Introduction

Research suggests domestic violence is a leading cause of homelessness and housing instability for women and children in the United States.[1] Housing uncertainty can additionally contribute to re-victimization, especially if forced to seek alternative shelter in risky or unstable situations.[2] Victims may choose to stay in an abusive relationship because they have no other housing options.[3] Victims may find themselves with limited employment prospects and income potential often due to abusers not allowing them to find gainful employment or sabotaging them in the workplace.[4] Abusers also commonly isolate their victims from family or friends, limiting the support network needed to seek a temporary place to stay.[5] Victims of human trafficking face many of the same challenges as domestic violence victims and can benefit from similar services in some instances.[6]

Shelter and housing services were reported as two of the most critical needs of individuals seeking domestic violence services in Illinois.[7] To address those needs, transitional housing programs pay a portion of housing costs for victims, allowing them to leave emergency shelters and safely move into more permanent residences. Best practices suggest that clients pay no more than 30 percent of their income for rent.[8] Many transitional housing programs also offer participants counseling, employment assistance, and other support services based on clients’ individual needs.

Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (ICJIA) researchers conducted a process evaluation to examine the implementation of three transitional housing program models in Illinois. This evaluation offers implications for policy and practice to improve programming and serves as a guide for future funding considerations.

Researchers sought to answer the following research questions:

  • What are the programs’ policies and procedures?
  • How do programs employing different models operate differently?
  • What are the characteristics of the clients?
  • To what extent are clients satisfied with the program?
  • What are the strengths and weaknesses of the programs?
  • What barriers exist to program implementation as intended?
  • To what extent do programs provide services beyond housing and/or coordinate with partner organizations to offer services beyond housing?

Literature Review

Findings of a nationwide survey of transitional housing programs revealed several descriptive characteristics of their program models.[9]

  • Forty percent of programs were in urban areas, 23 percent were in suburban areas, and 37 percent were in rural areas.
  • Seventy-three percent of programs had maximum lengths of stay between one and two years.
  • Approximately half of the programs surveyed had fewer than nine units.
  • Programs had been operating for an average of nine years.
  • Respondents reported nearly two-thirds of program funding was received through state and federal sources.[10]

Empirical research is somewhat limited on the effectiveness of transitional housing programs for victims of domestic violence and/or human trafficking. One study found high levels of housing instability were significantly associated with reduced quality of life, greater reporting of symptoms of PTSD and depression, and more absences from work or school.[11] Another study found those who received permanent supportive housing subsidies were less likely to report experiencing intimate partner violence than comparison groups; families with higher levels of psychosocial need that received transitional housing were also less likely to report intimate partner violence.[12]

Transitional housing programs offer stable housing, which can prevent or mitigate some adverse consequences that result from housing instability due to domestic violence.[13] One study found transitional housing can provide greater support than other housing options for individuals and families with high levels of need.[14] Research has found transitional housing programming was most successful when services were tailored to individual needs and providers were able to provide ongoing support after a client secured housing.[15]

Current Study

Methodology

Evaluators examined three transitional housing programs in Illinois that received funds from the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) administered by ICJIA. The sites offered a range of programs with varying characteristics for the process evaluation (Table 1). Programs are referred to as Sites A, B, and C for anonymity. The Appendix section provides more detailed descriptions of each program site. The evaluation was conducted between April 2018 and April 2019, with data collected between June 2018 and January 2019. Research methods included analysis of administrative program data and interviews with program staff and clients. The evaluation methods were approved by ICJIA’s Institutional Review Board.

Table 1

Selected Characteristics of Transitional Housing Program Sites

Site A Site B Site C
Location Suburban county in Chicago area Central Illinois Cook County
Community Type Suburban Rural Suburban/Urban
Population Served Domestic Violence and/or Human Trafficking Domestic Violence Domestic Violence
Program Housing Model(s) Scattered Scattered Scattered and Clustered
Number of Units 30 10 15
Source: Programs’ administrative data and program staff interviews.

Data Sources

Interviews with program clients

Researchers interviewed current and former clients of three transitional housing programs in Illinois. Program staff at Sites A and C provided researchers contact information for clients who were willing to be contacted by phone to participate in an interview. Staff at Site B requested clients be given the option to contact research staff if they wished to take part in an interview.

