Women who have survived domestic abuse and their accommodation experiences in England: January to June 2023

• Survivors reported staying in a range of accommodation types after leaving domestic abuse for varying lengths of time and with differing levels of support, including refuge accommodation, hotels, hostels and local authority-provided self-contained and shared accommodation.

• Survivors experienced barriers accessing and moving on from accommodation, including a lack of available accommodation and suitable options, lack of information on accommodation types and available support, having to navigate complex processes, and not feeling involved in decisions affecting them.

• In contrast to hotels and mixed-needs hostels, survivors spoke positively about accommodation that was most similar to a traditional home setting (for example, a self-contained flat in a refuge with a suitable number of beds and washing and cooking facilities) and with access to high quality emotional and practical support.

• Survivors described the importance of both physical and emotional safety throughout their accommodation experiences; accommodation that did not feel physically safe because it lacked features such as CCTV and security systems to prevent unauthorised entry was described as having a considerable negative impact on well-being, mental health and emotional safety.

• Personalised and empathetic practical and emotional support from service providers helped survivors feel that their individual needs and circumstances were taken into consideration during their accommodation journeys; this created a sense of emotional safety and aided their domestic abuse recovery.

• Survivors suggested priorities for future service provision, which included offering flexibility in recognising and addressing accommodation and support needs, better availability of accommodation with safe and appropriate facilities for day-to-day living, and better mental health provision for survivors within accommodation and after they leave.

In this report, "survivors" and "participants" refer to the 40 women who took part in this research with current or previous (within the last five years) experience of living in various types of accommodation after leaving domestic abuse, provided through local authorities or services such as specialist domestic abuse charities in England. Some quotes have been edited for language and grammar to improve accessibility, without changing content or meaning.

We have updated terminology used in this article and now refer to “accommodation” instead of “temporary safe accommodation”. This is to include different accommodation types, including provisions under the Housing Act 1996 and the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 statutory guidance definition of “safe accommodation”, while still highlighting important differences in women’s accommodation journeys after leaving domestic abuse.

🠕 Back to the top of the page

Background to our research

In October 2021, the Inclusive Data Taskforce (IDTF) published a report which included research and recommendations on how to improve the inclusivity of data and evidence in the UK. The IDTF identified several priority groups among those who are under-represented in UK statistics. This included victims of intimate partner and domestic violence, residents of communal establishments and the hidden homeless, among others, because these groups are "largely invisible" in published statistics.

For example, many domestic abuse survivors who access accommodation after leaving domestic abuse may fall within non-private residential household populations, which means they might not be picked up by surveys which sample from Royal Mail's Postcode Address File, such as our Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW).

Our existing data on domestic abuse largely reflect the experiences of survivors within household settings, as described in our Domestic abuse in England and Wales overview: November 2024 bulletin. For our definition of domestic abuse, see Section 9: Glossary. While there are some data available on the experiences of survivors in refuge accommodation, including data on victim services, there are gaps relating to the breadth and depth of survivors' experiences within these settings.

The IDTF encouraged innovative and flexible approaches to data collection to enhance our understanding of the experiences of relevant groups and populations, and to enable the inclusion of voices of groups currently underrepresented or missing from existing data sources.

Local housing authorities have duties to prevent and relieve homelessness under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996. This includes duties to secure accommodation for people with a priority need. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 was amended following the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. This extended priority need for homelessness assistance to eligible people who are homeless because they are a victim of domestic abuse. These changes mean that local authorities have a duty to secure suitable accommodation for eligible people, and any people who normally reside with them, who are homeless because of domestic abuse.

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 also places a statutory duty on Tier One local authorities to assess needs across their area and commission adequate support for domestic abuse survivors and their children in identified "safe accommodation". This is in statutory guidance on Domestic abuse support within safe accommodation. "Safe accommodation" is defined as single-sex, secure, and dedicated to supporting victims of domestic abuse, such as refuge accommodation.

