|
|
 |
Revisiting Domestic Violence And Homelessness
Robyn Gregory, School of Social Work and Social Policy, La Trobe University
Introduction
This contribution aims to examine changes that have occurred over the last 15 years in the recognition and response to the relationship between domestic violence and homelessness. The reference points for this examination are drawn from my experiences as a refuge worker from 1986-89, especially as I refined these experiences in reports and conference papers during this period and the fact that the majority of women who leave situations of domestic violence do so with limited personal and financial resources and therefore go into poverty (Gregory 1987, Gregory 1988). The following is a case study of Victoria, particularly in relation to a consideration of government policies as they impact on the ability of women to access (i) affordable, (ii) secure and (iii) appropriate housing.
Before proceeding, it is important to consider the definition of homelessness. The definition that informed government policy in 1987 in relation to housing was the traditional, male-centred one that literally equated living on the streets with homelessness. At that time, refuge and housing workers were increasingly defining homelessness more broadly as a lack of access to secure, affordable and appropriate accommodation. This definition was, and remains, different from the ‘community’ perception of homelessness. Women and their children were not likely to be seen ‘living rough’, unlike the much more visible ‘swaggie’ of Australian folklore or the down and out ‘derro’ in the alley. Women, often with children, were/are far more likely to be living in intolerable domestic situations, dependent on a partner for shelter, than directly subjected to the ‘dangers’ of the streets. However, for women who do leave, the uncertain future of poverty, inadequate housing and social isolation is not much more inviting.
Crinall (2001) argues that the concrete conditions of women’s homelessness needs to be addressed (Crinall 2001: 7-9). She suggests that the attempt to distinguish between the homelessness of ‘now’ and ‘then’ risks obscuring the fact that women have always been homeless. Rather, the definition of homelessness has more recently been extended beyond ‘rooflessness’ (Crinall 2001: 7-9). In 1996 WESNET attempted to do this when they coined the term ‘housed homelessness’ to indicate the reality that women victims of domestic violence remain in the family home but lack both control and security (Nunan and Johns 1996).
Unlike the mid 1980s, when women leaving situations of domestic violence would only qualify for priority public housing by ‘proving’ that they were homeless (1), the Supported Accommodation Assistance Act 1994 now ensures that ‘people who are experiencing domestic violence and are at imminent risk of becoming homeless’ will receive specific recognition of homelessness when applying for public housing. (2) Chamberlain and Johnson’s work on a broader definition of homelessness also appears to have had a significant impact, for example, with the Victorian Homelessness Strategy (2000). Clearly, in so far as this more recent definition is operational, this is an improvement.
Even though women cannot be considered a homogenous group, domestic violence remains a gendered phenomenon. Thus while recognising the importance of the sources of women’s different experiences, such as class, ethnicity, culture, age, ability, sexuality, resilience and so on, this paper does not detail the many different circumstances facing women living in intolerable domestic situations.
The Process of Accessing Housing
Given that there has been some progress in relation to the operational definition of homelessness, is it the case that access to public housing for women leaving situations of domestic violence has improved over the last 15 years? One woman living in refuge in 1987 spoke of being treated like a ‘rag doll’ by the Ministry of Housing: ‘they took me out of the doll’s house, played with me for a while and then threw me back in’ was her account of the endless priority meetings required to determine her ‘proof’ of homelessness. At that time, women who were successful in their application waited for two to three months for housing, compounding problems for other women attempting to gain access to refuge. The Ministry of Housing could always rationalise the small number of priority housing applications accepted, by claiming that people on the ‘wait turn’ list would only be further pushed down the list for every priority application approved.
Since 1987 priority housing allocations have increased from less than 10 per cent to around 50 per cent in 1998/9, with an average waiting time of 102 days in 1998/9. 7.1 per cent of priority approvals in 1998/9 were for reasons of family violence (Community Reference Group 2000: 9). With the introduction of the Segmented Waiting List, numbers of applicants receiving priority housing fell and wait times increased to an average of 290 days. Applicants under the family violence category receiving approval decreased to 5.7 per cent (266) with an average wait of 62 days, although others may have been approved under the Recurring Homelessness category. Therefore despite differences in definition and eligibility, waiting times for housing appear much the same as they were in 1987.