Eight clients from Site A and 14 clients from Site C consented to be contacted for interviews. Four clients from Site A were interviewed, one scheduled an interview but did not answer or return phone calls at the scheduled time, one did not wish to schedule an interview, one never answered or returned voicemails left by researchers, and one had a number that was disconnected. Seven clients from Site C were interviewed, one scheduled an interview but did not answer or return phone calls at the scheduled time, and six never answered or returned voicemails left by researchers. Two clients from Site B contacted researchers and were interviewed.

Researchers conducted client interviews in person (1) and via telephone (12). Verbal or written consent was obtained from all participants prior to the start of the interviews. All interviews were conducted by the primary investigator and audio-recorded. Interviews lasted between 30 and 71 minutes. Participants received a $20 Walgreen’s gift card as compensation for their time. The consent form and interview questions were translated into Spanish and a Spanish-speaking researcher was available to conduct an interview if a research subject stated that preference; however, no interviewees expressed a preference to conduct the interview in Spanish. The interview schedule included 46 questions focusing on client experiences with the program (26), satisfaction with staff and services (6), and demographic information (14). Table 2 provides demographic information about the sample of clients interviewed. A three-year retrospective housing history was also conducted to gather information on participants’ prior housing arrangements. Fifteen questions were adapted from prior evaluations of programming for victims of domestic violence.[16]

Research staff transcribed the recorded interviews. The transcripts were analyzed using qualitative analysis software QSR NVivo 9. Two research analysts individually coded an initial sample of transcribed interviews and then collaborated to create a coding scheme for the entire sample employing a negotiated agreement process that improves inter-coder reliability for in-depth semi-structured interviews.[17] Researchers used the codes to analyze the entire sample of interviews and added new codes as necessary.

Table 2

Demographics of Transitional Housing Clients in Sample (N=13)

% (n)
Gender Female 100 (13)
Age 25 - 35 30.8 (4)
36 - 50 38.5 (5)
50+ 30.8 (4)
Race/Ethnicity Black 61.5 (8)
Hispanic 15.4 (2)
White 30.8 (4)
Marital Status Single 46.2 (6)
Married 15.4 (2)
Divorced/Legally Separated 38.5 (5)
Number of Children Two 46.2 (6)
Three 23.1 (3)
Four or more 30.8 (4)
Education High School Graduate 23.1 (3)
Some College 53.8 (7)
College Graduate or beyond 23.1 (3)
Employment Full-time 61.5 (8)
Part-time 30.8 (4)
Not Employed 7.7 (1)

Interviews with program staff

Staff from three program sites were interviewed in person and via telephone.[18] A total of 11 staff members were interviewed, including five individuals from Site A and three from each of Sites B and C (Table 3). Each program identified individuals who worked closely with the transitional housing programs to take part in the interviews. Their job titles included transitional housing specialist, case manager, and CEO, among others. Interviewees had a great deal of experience, reporting an average of over eight years of work at their respective organizations. The interviews ranged from 44 to 83 minutes in length. All interviews were conducted by the primary investigator and each participant provided written or verbal consent prior to the interview. Program staff interviews were audio-recorded.[19]

Interview questions for program staff were developed by researchers to elicit their views on the program’s successes and challenges (21 questions), the needs of the target population in addition to housing (6 questions), their experiences with the administration of the grant (9 questions), and demographics (11 questions). Staff also provided a more comprehensive overview of program operations in the interviews. Nine questions were adapted from prior transitional housing program evaluations.[20] Researchers used the same coding process for staff interviews as the process described above for client interviews.

Table 3

Demographics of Transitional Housing Staff Members in Sample (n=9)

% (n)
Age Under 35 55.6 (5)
Over 35 44.4 (4)
Race/Ethnicity Black 11.1 (1)
Hispanic 11.1 (1)
White 77.8 (7)
Education College Graduate 33.3 (3)
Some Post-College 33.3 (3)
Master’s Degree 33.3 (3)

Administrative program data

Researchers collected administrative data from InfoNet, a web-based, centralized statewide case management system used by state-funded domestic and sexual violence service providers in Illinois. Over 100 participating service provider organizations employ InfoNet to collect and report information about clients and services, 67 of which specifically serve domestic violence victims.[21] The three transitional housing programs in this evaluation utilized InfoNet and permitted researchers to extract record-level, de-identified data on transitional housing clients’ demographics, needs, and services received during a portion of the grant period. Data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel and IBM SPSS.

Study Limitations

The study was limited by the inability to examine all transitional housing programs receiving VOCA funds. Researchers included only three programs in the study due to resource limitations at the evaluating agency; thus, the present findings may not be indicative of all transitional housing programs.