This article uses a broad definition of accommodation that recognises the diversity of housing that domestic abuse survivors and their children may live in after leaving domestic abuse. Our research captures the experiences of those in accommodation provided by local authorities or services, such as specialist domestic abuse charities. It does not include privately-provided accommodation. For our definition of accommodation, see Section 9: Glossary.

In the context of emergency and temporary accommodation, most support focuses on physical safety. However, some researchers suggest it is important to consider "more-than-safety", as described in Bowstead's Spaces of safety and more-than-safety in women's refuges in England article (PDF, 634KB). The concept of more-than-safety suggests that survivors' recovery, autonomy, freedom, and preparation for independence beyond temporary accommodation settings are integral to their safety and protection from harm. 

Our research describes the experiences of women survivors entering accommodation, both before and after the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 was introduced. It is designed to provide insights into women's experiences of these settings, rather than as a policy evaluation.

Focus of the research

This research focuses on the experiences of 40 women who have survived domestic abuse.

Our data, collected in 2023, suggest that a higher proportion of women than men experience domestic abuse. Additionally, women seek refuge at a much higher rate than men. For more information, see our Domestic abuse victim characteristics, England and Wales article and Domestic abuse victim services, England and Wales: 2023 article. 

Research suggests that men's service needs are different. Men are less likely to relocate, less likely to have children accompany them, and more likely to have additional support needs. For further details, see Women's Journeyscapes research findings.

The experiences of men and those with other gender identities would benefit from additional focused research to enable their unique experiences and needs to be meaningfully explored and evidenced.

This research focuses on:

• experiences of accessing accommodation and domestic abuse support 

• journeys navigating accommodation settings

• the impacts of intersectional characteristics and circumstances on accommodation experiences

• needs and experiences of support within and after accessing accommodation

• experiences of "moving on" from accommodation

• survivors' conceptions and needs for safety throughout their accommodation journey

• survivors' recommendations to improve accommodation and the processes around accessing support

This report follows survivors' broad accommodation journeys, using participants' own words.

Accommodation journeys varied among participants. Some survivors experienced more complex, non-linear pathways involving different forms of provision and multiple moves from one accommodation setting to another. Differences in pathways might have been influenced by how survivors found help and who they received it from, alongside individual characteristics and circumstances.

This research explores survivors' journeys through different types of accommodation, including:

• refuge accommodation (including specialist "by" and "for" refuges)

• hotels and bed and breakfast (B&B) accommodation

• hostels

• local authority-provided self-contained and shared accommodation

While this is not an exhaustive list of all accommodation types available to survivors, these are the accommodation types reported by participants in this research. For more information on accommodation types, see accommodation in Section 9: Glossary.

We have attributed participant quotes used in this report to the types of accommodation they had experienced and their ethnic group. Those who had experiences of different types of accommodation have been attributed as "multiple types of accommodation" to avoid disclosure regarding specific experiences. Because of the diversity of the sample and associated disclosure concerns, high-level ethnic group categories have been used. For more information on participant characteristics, see Section 8: Sample information.

🠕 Back to the top of the page

Survivors can take multiple routes to access accommodation support and services after leaving domestic abuse, such as through interactions with domestic abuse support organisations, police or local authorities. Some survivors described unexpectedly having to leave their home because of emergency situations, while others described being in contact with services to develop a safety plan prior to leaving. Therefore, the time it took participants of this research to access accommodation ranged from less than a day to over a year. Survivors highlighted the importance of having emergency situations dealt with quickly.

As routes to access vary, so do access barriers and needs. Survivors discussed various aspects of their experiences of accessing and transitioning into accommodation, including:

• the invisibility of accommodation support services

• the complexity of systems and processes, and perceived inflexibility towards individual needs and circumstances

• survivors' preferences and experiences of involvement in the accommodation decision-making process

• the importance and availability of practical and emotional support from service providers

• survivors' experiences of leaving belongings behind and travelling to accommodation

• survivors' thoughts and feelings around moving into accommodation, including their experiences with children

🠕 Back to the top of the page

Invisibility of accommodation support services 

When reflecting on accommodation access journeys, many participants mentioned not being initially aware of the existence of emergency or temporary accommodation, including not knowing who to contact for help or what their rights were. As a result, survivors sometimes remained longer in a domestic abuse situation.