The increase in priority housing approvals highlights the fact that for Victorians generally, current housing policy has not moved toward providing adequate public housing. Instead, public housing has become the housing ‘safety net’, playing a residual welfare role in housing policy, causing the further marginalisation and stigmatisation of its clients.
Despite a lack of reliable information on numbers of homeless people in Victoria in 1987, it was estimated that 160,000 ‘household units’ would qualify for public housing on the basis of their income. This compared with 30,000 household units on the Ministry of Housing waiting list, which itself was three times greater than public housing allocations for any year. In 1999-2000, 11,051 allocations were made to public rental housing - almost exactly the same number as allocated public housing in 1987. Around 40,000 applicants remained on the waiting list - 10,000 more than in 1987 (Department of Human Services 2001: 5). In 2000, Department of Human Service estimates suggested that 55,000 people in Victoria would experience homelessness in a year, a third of them family groups (Victorian Homelessness Strategy Unit 2000: 2-3).
Home ownership offers the greatest benefits in terms of physical, emotional and economic security. Indeed successive Federal and State government policies have favoured owner-occupancy, with substantial incentives available to the owner-occupier that are not available to those who rent. Of Victoria’s residential properties in 2001, 73 per cent are owner-occupied, with only 4.4 per cent being owned by the Office of Housing. Nonetheless, due to the evolution of improved definitions it is likely that women who suffer from domestic violence may find the process of accessing housing somewhat easier than women did 15 years ago, despite the fact that public housing appears no more available in general.
Affordability
The most important factor in a household’s ability to house itself adequately is its financial resources. Real incomes, particularly for those on government pensions and benefits, had fallen dramatically over the ten years prior to 1987, effectively blocking access to owner occupancy for recipients of social security and those on low incomes, as well as severely reducing access to private rental. From 1976 to 1986, for example, median incomes of renting families rose by 42 per cent whilst private rents rose 79 per cent. In so far as victims of domestic violence are poor, their housing problems escalated in the same ten years, with two other main factors working together to create even larger public housing waiting lists:
§ a change in household formation from traditional two-parent nuclear families to a high level of single-parent families, unattached youth and non-aged single men and women seeking accommodation, and
§ a dramatic reduction in the level of public funding for housing assistance in real terms, affecting both the quality and quantity of stock available, along with a rapid increase in applications for public housing.
Despite changes in household formation, housing policies and therefore stock continued to be directed towards the nuclear family, further excluding or marginalising non-traditional households who were most at risk of missing out on public housing. Unfortunately, the substantial erosion in the number of boarding houses and low-cost hostels that began in 1987 combined with the low vacancy rates for private rental accommodation has meant an upward spiral in rents as those excluded from home ownership competed in the private rental market.
The relationship between domestic violence, homelessness and the position of women generally is vital. When compared to men, women in the mid 1980s:
§ had reduced access to wealth and far lower rates of home ownership;
§ tended to be employed in a narrow range of relatively low-paid occupations, with lower rates of full year, full time employment, receiving relatively low pay, with reduced access to non-wage fringe benefits;
§ made up the majority of heads of sole parent families and recipients of sole parent pensions and carried out the bulk of unpaid work, child-care and housework;
§ had lower educational and post-school qualifications; and
§ constituted 98.9 per cent of all victims of domestic violence, 40 per cent of all murder victims and 93 per cent of adults who were sexually assaulted.
Women in 2001, with the exception of the fourth point, continue to experience significant discrimination and to be worse off than men, despite the presence of legislation to redress discrimination.
Moreover, the economic situation for women has generally worsened for local as well as more global reasons. Welfare ‘reform’ and mutual obligation have resulted in major changes in the way welfare is provided and this has resulted in increasingly punitive social security practices and policies. The significant decline in affordable private rental accommodation, particularly in the inner city, has continued, resulting in increasing isolation as women travel further from the city to secure accommodation. Sustained levels of unemployment, along with a decline in the real value of pensions and benefits and the introduction of a Goods and Services Tax (GST) in July 2000 has further reduced the capacity of single women-headed households to meet rental housing costs. The casualisation of the labour market and industrial relations ‘reforms’ have also hit women particularly hard, given their already vulnerable position in a small range of low-paid occupations.
