1 / 30

Partners

A Study of the Effectiveness of a Housing Intervention for Battered Women Multnomah County Domestic Violence Coordinator’s Office, Chiquita Rollins, Principle Investigator February 9, 2007. Partners.

Jimmy
Download Presentation

Partners

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Study of the Effectiveness of a Housing Intervention for Battered WomenMultnomah County Domestic Violence Coordinator’s Office, Chiquita Rollins, Principle InvestigatorFebruary 9, 2007

  2. Partners • Cooperative Agreement between Multnomah County Domestic Violence Coordinator’s Office and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). • Nancy Glass, Co-Principal Investigator, Johns Hopkins University • Oregon Health Sciences University, Volunteers of America Home Free Program, Raphael House of Portland, Dept. Human Services Self Sufficiency Program, Portland Impact • Charlene Baker, University of Hawaii and Phaedra Corso, University of Georgia

  3. Collaborative Community Research Team • Domestic violence victim advocates and community partners included in shaping protocol and process • Survivor participation • Encompasses complexity of participants lives and resources utilized

  4. Link between Domestic Violence and Housing • Poor or homeless women experience DV at higher rates and have fewer resources with which to seek/maintain safe and stable housing • From 22% to 57% of homeless women identify domestic violence as the main cause of their homelessness • 38% of all domestic violence victims become homeless at some point in their lives • 46% of homeless women reported that they had previously stayed in an abusive relationship because they had no where else to go

  5. Impact of Housing Instability or Domestic Violence on Children • 47% of homeless school-aged children and 29% of homeless children under 5 have witnessed domestic violence • More than half of female domestic violence victims live in households with children under the age of 12 • Mothers with less stable financial, social, and living situations reported their children to have intervened more during past violent incidents.

  6. Impact of Housing Instability on Children • Homelessness for children is not a brief episode or one-time experience. • More than one-fourth of homeless children have multiple episodes of homelessness • Homeless families move at a rate 16 times greater than that of the average American family • Frequent moves contribute to poor academic achievement, physical and emotional health problems, hunger, and problems later in life, (substance abuse and sexual risk taking) • Racism means that a disproportionate number of the homeless are children of color

  7. Impact of Domestic Violence in Multnomah County • Estimated 28,000 victims; 60% have children • Over 50% of all reported violent crime, with 10,000 police reports/year (PPB DVRU) • Largest contributing factor to county and area homicides (25-30%) • Significant factor in 35% of long-term child abuse/neglect cases • 30,000 crisis calls annually to community-based hotlines • 15,000 domestic violence shelter bednights annually (single women and families) • Minimum cost to local government: $15 million annually • Cost to businesses estimated as $10 million

  8. Response to Domestic Violence in Multnomah County • Multi-layered; multi-jurisdiction response • Criminal Justice System: 9-1-1, law enforcement (6 agencies), specialized police, DA and probation units, courts, jail, DVERT, defense bar; victim assistants • Civil Justice System: family court bench, restraining and stalking orders, custody, visitation, dependency • Victim Services System: crisis lines, 4 shelters, 7 culturally- or population-specific programs, housing, legal advocacy • TA-DVS • Other services: health care (OHP, county, private), mental health, A&D, public assistance (TANF, employment programs, etc.), other

  9. Why Evaluate a Domestic Violence Housing Program? • Clear need for housing for victims of domestic violence • County/City/State and Federal governments all funding long-term housing services for victims • VOA Home Free and other domestic violence programs adopting housing first model • Current emphasis on Rapid Re-housing/Housing First without research on effectiveness with victims/women • Domestic violence has a significant negative impact and cost in our community and little or no cost effectiveness data related to domestic violence victim services of any kind

  10. Importance of the Research Project • Fill the gaps in current research • Current housing research doesn’t consider effectiveness of housing first for victims and their children • Domestic violence research doesn’t consider impact of housing instability on victim’s abilities to stay safe and on children’s outcomes • Provide policy direction to funders and agencies • Funding priorities at OVW and HUD shifting to longer-term housing and to “proven practices” • Some housing policy creates barriers for victims and their children • Provide cost and efficacy information for local policy makers Reduce barriers to housing for victims • Correct misinformation about domestic violence and victims

  11. Important Caveats • Permanent housing programs must be built on a basis of short-term emergency domestic violence shelters and crisis intervention • Permanent housing programs can not replace safety-focused crisis intervention and shelters • Permanent housing program must be safety-focused and address full range of victims needs

  12. Study Design • Participants: Women domestic violence victims, age 18-64, who speak English or Spanish • Study begins at “post-crisis” stage of service delivery • Data collected: • Outcomes for women and their children • Cost of domestic violence and cost effectiveness of the housing models • Interviews at 6-month intervals for 18 months, with reimbursement • Qualitative interviews focusing on inter-relationships between housing and victimization • Cost effectiveness study • Process Study