For survivors born outside the UK, a lack of general domestic abuse support and services available in their home countries, as well as the lack of visibility of accommodation support services, led to some participants being unaware of their rights and what support they could be entitled to in England. 

Participants emphasised the importance of increasing the visibility of support available for survivors of domestic abuse so they can be more aware of who they can contact and how. Participants observed some initiatives for raising awareness of domestic abuse support services, including posters placed in doctors' surgeries, schools, and libraries. 

Pre-existing knowledge or preconceptions of what to expect from accommodation after leaving domestic abuse could affect how survivors felt about accessing it. A lack of information or negative preconceptions about refuges worried some survivors. Participants said it was important for organisations and service providers to be aware of these preconceptions and how they affect survivors’ views about accessing their services. Additionally, it was suggested that, alongside greater awareness of available accommodation support services, there could be better initial information about specific types of accommodation and what they provide.

🠕 Back to the top of the page

Complex processes and inflexibility

Gaining access to accommodation could be challenging for survivors; they described having to navigate complex processes with some negative experiences of dealing with services.

Participants felt that individual persistence and proactiveness was important for navigating complex processes. Survivors felt like they were “going around in circles” trying to find the right person who could provide accommodation support. The processes for accessing help could sometimes be seen as lacking in empathy, which could take an emotional toll on survivors when they were feeling particularly vulnerable.

When accessing help, survivors described difficulties having to explain the domestic abuse they had experienced to service providers. This could lead to survivors reliving the effects of their abuse without being fully supported. Some participants described how some of the questions asked made them feel like they had to justify their request to access accommodation.

Some disabled survivors experienced barriers accessing accommodation, including feeling like they had to be “validated” by service providers in order to access appropriate, accessible accommodation.

Limited English-language proficiency was also seen as a barrier to accessing support and services for those who did not have English as a main language. Participants felt they had fewer options because of their limited English, especially where requests for interpreters were declined.

Some survivors with insecure immigration status and no recourse to public funds (NRPF) expressed worries about how accessing accommodation support and services would affect their right to remain in the UK. For our definition of no recourse to public funds, see Section 9: Glossary. The process was described as stressful, and some survivors did not know what support they were entitled to.

Although there are organisations providing support for survivors with NRPF, survivors were not always referred to them. This could leave survivors feeling they had limited options.

Participants suggested that support services and accommodation service providers should take the time to consult with survivors to understand their individual needs and circumstances to access accommodation. For example, those who were referred to specialist “by” and “for” services expressed gratitude for having their specific cultural needs and preferences met, including language services to help survivors fully articulate their needs. For our definition of specialist “by” and “for” services, see Section 9: Glossary.

Additionally, participants suggested that mandatory training on domestic abuse awareness and survivors’ needs could help improve understanding among professions likely to encounter domestic abuse survivors, and therefore enable them to better meet survivors' needs.

🠕 Back to the top of the page

Preferences and experiences of involvement in accommodation decision-making

When being allocated accommodation after leaving domestic abuse, some survivors described feeling excluded from the process, which could be disempowering. A lack of available accommodation and the emergency nature of some accommodation seeking meant that survivors were not always given options about where they could be moved to. Some participants described being moved to the first place available without much information or discussion about the accommodation.

In circumstances where there was no available accommodation, some participants explored self-funded short-term accommodation or staying with friends and families while waiting for other accommodation to become available. This was not seen as a long-term solution, particularly for those with children or limited access to funds.

The emergency nature of many survivors’ experiences also meant that survivors were not always given the time to look at available options. Some participants described the allocation to accommodation as being quick with limited time to make decisions or evaluate options.

Pressure to make decisions in short timeframes was noted by some to have negatively affected survivors’ ability to fully process information and reflect. Given the coercive nature and impact of domestic abuse, some participants were not used to being given options and felt unable to make decisions because of their emotional and mental state.

