Development and validation of the housing instability scale.

Despite increasing attention to the importance of examining factors that impact housing instability and homelessness, the field lacks a validated scale of housing instability. The current study examined the reliability and validity of a seven-item scale that measures housing instability. Data were taken from a larger study which implemented the Domestic Violence Housing First model across five domestic violence agencies in the Pacific Northwest. A total of 406 participants were interviewed every six months over a period of two years. A Spanish version of the scale was administered to Spanish-speaking participants. Results provide an overview of the psychometric functioning of the scale and support its utility in assessing housing instability and homelessness. Specifically, the scale demonstrated concurrent and predictive validity, and showed evidence of scalar equivalence over time and across both language and locality. The current scale is therefore a succinct and psychometrically sound measure of housing instability which can be used moving forward to track housing instability in English and Spanish speakers, as well as in urban and rural settings.

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

Intimate partner violence remains a significant public health issue and survivors often need various forms of support to achieve safety. The increased likelihood of experiencing housing instability and homelessness among survivors has led to an uptake in domestic violence agencies implementing housing-based interventions, such as Domestic Violence Housing First (DVHF), to address survivors' needs. The present study expands on prior research supporting the effectiveness of DVHF to examine situational factors that moderate the outcomes associated with this model among 406 survivors seeking services from domestic violence agencies located in the Pacific Northwestern region of the United States. Using latent profile analysis, participants were grouped into three latent classes: (a) "high abuse/instability," (b) "still affected," and (c) "doing better." Latent transition analysis was used to estimate the probability that participants would transition into a different latent class over time with social support (SS), material hardship, and receipt of DVHF services included as model predictors. Receipt of DVHF predicted improvements in survivors' safety, housing stability, mental health, and well-being, such that receiving DVHF was associated with higher odds of survivors transitioning into the "doing better" class. Social support and material hardship also emerged as significant factors predicting class membership, such that higher levels of social support and financial stability predicted membership in the "doing better" class. Additionally, social support and financial stability appeared to augment receipt of DVHF services, with DVHF being more strongly associated with positive outcomes among participants who also had high levels of social support and lower levels of material hardship. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

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

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

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

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a widespread and devastating phenomenon resulting in a myriad of long-term consequences for survivors and their children. IPV victimization not only has negative health and economic consequences, it has also been linked to homelessness and housing instability. In response, the Domestic Violence Housing First (DVHF) model is being used in some domestic violence (DV) agencies to help survivors attain safe and stable housing. The model includes using individualized advocacy and/or flexible funding to help survivors meet these goals. Using a longitudinal, quasi-experimental design, the current study involved conducting interviews with survivors and examining agency records to investigate the effectiveness of this model. We hypothesized that survivors who received DVHF would experience less re-abuse and greater housing stability over 12 months compared to those who received services as usual (SAU). The sample included 345 IPV survivors who had been homeless or unstably housed when they approached one of five DV programs for help. Interviews were spaced 6 months apart (when survivors first sought services as well as 6 months and 12 months later). Longitudinal analyses showed that survivors who received the DVHF model reported greater improvements in housing stability at both the 6-month and 12-month time points compared to those receiving SAU. At the 12-month time point, survivors who had received DVHF reported decreased physical, psychological, and economic abuse, as well as the use of their children against them as a form of abuse. This study adds to a growing body of evidence supporting this model's effectiveness and adds to our understanding of factors impacting the long-term housing stability and safety for IPV survivors.

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

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a leading cause of homelessness, yet little evidence exists about effective strategies to assist IPV survivors as they work to avoid homelessness while freeing themselves from abuse. An ongoing demonstration evaluation is examining if and how one promising model assists IPV survivors in obtaining safe and stable housing over time. The Domestic Violence Housing First (DVHF) model involves providing IPV survivors with mobile advocacy and/or flexible funding, depending on individual needs, in order to attain these goals. We hypothesized that those receiving DVHF would experience greater housing stability and less re-abuse compared to survivors receiving services as usual. The current study evaluated the short-term efficacy of the DVHF model with a sample of 345 homeless or unstably housed survivors who sought services and who completed in-person interviews shortly after contacting the DV agency, as well as six months later. Those who received the DVHF model showed greater improvement in their housing stability compared to those receiving services as usual, as well as decreased economic abuse. Both groups experienced a sharp decline in all forms of abuse. The Domestic Violence Housing First model shows promise in helping unstably housed DV survivors achieve safe and stable housing. Study findings have implications for DV agencies as well as those funding such services. Understanding which interventions work best for which survivors is critical to ensuring that service providers are effectively working toward long-term housing stability and well-being for IPV survivors and their children.

The impact of COVID-19 on the safety, housing stability, and mental health of unstably housed domestic violence survivors.

Using data from an ongoing longitudinal study, we examined the impact of the COVID-19 stay-at-home orders on a racially diverse population of unstably housed domestic violence (DV) survivors over time. Specifically, we examined survivors' safety, housing stability, and mental health before, during, and after the onset of COVID-19, and how demographic, social, and familial factors attenuated or exacerbated the effect of the stay-at-home orders. Approximately 300 participants were initially interviewed after they sought services from a DV agency, and then again, every 6 months over 2 years. COVID-19 stay-at-home orders occurred midway through the completion of this multi-year study. Longitudinal mixed effects models were estimated to examine the impact of COVID-19 on the safety, housing stability, and mental health of survivors over time. We also examined models with several time-varying (e.g., employment, income, social support, and number of children) and time-invariant (baseline outcome scores, racial/ethnic identity, education, and disability status) control variables. Results revealed that safety, housing stability and mental health were improving for study participants before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic but plateaued after the stay-at-home orders were issued. Experiences of abuse, housing instability, and mental health symptomatology did not worsen as a result of the COVID-19 stay-at-home orders. Notably, social support and housing services emerged as important predictors of outcomes, such that participants who received housing-related services and greater social support reported less abuse, less housing instability, and lower mental health distress. COVID-19 temporarily disrupted the positive trajectory unstably housed DV survivors were experiencing in regard to safety, housing stability and mental health. These findings provide critical insight into the importance of service access during and after global catastrophes. Additional resources and support may be helpful in assisting survivors to return to their pre-pandemic recovery and growth trajectories.