  13. Data Gathered: Victims and Children • Survivor self-reported data • Demographics • Income, housing stability, employment • IPV (type, frequency, severity) • Health, mental health, substance abuse • Social support and service utilization • Parent-child relationship • Children’s outcomes (health, exposure to violence, behavior, school achievement) • 6-month follow-up interviews will also ask about quality of services by partner agencies

  14. Data Gathered: Cost and Cost Effectiveness • For the programmatic cost analysis: • All programmatic costs associated w VOA Home Free • For the Cost Effectiveness: • Client-specific programmatic costs associated with all 5 interventions • Client-specific costs associated with the use of Community Resources

  15. Data Gathered: Cost and Cost Effectiveness • Domestic Violence victim services • Civil and Criminal justice system (LE, DA, Court, Probation, Defense bar, other legal assistance, etc.) • Health care systems • Welfare and child welfare systems • Housing • Cost to landlords, employers and the community • Other

  16. Research: Qualitative Interviews • A subset of women will be interviewed in-depth • Their experiences in the various service types: what worked/didn’t work and for whom • Housing stability barriers and services • Relationship between domestic violence and its impact and housing stability

  17. Housing Stability Index • Develop a housing stability index for each study participant • Analyze the housing stability index in relationship to outcomes for both the women and their children and the cost to the Community • Re-victimization or exposure to IPV • Physical and mental health of mother and children • Service utilization, etc.

  18. Housing Stability Questions • How many times have you moved? • Have you had to live somewhere that you did not want to live? • Have you had difficulty or were unable to pay for your housing (e.g. rent/mortgage payment)? • Have you had to borrow money or ask friends/family or others for money to pay your rent/mortgage payment? • Have you had trouble with your landlord in the last six months? • landlord threatened to evict you? • been served an eviction notice? • Do you expect that you will be able to stay in your current housing for the next 6 months? • Have you had difficulty meeting your basic needs? • Have they been able to get enough food to eat for their your household in the last six months? • Have you had trouble getting housing in the last 6 months? • How likely is it that you will be able to pay for your housing this month? • Would you move to a new location if you could?

  19. Results Will Include • Outcomes for women and children (safety, basic needs, physical/mental health, etc.) • Cost of domestic violence in our community • Identification of services most effective for specific groups of victims (based on housing history, level of danger or other characteristics) • Documentation of services available and utilization by participants • Impact of housing policy and practice

  20. Policy Implications • Document proven practices in the domestic violence arena • Document impact of domestic violence and housing barriers on women • Justify/develop funding for additional housing programs • Identify possible improvements to service delivery models • Gain a better understanding of which populations are most likely to succeed in which housing programs • Show the relationship between children’s exposure to violence and housing stability • Provide direction for housing policies and funding priorities

  21. Preliminary Data • 54 completed interviews as of February 1, 2007 • Average age is 36 with a range of 19-54 • Race/Ethnicity: • 48% White (84%) • 26% African-American (7%) • 17% Hispanic (15%) • 6% Native American (1%) and • 4% Bi-racial

  22. Preliminary Data • Relationship status: • 48% single • 41% divorced/separated, • 11% married/living with a partner, • Children: • 22% have no children under the age of 16 • 54% have 1-2 children and • 24% have three children or more

  23. Preliminary Data • 72% are not employed. • Education: • 22% do not have a high school degree or equivalent • 17% high school only 61% have some college/college degree or vocational school degree • Insurance: • 67% have public health insurance (OHP) • 17% on private insurance and • 17% have no health insurance • Basic needs: • 85% report having difficulties meeting their basic needs; • 46% do not have enough food for their families

  24. Preliminary Data • Danger Assessment: • average number of ‘yes’ responses =12, • range from 2-19

  25. Preliminary Data • Non-Partner services utilized: • 72% of the current sample has received the TA-DVS grant, regardless of referral agency • 94% saw a health care provider, range 1-10 providers • 85% received services from DHS Self-Sufficiency or Child Welfare • 82% utilized criminal justice/civil court services • 41% received other (non-partner) domestic violence services (1-4 agencies) • 41% received legal services and • 30% received housing services (most mentioned a single agency)

  26. Preliminary Data • Housing Stability Indicators: • 82% of participants would move if they could • 70% believe that they will NOT be able to stay where they are currently living now • In the last 6 months: 17% have not moved; 20% moved 1 or 2 times; and 63% have moved at least 3 times, with 5 women moving 8 or more times • 56% report having trouble with landlords • 37% receiving eviction threats • 22% reporting evictions

  27. Preliminary Data Conclusions • Victims in the study represent those at very high risk for re-assault and housing instability • Participants have high usage of community resources • Anecdotally – • Creative housing solutions • Long-term housing instability for many • Long-term victimization for many

  28. Conclusions • Study has the potential to provide • Strong data for successful program models • Policy direction based on costs and on effectiveness • Information about range of victimization and effectiveness of responses • Dispel myths regarding victims in housing programs • Delineate the relationship between housing stability and victimization and other outcomes for victims and their children (health, mental health, parenting, financial, etc.) • More accurate estimate of costs of domestic violence in a community

More Related