While not having time to be consulted about options was not ideal for some participants, others described being grateful that a decision was made for them quickly.

🠕 Back to the top of the page

Importance of early support and shared decision-making 

Among survivors who reported positive experiences of securing accommodation, various individuals provided support, facilitated access, or referred them to other resources. These included:

• police

• those working in domestic abuse organisations

• hospital and health workers

• school staff

• existing social or support workers

• friends and family

• neighbours

• colleagues

The support survivors received to access accommodation could come in many forms. This included emotional support for mental health and well-being, and practical support to help them navigate systems and processes. Both were seen as important in helping to access suitable accommodation and to feel that their needs were better understood. This was especially important at a time when survivors were processing what had happened to them and the implications for their lives.

Some survivors, particularly from some ethnic minority groups, described being isolated from their families and communities because they spoke out about the abuse they faced, contrary to cultural norms. They particularly valued connecting with others who understood and empathised with the issues they faced.

Overall, survivors noted the importance of early high-quality, proactive and empathetic support in helping them to feel heard and helped.

Working with support workers to access accommodation could also help participants feel more involved in decisions affecting them. For example, by being guided through different accommodation options and locations, and other information to help with decision-making.

When navigating complex processes, participants felt the involvement of professionals could also provide “leverage” in having their needs and preferences recognised.

A recurrent theme was that survivors wanted to be given a bigger range of options which better suited their needs and preferences, and to feel more involved in the decisions affecting their housing and lives going forward. They suggested survivors should be asked about their needs and preferences for accommodation, alongside timely, accurate and comprehensive information to help inform their decision.

Survivors suggested it was important for service providers to communicate with them openly and transparently while trying to access accommodation after leaving domestic abuse. They felt this would promote better understanding of what to expect in terms of processes and their challenges, as well as where and why there may be limited or no options available. While having more information could be daunting, it was seen as important in managing anxieties about the unknown.

🠕 Back to the top of the page

Leaving belongings behind and travelling to accommodation following domestic abuse

Following allocation of accommodation after leaving domestic abuse, survivors experienced a transition period that involved leaving their existing homes and moving into their new accommodation setting. For some survivors, this could happen quickly. Survivors described being moved within a day, sometimes with very little time to prepare, and limited information about the geographical location or the type of accommodation they would have.

In the urgency of moving into accommodation after leaving domestic abuse, survivors described not having much time to pack belongings and bring their possessions with them. This meant they had to prioritise essentials to sustain them for a few days over valuable and sentimental items. Those who needed to pack and move possessions for their children as well as themselves found this particularly challenging.

Some survivors described being supported by police to collect additional items when they felt it was safe to do so. However, many participants had no opportunity to revisit their previous homes to collect their belongings. Participants compared the loss of belongings to losing “everything in a house fire”.

This loss also affected children, with some participants describing difficulty in explaining to their children why they could not bring everything with them.

A deep sense of loss was also felt by those who had to leave behind cherished pets.

For those who did not leave their homes with assistance from the police or social workers, it could be dangerous to pre-pack bags or prepare to leave while the perpetrator was also in the home.

Welcome packs with some essentials, as well as age-appropriate packs for children, were provided upon arrival at some refuges or through support workers. These were praised for helping survivors and children to settle in and feel cared for.

Experiences of travelling to accommodation after leaving domestic abuse were mixed. Transporting themselves and whatever belongings they had to a different location, sometimes hours away, was a stressful experience. For those with no or limited access to funds, finding the money for public transport was particularly challenging.

Those who had help from friends or family to drive them to their accommodation setting, or support from social workers, police, or domestic abuse organisations to pay for and arrange travel, described feeling fortunate and grateful. Being escorted to the accommodation also helped survivors feel at ease as they did not have to travel alone.

Survivors travelling to accommodation following domestic abuse appreciated the connection and communication from accommodation support staff during their journey.