InfoNet has some limitations as a data collection system, such as closed-ended questions that limit response choices; data were extracted from this system at a single point in time for this evaluation, so the information is only a snapshot of client characteristics.

Relying largely on qualitative interview data was a limitation due to the potential for misinterpretation, bias, an imbalance of power between the interviewer and subject, limited subject recall, among other challenges.[22] Further, researchers were not able to speak to all transitional housing clients; clients that were willing to participate may be different from those who chose not to participate or could not be contacted (i.e., self-selection bias). Finally, feedback from some stakeholder groups (e.g., landlords, clients’ children) was not collected as part of this process evaluation. These issues limit the generalizability of the findings of this process evaluation.

Study Findings

Program goals

Transitional housing programs aimed to provide victims with a safe, stable residence away from their abuser. By providing safe and stable housing, transitional housing gave clients space for healing while allowing them to define personal goals and address other challenges in their life. Programs aimed to provide participants with the tools and resources they needed to be independent and empowered when they left transitional housing.

Supportive services

In addition to financial assistance for housing, the programs provided an array of supportive services to their clients. Staff of all three programs reported the goal of wrap-around services was to help clients address additional needs and barriers during their time in the program. All services were voluntary and clients guided the creation of their service plan to address their individual needs and goals. As domestic violence service providers, these three programs also served clients who were not part of the transitional housing program (e.g., emergency shelter clients, walk-in clients); many supportive services were open to all clients of the provider organization, such as counseling services and legal advocacy.

According to analyses of administrative data, transitional housing clients at the three sites received an average of 169 hours of program services over an 18-month period. Figure 1 shows the number of service hours provided to transitional housing clients in the most common service categories.[23] Program sites differed in the areas in which they provided the most service hours; Sites A and B provided the greatest number of service hours in life skills programming and children’s group counseling, whereas Site C provided more in-person and adult group counseling. These four categories accounted for 62 percent of all service hours provided to transitional housing clients during the period studied.

Figure 1

Hours of Services Provided to Transitional Housing Clients by Program Site (N=194)

Hours of Services Provided to Transitional Housing Clients by Program Site
Note: Figure depicts results for all clients receiving transitional housing services between January 1, 2017, and June 30, 2018.
Source: ICJIA analysis of InfoNet data

Program Successes

According to the research interviews, success looked different for each client based on their unique goals. Program staff as well as clients spoke highly of the work being done through transitional housing and provided many examples of successes that resulted from participation in the program.

Stable housing

Through the program, clients received safe and stable housing during the program period. Staff reported many clients successfully secured permanent housing by the end of the transition period. Staff members said participation in the program helped clients improve credit scores, make debt payments, build a recent rental history, and obtain landlord references to expand housing options once program participation ended.

Advocacy with landlords

During the interviews, program staff said developing relationships with landlords was critical to the success of transitional housing programs. Staff at all three organizations recounted instances where landlords were hesitant to work with a third-party or with a domestic violence service provider. However, program staff reported that after their advocacy on behalf of the programs and clients, the landlords who agreed to participate were highly satisfied.

Relationships

Participants noted that case managers were great resources for help with myriad tasks and issues and provided unwavering emotional support to clients. Staff explained that positive client relationships allowed case managers to better understand and address the needs of the population they served. In the interviews, four clients and eight staff members reported the transitional housing programs fostered community and support among participants.

Program Challenges

Transitional housing programs face many challenges. Some are inherent to the model, while others may vary between communities.

High demand

Staff interviews revealed the three organizations maintained waiting lists for their transitional housing programs. Staff and clients described how waiting lists can be problematic, particularly for this population, because many applicants were facing homelessness or living in unstable environments, i.e., illicit drug use, crowded, noisy.

Access to services

Some clients reported barriers to accessing services through the program or through external referrals. Three clients also mentioned discrepancies between what they felt like was available to others in the program versus what was available for them, suggesting barriers to communication regarding available services. An issue that came up several times during the interviews was clients’ challenge of continually asking for services on an as-needed basis; three clients reported feeling discouraged or burdensome when asking for the same service repeatedly.

Property maintenance

Many clients reported they were very satisfied with the quality of the apartments and shared examples of maintenance issues that were successfully resolved. However, six clients cited challenges with building maintenance and/or the property management staff. Some clients expressed concerns about damage to the units from prior tenants, issues with the quality of unit-specific furnishings (e.g., appliances, carpet), as well as delays in the required processes to have maintenance address issues at the properties.