With this as a background, it needs to be noted that, for many reasons, the price of established housing in Victoria has risen dramatically, with great disparities in prices between inner and outer suburbs. A house in the outer suburbs now costs around 55 per cent of the price of an inner suburban house and around 61 per cent for flats (Victorian Homelessness Strategy Unit 2000: 10). Given statutory incomes have risen more slowly than rents, this makes housing on the private rental market an increasing proportion of household income. Few low rent properties exist on the private rental market and those that do exist are likely to be located in isolated geographical areas, or in poor condition (Victorian Homelessness Strategy Unit 2000: 11). For these reasons, housing related poverty remains a significant factor affecting many women.
Appropriateness
The third criterion in this examination is the appropriateness of housing available to, and used by, survivors of domestic violence. That is, housing that is available in close proximity to employment, public transport, educational facilities and child care so that women and their children do not become entrenched in a cycle of poverty. Housing where support networks are available in order to minimise ‘social poverty’, or isolation from friends, family and other support networks. Finally, the quality of housing is important.
The reduced availability of housing in inner and middle suburban areas compounds the difficulties for women leaving situations of domestic violence, who have had no choice but to move to outer suburban or regional centres to afford housing. Many women, having already cut themselves off from friendship support networks for fear of being traced by their partner, find the isolation and unsuitability of their accommodation insufferable and they are often inclined to return to the relatively less isolated but violent situation that they originally escaped.
In the mid 1980s, women leaving situations of domestic violence who qualified for priority housing were more likely to be allocated units which were predominantly in high-rise estates, or older Ministry of Housing flat areas, often in areas rejected by applicants on the wait-turn list due to the age and unsuitability of the units, lack of transport and subsequent isolation. According to Office of Housing figures, allocations under priority or Recurring Homelessness and Supported Housing segments, at least in 1999/2000, were less likely to be to high rise flats (Community Reference Group 2000: 12).
Women’s experiences of the support available once they leave a violent home has a significant bearing on whether they remain away from, or return to unsafe housing. If women increasingly have to move to outer suburban or rural areas in order to access housing, that is, those areas already suffering from cuts to general and specialist support services and infrastructure, then a return to the pattern of recurring homelessness and violence is also increasingly likely.
The capacity of SAAP funded services to provide support to women leaving situations of domestic violence is also crucial to preventing recurring homelessness. However, the growth in domestic violence services has been minimal over the last 15 years resulting in only one in three people seeking assistance being accommodated in 1999 (Corporate Communications Unit 2000: 8). Women’s refuges continue to find it difficult to accommodate women with complex needs given their congregate living arrangements. Finally, the capacity to provide long term support to women continues to be low, leaving women at ongoing risk of homelessness despite recognition of links between housing and support as fundamental to ensuring stable outcomes for women.
Conclusion
Unfortunately in looking back on the work we did 15 years ago, it seems clear that although the link between homelessness and domestic violence is now more generally accepted, the economic, political and social circumstances of women’s lives remain as dismal. Gender remains, as it was then, discounted, if not disqualified, as a central category of concern and analysis whether the issue is refugee status or homelessness. The gender dimensions inherent in domestic violence and homelessness continue to be obscured by policies that frame difficulties in terms of ‘welfare dependency’, rather than poverty and its relationship to gender. For example, how do policies that privileges men over women and promote the privatised nuclear family and economic ‘rationalism’ impact on domestic violence?
It will be interesting to trace the impact of the planned development of a Women’s Housing Policy and the results of the Family Violence Housing Exit Options project on the problem of domestic violence and homelessness. Domestic violence is a broad and complex social problem that requires not only the coordinated response of service systems, but also the addressing of the socio-political, economic and legal systems that privilege men over women, rich over poor, and exclude women from the public realm of political and policy decision-making. In this regard, little has changed over the last fifteen years.
Revisiting Domestic Violence And Homelessness
Robyn Gregory
School of Social Work and Social Policy, La Trobe University
ENDNOTES
(1) Such proof involved gathering letters from real estate agents to demonstrate that they were unable to secure private rental for one third or less of their income and also required, from time to time, an expectation that the refuge would serve the woman with a notice of eviction.
(2) It is also interesting to note the gender neutral language of ‘people’ rather than ‘women’ used by the Act. The role this gender neutral language plays in contributing to obscuring the gendered nature of domestic violence is worthy of consideration.
|
|