Survivors felt that it was crucial to provide support for travelling to accommodation after leaving domestic abuse, such as making it easy to organise or access funds for travel, especially for those with limited or no access to money.

🠕 Back to the top of the page

How survivors felt about moving into accommodation after leaving domestic abuse

Survivors described a range of intense emotions when they arrived at accommodation after leaving domestic abuse. This included shock, sadness and self-doubt, as well as feeling lucky or a sense of relief to be out of danger.

For many survivors, it took time to adjust, working through a new situation slowly and becoming more familiar with it.

Not all accommodation settings included domestic abuse support, as is the case with hotels, hostels and local authority shared housing, for example. This meant some survivors felt unsupported in their first few days in accommodation after leaving domestic abuse.

In contrast, refuge accommodation, which specifically caters for the needs of domestic abuse survivors, was described as offering emotional support and being welcoming when survivors arrived. Participants expressed gratitude towards refuge staff for allowing them to settle in at their own pace.

Being welcomed on arrival and shown around the accommodation and facilities was important to help create a more positive early experience of accommodation after leaving domestic abuse. When this didn’t happen, it could lead to feelings of isolation and being “abandoned” by the service providers who had helped them up to this point.

The early days in accommodation after leaving domestic abuse could also be difficult for those who felt they lost their existing support networks by accessing accommodation settings far from home.

It was suggested that providing support for settling into accommodation and allowing time to process the changes in their lives should be considered an important part of the transition process. Survivors also felt it was important for service providers and staff in the accommodation setting to understand what they had been through so they could be practically and emotionally supported, especially during the early days.

🠕 Back to the top of the page

Experiences of moving into accommodation with children after leaving domestic abuse

Survivors with children, including those who were pregnant at the time of accessing support and accommodation, suggested that making the decision to leave could be particularly hard because of having to consider the impact on their children as well as themselves. 

However, the move was easier for some survivors when their children were aware of a lack of safety in their home and wanted greater security.

Survivors described the challenge of looking after their children’s well-being alongside their own during this transition period. Participants could find it difficult to explain what was happening, especially to young children.

Survivors shared their concerns about the impact on their children of the transition to living in accommodation with other people.

Among those whose children had additional needs, the transition and new context could be particularly challenging.

As well as challenges associated with transitions into accommodation with children after leaving domestic abuse, being with family members could also add a sense of support and familiarity that was helpful to survivors.

Survivors also noted that there should be better emotional support from trained counsellors for children in these circumstances.

It was also suggested that more support for mothers, particularly those with babies, was needed to help with their emotional well-being. 

🠕 Back to the top of the page

Survivors discussed various aspects of their accommodation experiences, including:

• the types of accommodation they lived in, and thoughts on the length of their stay

• aspects of accommodation that did not work well for survivors

• aspects of accommodation that worked well for survivors

• the importance of support from accommodation staff and other service providers

• the impacts of living in communal establishments on survivors and the importance of private spaces

• the financial impacts for survivors and the importance of economic support

Types of accommodation and length of stay

Survivors who participated in this research described living in several different types of accommodation after leaving domestic abuse. These included refuge accommodation, hotels, hostels, and local authority-provided self-contained and shared accommodation. For further details on accommodation types, see accommodation in Section 9: Glossary.

Survivors described living in these accommodation settings for timescales ranging from a few weeks to several years. Hotel provision tended to be a more temporary solution, whereas hostels and some refuge stays were generally for a few months. However, some survivors stated that they had been in the same refuge or local authority-provided refuge accommodation for several years.

Length of stay differed on an individual basis but tended to relate to the suitability of the accommodation for longer-term living. Hotels, for example, were rarely used for longer than a few weeks because the facilities provided were very basic. A local authority-provided flat or a specialist refuge generally contained necessities such as a washing machine and cooking facilities, and were therefore seen as more suitable for a longer period of time.

It was not uncommon for participants to experience multiple accommodation types, particularly if they had initially been placed in a hotel or hostel.