Grant administration and funding

The most common challenges reported involved funding restrictions on certain types of assistance, such as food assistance, furnishings, application fees, and security deposits. One staff member reported aiming to keep staffing costs to a minimum to allocate as much funding for rental assistance as possible; however, this had the effect of placing a high burden on case management staff.

Sustainability

Staff members from all three programs reported their transitional housing programs would not be sustainable without grant funds. Because rental assistance required such high proportions of capital investment, few options were identified by staff for their organizations to raise or otherwise acquire the funds necessary to cover a meaningful portion of participants’ rental expenses. Balancing the timing of clients moving in and out with projected funding cycles posed a challenge for some of the programs.

Implications for Policy and Practice

The following are implications based on the study findings. These are suggestions to enhance programming and may require additional resources to implement.

Educate on Tenant Rights and Responsibilities

Many clients said learning about their rights and responsibilities as a tenant was a valuable aspect of the program. Programs could consider formalizing this information and creating a curriculum or workshop for participants. Clients in this population may face discrimination from landlords, therefore education about what to expect during the leasing process and what to expect from their relationships with landlords/property management could be beneficial.[24]

Some of the challenges identified by program participants and staff stemmed from poor communication or other issues with the property management staff; allowing clients to be more informed about the expectations of all parties may help to resolve or mitigate some of these challenges.

Information on rights and responsibilities is important for clients as they prepare to exit the program and either look for permanent housing or assume the lease of their transitional housing residence. Additionally, many clients discussed their goal to eventually buy a home. One study in the Netherlands found that of residents who formerly lived in publicly subsidized housing, those who became homeowners scored higher on measures of housing-related empowerment.[25] Including information about home ownership and the mortgage process could help program participants to pursue this goal and make informed choices between renting and owning property.

Expand and Engage Other Victim Types

This evaluation was limited as no clients were identified as victims of human trafficking. Research suggests that human trafficking victims have many of the same needs as domestic violence victims.[26] It would be beneficial for programs to examine their outreach efforts and determine whether there is an unmet need for services for human trafficking victims in the population they serve. Research suggests few providers have the resources to perform direct outreach services, but for those that can engage in outreach activities—consistency, trust, commitment, and involvement of survivors are noted as key principles of success.[27]

Victims who experience immigration status-related barriers (e.g., limited opportunities for employment) are also likely to benefit from transitional housing programs.[28] One of the sites examined here reserved three residences specifically for victims with an undocumented immigration status, yet a staff member acknowledged more units were needed to serve this population. Transitional housing programs for victims of all types should consider the needs of this subpopulation in their communities and explore removing barriers that exclude individuals with an undocumented immigration status (e.g., employment requirements). Victims of all types of crime often belong to communities that can benefit from programs that expand access to safe and affordable housing.[29]

Address Funding Restrictions

In the research interviews, staff commonly reported uncertainty or limitations around what was allowable under federal VOCA funding guidelines. Most transitional housing programs across the country are funded with multiple sources, which was also true of the three programs that participated in this evaluation.[30] While multiple funding sources offer some flexibility due to varying requirements, this can also pose difficulties for program administrators to reconcile allowable costs, such as food assistance, transportation, and childcare. Extant research has highlighted the importance of access to flexible funding that can assist clients in overcoming barriers that are not directly related to housing but are still important for restoring stability (e.g., car repairs, childcare costs).[31] Grant administrators and program staff should engage in a dialogue to examine needs that are unmet due to funding restrictions and explore potential opportunities to implement a portion of funding with greater flexibility. Further, public-private partnerships could be explored to allow programs to more comprehensively meet the needs of victims.

Enhance Stakeholder and Public Awareness and Education

Staff and clients noted in the interviews that some communities displayed a limited awareness of the issue of domestic violence, as well as a lack of information about victim needs. A lack of awareness around the problem can limit access to victim services, hinder investigations and prosecutions, and impede a community’s ability to secure funding to combat the issue.[32] Efforts by organizations to increase awareness and educate law enforcement, healthcare professionals, and others on issues such as how to identify domestic violence victims and appropriate responses to victimization can benefit all victims, even those who never seek direct services from service providers.[33]

Evaluators noted a dearth of research and data on housing needs specific to human trafficking victims. While some programs intended to serve human trafficking victims, limited administrative and program data were available at the time of the evaluation on if and how their needs and/or outcomes differed from those who were victims of domestic violence. Continued training for program staff and other stakeholders (e.g., law enforcement) conducted by multi-disciplinary teams can help to bolster collaboration and improve service delivery to this client population.[34] Additional research is needed to compare the housing trajectories and program experiences of those who experienced different types of victimization.

