models for homelessness in general indicate that the Housing First model has considerable merit and as such there has been some momentum towards this model in Australia (e.g. Common Ground Adelaide (Haggerty 2007); Calder 2006; Mitchell 2008).

Housing First is an initiative of the Beyond Shelter organisation in the US (see Box 5.3). Beyond Shelter is an overarching organisation which has been operating since 1988.²⁰ It sees its role to supply housing to all those threatened with homelessness, and also has an agenda to change society to prevent homelessness existing. Within the US it operates a wide range of support services, including not only housing but also welfare to work schemes to alleviate chronic poverty. During the twenty years of its existence the organisation has developed housing to accommodate people in a variety of ways. Programs include service enriched housing where there is specific access to support services provided. In essence it combines housing relocation services and management of problems by supplying people with housing to ‘empower participants and foster self-reliance, not engender dependence …’ (Beyond Shelter 2008a). There is a stress on being able to individualise approaches and support each family into stability and permanent housing.

Box 5.3: The Housing First Model – Beyond Shelter, California, US

In Denver Colorado, for example, the Metropolitan Denver Homeless Initiative is a joint initiative which encompasses a wide range of institutions and organisations, both public and private, who aim to supply housing to Denver’s homeless.  Each year they produce an annual report which outlines their success at reducing homelessness over the previous year. The organisation runs Housing First which attempts to minimise the period of time people are homeless or lack shelter.

While Housing First is sometimes only seen as an approach to addressing chronic homelessness (i.e. for people who have been homeless for more than twelve months) (see Gordon 2008) in Denver it is described as moving people straight in to permanent housing immediately and offering supportive services after they are housed (see Figure 5.1). In this way it is perceived people can focus on the issues which caused the homelessness threat (Colorado Coalition for the Homeless 2008). While for the US it is important to acknowledge that such models are dependent on large amount of private and church funding as philanthropic support is traditional and very strong within this environment, Mitchell (2008, p. 21) senior planner at the City of Melbourne indicates that this may be a greater avenue of resourcing in Australia than it has been in the past. She states the ‘idea of ending homelessness is attracting interest from philanthropic groups, businesses, and the Federal Government’.   

The Housing First model appears to be an appropriate model for assisting women affected by domestic and family violence. The widespread adoption of this model in Australia, however, is likely to be hampered by the significant lack of social housing and a lack of incentives within the private rental market to provide housing for low income earners and on longer term leases. The implementation of the National Rental Affordability Scheme may be the impetus needed for more widespread support of the development of this model in Australia than is currently the case.

[ top ]

Figure 5.1: The Housing First program process

Source: Beyond Shelter 2008b

10. National Safe Schools Framework (http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/profiles/national_safe_schools_framework.htm)
11. The European Social Fund (ESF) (http://www.esf.gov.uk/introduction_to_esf/) was set up to improve employment opportunities in the European Union and so help raise standards of living.
12. ‘Looking for or undertaking at least 15 hours of work per week and registration with a Job Network provider or undertaking approved study’ when a parent’s youngest child turns seven (Centrelink 2008b).
13. You Don’t Have To Leave Your Home (http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/1ED335DD-6CD5-4ECC-9572-180FF5CA788F/0/stayingHome.pdf)
14. Women’s Activities and Self Help House (http://www.washhouse.org.au/) – a community based resource centre for women, offering support, information and referral for women see .
15. A progress report of the Victorian Women’s Safety Strategy was undertaken in 2005 (Office of Women’s Policy 2005). A review has also recently been undertaken of the Family Violence Act (Tas), the legislation central to Tasmania’s Safe at Home strategy (Urbis 2008).
16. On this issue see Tually (2008b); Senate Select Committee on Housing Affordability (2008).
17. No to Violence (http://www.ntv.org.au/pages/men-s-behaviour-change/detailed-standards-and-guidelines.php).
18. Points reinforced in recent work by on domestic violence and women with disabilities by Salthouse (2007) and by Jennings (2003) and on the needs of CALD women affected by domestic and family violence by Aly & Gaba (2007) and in Bonar & Roberts (2006). 
19. On the issue of housing affordability see Yates & Gabriel 2006, Yates et al 2007 and the recent work by Tually for Security4Women, which includes some statistics on levels of housing stress among female headed single parent and lone person households (Tually 2008a & c).
20. Beyond Shelter (http://www.beyondshelter.org/home.html)

Previous: 4. Emerging Groups of Women in Need of Assistance Next: 6. Discussion and Recommendations