The temporary nature of their allocated accommodation served as a reminder to survivors that this was not a permanent solution to their circumstances. There were mixed feelings and thoughts about how long they would remain in their accommodation setting and the implications for the future.

Survivors spoke about being told they would only be in a hotel for a short period of time while waiting for a longer-term accommodation option to become available, but then finding themselves there for a much longer time.

Survivors described the uncertainty and unpredictability around length of stays having a negative impact on their well-being. For most participants, this was linked to having to stay in accommodation that they felt was inappropriate, or that should have been used for a short time period, such as a hotel, for longer than they had originally expected.

For those who experienced living in multiple types of accommodation, having to move several times could have a negative impact on their mental health.

Participants stated that it is important to have a clear idea of what they could expect from services and service providers, and what next steps might look like and when. This can enable survivors to have a sense of control over their lives.

🠕 Back to the top of the page

Aspects of temporary safe accommodation that did not work well for survivors

Participants described some of the accommodation provided as lacking basic facilities. This was mostly experienced by those placed in hotels.

This situation was most commonly experienced by survivors who did not have immigration status to remain in the UK. These survivors often had no recourse to public funds (NRPF) and limited possessions with them when arriving at accommodation. For our definition of no recourse to public funds, see Section 9: Glossary.

While hotels could lack basic facilities for more than short-term stays, survivors also described experiences of local authority-provided accommodation that lacked basic amenities and offered poor living conditions. These included having no furniture, no access to hot water, infestations of mice and bedbugs, broken fire alarms, and no external lock on the door. Survivors identified these conditions as having a detrimental impact on the sense of safety and recovery from the domestic abuse they had experienced.

Across all accommodation types, survivors sometimes had to share a room, and occasionally a bed, with their child or children, which was described as not being helpful for recovery. This was particularly the case for those with older children or children with additional needs.

Participants flagged accessibility as another issue in some accommodation settings. Participants with pushchairs and wheelchairs described being placed in accommodation that could only be accessed via multiple flights of stairs, without access to a working lift.

Survivors who were placed in emergency accommodation, such as hotels or hostels, were more likely to say that they felt unsafe in the accommodation provided. However, this was also experienced by survivors in other accommodation types. Those who described being unable to lock their door securely, which was experienced by some living in local authority-provided accommodation, said they lived in constant fear, and this could be amplified for those with children.

However, even when participants said that they did not feel entirely safe in accommodation, they generally felt safer than when they were living at home and experiencing domestic abuse.

When basic physical safety needs went unmet, survivors expressed not being able to focus on safety in other areas of their lives, including emotional well-being and future prospects. Survivors said suitable and safe accommodation played a critical role in ensuring they felt more than just physically safe.

For survivors who had relocated from one geographical area to another, this move could mean disruption to the services survivors had received before. Some participants described feeling penalised by mental health services that did not continue to provide support after moving outside of the providers’ catchment area.

For survivors requiring access to healthcare during their stays, such as for ongoing health conditions or pregnancy, moving location could create new challenges. For example, one participant who was pregnant described being allocated to a refuge far from any hospital services. This created additional worry and expense for her to access maternity care.

It was suggested that provisions should be in place to support survivors’ access to healthcare, such as transport or funding for transport, especially for those with ongoing healthcare needs. 

For survivors with children, relocation sometimes meant having to change children’s schools and nurseries. Depending on when accommodation was needed and accessed, some children were moved mid-term with little notice, which could result in having to wait before they were able to enrol. In one instance, a survivor said it took up to three months to get her child enrolled in school. 

For another participant, the decision to move her children to a different school felt out of her control.

Some survivors worried about the impact of changing schools on the quality of their children’s education. For participants whose children had additional needs, changing school or nursery could be seen as detrimental to their progress and learning.

Survivors with children with special educational needs described the exhaustion and frustration they felt trying to navigate the system to get additional support for their children in addition to the difficulties they faced personally in their accommodation settings after leaving domestic abuse.