Conclusion

Overall, the findings of this evaluation demonstrated that these transitional housing programs provided a vital service to individuals who were victims of domestic violence. Nearly all program clients expressed satisfaction with the programs and staff reiterated a high level of perceived program success. Transitional housing programs are not intended to replace emergency shelters, but to expand the housing options available to victims. Extant research, supported by these evaluation findings, suggests that transitional housing is most successful when clients are given the agency to make choices in their own best interest (e.g., what services to pursue, whether to remain in their residences, how much (if any) contact to have with the abuser.[35] Further, the findings of this evaluation were in accord with the conclusions of prior research that hold program clients should be treated as experts of their own situations and programs should avoid exerting unnecessary control.[36]

Appendix: Program Site Descriptions

This appendix offers detailed descriptions of the programming and operations of the three sites that were the focus of this evaluation.

Site A

Program Site A was a domestic violence service provider that operated a transitional housing program in a suburban county in the Chicago metropolitan area. The program offered services to victims of domestic violence and human trafficking. This program employed a scattered site model with capacity to provide assistance for 30 housing units; 22 units were in use at the time of the staff interviews (June 2018). Rental assistance was provided by the program for up to two years. Participants were required to have an income to be eligible for this program.[37] Prospective applicants often learned of the program while in the site’s emergency shelter, were referred by an outside organization (e.g., hospital, law enforcement), or had called a hotline seeking services. Applicants were required to write a letter describing their abusive situations and how the program would benefit them and submit it with either an order of protection[38] or two witness letters from individuals who corroborated the occurrence of domestic violence. The program accepted clients who had experienced a domestic violence or human trafficking incident within the past year. Some exceptions to these requirements were made in the event it was not feasible for a victim to provide the necessary documentation.

During the intake process for transitional housing, the client met with a case manager in person to learn more about the program and ask any questions about the program. Clients worked with a case manager to complete a housing assessment, a human trafficking assessment (if warranted), and a budget worksheet. Although optional, safety plans and service plans for all clients were created as soon as possible during their work with the agency.

When an applicant was approved, the amount of their rental assistance was determined based on household size, income, and market rate of housing units in their chosen area. With this information, clients worked with their case managers to search for housing units and submit applications to landlords. With client permission, case managers reached out to the potential landlords to explain the program and advocate on behalf of the client during the application process. Clients held leases in their own names; the program provided a rider to the lease that outlined the relationship between the program, client, and landlord, including the program’s rent contributions and any other responsibilities.

Clients were required to engage in case management on a regular basis, continue participation in any ongoing voluntary services (e.g., counseling), maintain an income, and make monthly contributions to a savings account.[39] At the conclusion of the program, all funds in the savings account were available to the client. Other guidelines included a prohibition of the abuser on the property. Individuals not named on the lease were not allowed to reside in the unit.

Site A additionally operated an emergency shelter for victims of domestic violence and human trafficking. Site A has provided transitional housing for over 10 years. This provider also concurrently operated permanent supportive clustered housing that accepted subsidies from the federal government’s housing choice voucher program (Section 8) administered through the county housing authority. Three units were reserved to provide transitional housing to individuals in this population with an undocumented immigration status.

Site B

Site B was a domestic violence service provider that that had been providing transitional housing services to this population for more than 18 years. The provider operated a transitional housing program for victims in a mostly rural area serving seven counties in central Illinois. The program employed a scattered site housing model, providing 10 units of transitional housing, with eight being occupied at the time of the staff interviews (July 2018). Five of the units were part of one apartment complex and the other five were spread across the community.

The intake process for transitional housing clients involved an in-person meeting with a case manager to gather information on client demographics, service needs, safety concerns, and potential barriers. To be eligible, an individual must have been homeless as a result of domestic violence. The program paid the full amount of clients’ rent for up to two years.