Missing education and socialisation opportunities were also concerns for participants whose children had not been allocated a space in school. Participants suggested that there should be more assistance for all survivors with children in accommodation after leaving domestic abuse to find school places for children and young people in their new locations or, where possible, to take steps to enable them to remain safely in their existing school.

🠕 Back to the top of the page

Aspects of accommodation that worked well for survivors

The best standard of accommodation after leaving domestic abuse was nearly always described as being like a traditional home, with the addition of “wrap-around” support including access to emotional and practical support. This type of accommodation included, for example, a self-contained flat with a sufficient number of bedrooms for a survivor and her children, and access to cooking and washing facilities.

Survivors said that being close to public transport, local amenities and green spaces was important for having a positive experience in accommodation after leaving domestic abuse. In particular, having access to a park contributed to emotional well-being.

Survivors emphasised the importance of the physical safety of accommodation settings. They described security measures as important and reassuring, such as CCTV, lockable doors and gates, and 24-hour staffing.

🠕 Back to the top of the page

Support from accommodation staff and other service providers

The presence and availability of caring, non-judgemental support staff in accommodation settings was reported to have a considerable positive impact on survivors’ experiences. Participants more commonly reported experiences of “wrap-around” support if they had been in refuge accommodation, where there was an emphasis on aiding recovery.

Those with experience of hotels described an absence of staff, and said that they were generally only able to speak to hotel receptionists if they needed anything. Staff in hostels, where present, were described as disengaged and sometimes not empathetic to survivors’ needs. This was attributed to the mixed-need nature of this type of accommodation. Survivors who had experienced hotels and hostels described having to rely on support from social workers or Independent Domestic Violence Advocates (IDVAs), where they had been allocated them.

Survivors with young children noted that support provided by staff in refuge accommodation made a positive difference to their experiences. This included providing toys, paper and pens for drawing, or childminding for a short time so survivors could have some time to themselves.

Survivors with young children who were unable to access childcare support identified this as a substantial gap in provision. The lack of childcare support affected their ability to carry out day-to-day tasks.

Survivors highlighted the provision of professional emotional support as being crucial for their recovery, as well as their children’s. This included consistent mental health support, such as counselling from a trained provider. Generally, participants felt this element of support had been lacking for themselves and their children in all types of accommodation after leaving domestic abuse.

Survivors also emphasised that support with accessing services was an important role of accommodation support staff. This included medical care, children’s education and financial support.

In this research, survivors with children who accessed refuges largely described feeling that they had received adequate practical support in gaining school places and resources to support their children to attend school. They also mentioned the involvement and support they felt their children had received from social workers and teachers. This discrepancy in the levels of support received was particularly highlighted by those who moved to refuges from other forms of emergency accommodation, such as hotels.

Both survivors with the right to reside in the UK and those who had NRPF required support to access funds. Some participants received practical support with benefits applications, such as Universal Credit, while others received support applying for the right to remain in the UK. Receiving support helped reduce the perceived burden of administrative and practical concerns, which meant survivors could focus on processing their trauma and recovery.

The support offered was viewed as an important aspect of helping survivors to feel safe and more settled. 

Participants reported that the intervention of refuge staff, through facilitating communication and peer group support, had a positive impact on relationships between residents. Opportunities to take part in organised group activities helped develop bonds between survivors with shared experiences and provided distraction from thinking about their past. Where these opportunities weren’t available, survivors discussed feeling isolated and having too much time to reflect on negative experiences.

Where participants identified a lack of “wrap-around” services in their accommodation, such as emotional support, this was generally attributed to a lack of funding and resource, meaning staff time was limited.

Participants identified the importance of service providers making it clear exactly what support they offer, so that survivors can access what they need and are entitled to.

🠕 Back to the top of the page

Support from other survivors

Some survivors, generally those born outside of the UK and those who had experience of specialist “by” and “for” refuges, described the importance of building relationships with other survivors living in the same accommodation who had similar experiences. They discussed participating in activities together, such as cooking and going shopping.