Program guidelines mainly included safety measures, such as not allowing the abuser or any violent individuals on the property. The program also asked that participants not disclose to anyone that their unit is a transitional housing residence. Clients were required only to attend a monthly tenant meeting and participate in in-home case management sessions.[40]

The housing units were rented under the program’s name and clients were rotated through the same residences over the grant period. To protect confidentiality, clients signed an occupancy agreement with the program in lieu of signing a lease. The occupancy agreement outlined the terms of the lease as well as the program requirements. Landlords who worked with this program also signed a confidentiality agreement and were not given the name of the client living in the residence. If clients were interested in remaining in the unit upon program completion, program staff worked with the landlord to allow clients to take over the leases in their own names.

In addition to providing transitional housing, Program Site B also operated an emergency shelter with a 45-day maximum stay. The program received additional funding for transitional housing from the U.S. Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) and applied Illinois Department of Human Services funding to the matching requirement.

Site C

Program Site C was a domestic violence service provider that had been providing transitional housing services in Cook County for more than 15 years. The program operated 15 units of transitional housing at the time of the staff interviews (September 2018). The organization owned a building with four units that was used in part for transitional housing clients. Other units followed the clustered site model and were in a large apartment complex in an affordable area of the community. Clients could participate in the program for up to two years, with the possibility of a six-month extension. Clients had the option of assuming their leases and continuing to reside in the units upon program completion. Clients that relocated to a certain part of Cook County after the program were eligible to apply for assistance with a security deposit and first month’s rent.

After an individual filled out an application for transitional housing, they underwent an intake process involving a self-reported assessment of their current situation and discussion of their goals and objectives. To be eligible, participants had to be over 18 years old and a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. Accepted participants were required to sign a confidentiality agreement; visitors to the program-owned property also were required to sign confidentiality agreements. Additional program rules included prohibiting abusers on the property and smoking was not allowed in the residences. Participants were required to engage in case management services at least once per month.

Clients who lived in the privately-owned apartment complex were required to submit to a criminal background check conducted by the property management company. Individuals with past criminal convictions were still eligible to be housed in the agency-owned building. For clients residing in privately-owned units, the program acted as the leaseholder and the clients were listed as occupants. This allowed the program to simply update the names of the occupants on the lease as clients moved in and out. Clients residing in the agency-owned building signed a program occupancy agreement in lieu of a lease. Clients in the agency-owned building paid 30 percent of their monthly income to the organization as a program fee.

The program operated a 45-day emergency shelter, as well as an interim shelter program for individuals who exceeded a 45-day stay but were still in need of shelter services due to housing barriers. Individuals on the waiting list for transitional housing were eligible for the interim shelter program. The organization also received funding from OVW for transitional housing. The organization was interested in pursuing opportunities to acquire additional agency-owned properties to potentially be used for permanent supportive housing for this population.

The author would like to recognize the contributions of Sharyn Adams, Cristin Evans, Jaclyn Houston-Kolnik, Richard Moran, Jessica Reichert, and Lauren Weisner from the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority.

  1. Baker, C. K., Billhardt, K. A., Warren, J., Rollins, C., & Glass, N. E. (2010). Domestic violence, housing instability, and homelessness: A review of housing policies and program practices for meeting the needs of survivors. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15(6), 430-439. ↩︎

  2. Jasinski, J. L., Wesely, J. K., Mustaine, E., & Wright, J. D. (2002). The experience of violence in the lives of homeless women: A research project. Washington, DC, US: Department of Justice (NCJRS 211976).; Niolon, P. H., Rollins, C. M., Glass, N., Billhardt, K., Connor-Smith, J., & Baker, C. (2009). An innovative approach to serving the needs of IPV survivors: Description of a CDC-funded study examining the Volunteers of America Home Free rent assistance program. Journal of Women’s Health, 18(6), 775-778. ↩︎

  3. Menard, A. (2001). Domestic violence and housing: Key policy and program challenges. Violence Against Women, 7(6), 707-720. ↩︎

  4. Riger, S., & Krieglstein, M. (2000). The impact of welfare reform on men’s violence against women. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28(5), 631-647. ↩︎

  5. Niolon, P. H., Rollins, C. M., Glass, N., Billhardt, K., Connor-Smith, J., & Baker, C. (2009). An innovative approach to serving the needs of IPV survivors: Description of a CDC-funded study examining the Volunteers of America Home Free rent assistance program. Journal of Women’s Health, 18(6), 775-778. ↩︎

  6. Shigekane, R. (2007). Rehabilitation and community integration of trafficking survivors in the United States. Human Rights Quarterly, 112-136. ↩︎

  7. DeLong, C., Alderden, M., Hiselman, J., & Hahn, T. (2016). Transitional housing for victims of intimate partner violence. Chicago, IL: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority.; Note: This sample is only representative of victims seeking assistance through service providers in Illinois who utilize InfoNet, a web-based data collection and reporting system used to document services provided to victims of domestic and sexual violence, and to produce standardized program and grant-specific data reports. ↩︎

  8. National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV). (2013). Transitional housing: Models & rent structures. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2nWaO8q ↩︎

  9. Baker, C. K., Niolon, P. H., & Oliphant, H. (2009). A descriptive analysis of transitional housing programs for survivors of intimate partner violence in the United States. Violence Against Women, 15(4), 460-481. ↩︎

  10. Baker, C. K., Niolon, P. H., & Oliphant, H. (2009). A descriptive analysis of transitional housing programs for survivors of intimate partner violence in the United States. Violence Against Women, 15(4), 460-481. ↩︎

  11. Rollins, C., Glass, N. E., Perrin, N. A., Billhardt, K. A., Clough, A., Barnes, J., … & Bloom, T. L. (2012). Housing instability is as strong a predictor of poor health outcomes as level of danger in an abusive relationship: Findings from the SHARE Study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(4), 623-643. ↩︎

  12. Allen, N. E. (2017). U.S. commentary: Insights from the family options study regarding housing and intimate partner violence. Cityscape, 19(3), 245-254. ↩︎

  13. Baker, C. K., Billhardt, K. A., Warren, J., Rollins, C., & Glass, N. E. (2010). Domestic violence, housing instability, and homelessness: A review of housing policies and program practices for meeting the needs of survivors. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15(6), 430-439. ↩︎

  14. Allen, N. E. (2017). US commentary: Insights from the family options study regarding housing and intimate partner violence. Cityscape, 19(3), 245-254. ↩︎

  15. Clough, A., Draughon, J. E., Njie-Carr, V., Rollins, C., & Glass, N. (2014). ‘Having housing made everything else possible’: Affordable, safe and stable housing for women survivors of violence. Qualitative Social Work, 13(5), 671-688. ↩︎

  16. Mbilinyi, L., & Kreiter, A. (2013). Domestic Violence Housing First program evaluation summary, cohort 1. Seattle, WA: Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2oFgZgV; Sullivan, C. M. (2009). Evaluation form for shelter residents. Domestic Violence Evidence Project Evaluation Tools. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2nJCU6R; Sullivan, C. M. (2015). Advocacy feedback form for survivors of domestic violence. Domestic Violence Evidence Project Evaluation Tools. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2n1DCvP; Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. (2017). Housing first program client feedback survey. Survivor Feedback Forms (DV Housing First). Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2n5k7m6 ↩︎

  17. Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294-320. ↩︎

  18. Note: Researchers aimed to interview all staff in-person (10 interviews); one interview had to be rescheduled and was thus conducted over the phone. ↩︎

  19. Note: Due to an audio-recording malfunction, two staff interviews at Program Site A were not included in the analyses. ↩︎

  20. Mbilinyi, L., & Kreiter, A. (2013). Domestic Violence Housing First program evaluation summary, cohort 1. Seattle, WA: Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2oFgZgV ↩︎

  21. Houston Kolnik, J., & Hiselman, J. (2018). What’s next for InfoNet? How a statewide case management system is shaping responses to Illinois victims. Chicago, IL: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. ↩︎

  22. Alsaawi, A. (2014). A critical review of qualitative interviews. European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 3(4), 149-156.; Atieno, O. P. (2009). An analysis of the strengths and limitation of qualitative and quantitative research paradigms. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 13(1), 13-38.; Boyce, C., & Neale, P. (2006). Conducting in-depth interviews: A guide for designing and conducting in-depth interviews for evaluation input. Watertown, MA: Pathfinder International. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2xXWzUv ↩︎

  23. All clients did not receive services in all categories, so totals are reported per program and not average per client. ↩︎

  24. Barata, P. C., & Stewart, D. E. (2010). Searching for housing as a battered woman: Does discrimination affect reported availability of a rental unit? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34(1), 43-55. ↩︎

  25. Kleinhans, R., & Elsinga, M. (2010). “Buy your home and feel in control.” Does home ownership achieve the empowerment of former tenants of social housing? International Journal of Housing Policy, 10(1), 41-61. ↩︎

  26. Shigekane, R. (2007). Rehabilitation and community integration of trafficking survivors in the United States. Human Rights Quarterly, 112-136. ↩︎

  27. Clawson, H. J., & Dutch, N. (2008). Identifying victims of human trafficking: Inherent challenges and promising strategies from the field. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services. ↩︎

  28. Clark, D., Wood, L., & Sullivan, C. (2018). Exploring domestic violence survivors’ need for transitional housing. Safe Housing Partnerships. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2oD04eW ↩︎

  29. Vasquez, A. L., & Houston Kolnik, J. (2017).* Victim need report: Service providers’ perspectives on the needs of crime victims and service gaps*. Chicago, IL: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. ↩︎

  30. Baker, C. K., Niolon, P. H., & Oliphant, H. (2009). A descriptive analysis of transitional housing programs for survivors of intimate partner violence in the United States. Violence Against Women, 15(4), 460-481. ↩︎

  31. Sullivan, C. M., & Olsen, L. (2016). Common ground, complementary approaches: Adapting the Housing First model for domestic violence survivors. Housing and Society, 43(3), 182-194. ↩︎

  32. Wilson, J. M., & Dalton, E. (2008). Human trafficking in the heartland: Variation in law enforcement awareness and response. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 24(3), 296-313. ↩︎

  33. Chanley, S. A., Chanley Jr, J. J., & Campbell, H. E. (2001). Providing refuge: The value of domestic violence shelter services. The American Review of Public Administration, 31(4), 393-413. ↩︎

  34. Clawson, H. J., & Dutch, N. (2008). Identifying victims of human trafficking: Inherent challenges and promising strategies from the field. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services. ↩︎

  35. Baker, C. K., Billhardt, K. A., Warren, J., Rollins, C., & Glass, N. E. (2010). Domestic violence, housing instability, and homelessness: A review of housing policies and program practices for meeting the needs of survivors. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15(6), 430-439.; Baker, C. K., Niolon, P. H., & Oliphant, H. (2009). A descriptive analysis of transitional housing programs for survivors of intimate partner violence in the United States. Violence Against Women, 15(4), 460-481.; Clark, D., Wood, L., & Sullivan, C. (2018). Exploring domestic violence survivors’ need for transitional housing. Safe Housing Partnerships. Retrieved from Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2oD04eW; Clough, A., Draughon, J. E., Njie-Carr, V., Rollins, C., & Glass, N. (2014). ‘Having housing made everything else possible’: Affordable, safe and stable housing for women survivors of violence. Qualitative Social Work, 13(5), 671-688.; Melbin, A., Sullivan, C. M., & Cain, D. (2003). Transitional supportive housing programs: Battered women’s perspectives and recommendations. Affilia, 18(4), 445-460.; Netto, G., Pawson, H., & Sharp, C. (2009). Preventing homelessness due to domestic violence: Providing a safe space or closing the door to new possibilities? Social Policy & Administration, 43(7), 719-735. ↩︎

  36. Clough, A., Draughon, J. E., Njie-Carr, V., Rollins, C., & Glass, N. (2014). ‘Having housing made everything else possible’: Affordable, safe and stable housing for women survivors of violence. Qualitative Social Work, 13(5), 671-688.; Melbin, A., Sullivan, C. M., & Cain, D. (2003). Transitional supportive housing programs: Battered women’s perspectives and recommendations. Affilia, 18(4), 445-460.; Messing, J. T., Ward-Lasher, A., Thaller, J., & Bagwell-Gray, M. E. (2015). The state of intimate partner violence intervention: Progress and continuing challenges. Social Work, 60(4), 305-313. ↩︎

  37. Income included employment earnings or non-cash benefits such as child support, WIC, and social security. ↩︎

  38. An order of protection (OP) is issued by a judge to protect those who have been victims of domestic violence. Protections afforded by an OP can include prohibiting the respondent (the abuser) from: coming near the victim; entering the home, even if it is shared; damaging personal property of the victim; possessing any firearms [750 ILCS 60/214]. There are three types of OPs. An emergency order of protection lasts for two to three weeks and the accused is not required to be notified. An interim order of protection can be granted after a respondent has been served and can last up to 30 days. A plenary order of protection lasts up to 2 years and can be renewed indefinitely; it is issued after a hearing in which the petitioner must be present and the respondent must have been notified. ↩︎

  39. The program required participants to contribute 80 percent of their net revenue, after expenses were deducted, based on a budget created during the intake process. ↩︎

  40. Clients who were working during meeting times were exempt from this requirement. ↩︎