In some cases where survivors had no family in the UK, they referred to other residents and support workers as their “new families”. Survivors also described making friends in refuge who remained their friends after leaving the accommodation. For our definition of specialist “by” and “for” refuges, see Section 9: Glossary.

🠕 Back to the top of the page

Importance of access to private space in communal establishments

Being able to access private space while living in shared accommodation was linked to perceptions of emotional and physical safety, particularly for survivors who had experiences of hostels and shared housing.

For survivors with experience of refuges, being able to access private space was linked to their ability to choose whether or not to socialise with other residents and, ultimately, on their perception of emotional safety. Having some degree of choice and control in this regard was important because survivors described relationships with other residents as a source of emotional support, but they could also be problematic and potentially challenging.

Survivors described living with “strangers” as difficult and they could sometimes feel unsafe because they did not know who they were sharing their space with or others’ circumstances.

Participants described some instances of conflict with other residents, and how conflict between children could compound and exacerbate existing tension between mothers.

Participants described the importance of having the privacy associated with a self-contained flat with an adequate number of bedrooms for the family, stating that this promoted well-being and emotional recovery from the trauma of domestic abuse. Survivors highlighted the importance of having space to try to create some form of “normality” in a new situation and routine which could be very difficult to navigate.

🠕 Back to the top of the page

Financial impacts and the importance of economic support

Survivors commonly experienced financial hardship throughout their experiences, across all accommodation types. Survivors described struggling to live on the amount of money received through benefits payments. This situation was described as particularly difficult for those in hotels, who often had no recourse to public funds (NRPF) and who tended to have less access to other support. These participants discussed going without food at times.

Participants described hotels and hostels as commonly lacking basic necessities, including food and water. If survivors had to be placed in hotels as an emergency measure, they highlighted that adequate drinking water and food should be provided as a minimum.

A lack of basic provisions in some accommodations resulted in survivors having to access food through a charity, food bank, or other religious or community organisations. Participants described having to go to a place of worship to ask for food as distressing; some survivors felt they were being judged by people of their faith or culture for the situation they were in.

Participants, particularly those with NRPF, suggested that better initial financial support should be available to help survivors access and live in accommodation after leaving domestic abuse. This was highlighted as particularly important during the early access stages.

Financial support from domestic abuse organisations and public funds was seen as “really helpful” and could make a “huge difference” for survivors in all sorts of circumstances. Financial support from domestic abuse organisations was particularly helpful for those who had NRPF, with many survivors having to rely on charitable organisations or friends and family. For our definition of no recourse to public funds, see Section 9: Glossary.

Being unable to share the address of refuge accommodation for safety reasons also meant that survivors who had the right to work in the UK were unable to do so. Some described being discouraged from seeking work by accommodation staff as it would mean having to pay for their accommodation. According to some participants who worked, the costs associated with staying in refuge were extremely difficult to meet and, in some cases, prevented them from saving money needed to move into permanent accommodation.

🠕 Back to the top of the page

Survivors discussed several aspects of their experiences relating to accessing move-on or permanent accommodation, including:

• accessing move-on accommodation privately and through the bidding system

• barriers faced when navigating access to move-on accommodation through the bidding system

• the importance of support for survivors when transitioning into move-on accommodation

• feelings about moving out of supported accommodation

• aspirations and thoughts on their futures

The permanent or longer-term accommodation that survivors access after leaving of domestic abuse is often referred to as "move-on" accommodation. For our definition of move-on accommodation, see Section 9: Glossary.

The Housing Act (1996) describes duties to secure accommodation for people with a priority need. This includes those who are homeless because they are a victim of domestic abuse. Local housing authorities should consider what is most appropriate for each person within these provisions on a case-by-case basis, considering their unique circumstances and needs. Where homeless survivors wish to apply for permanent social housing, they would also be given priority for a social home under a local authority's allocation scheme. However, there is no official policy on the timing of when permanent accommodation should be provided.

Bidding systems to secure housing may apply to both local authority housing and accommodation secured through housing associations. Most participants who reported their experience of the bidding system secured housing through local authorities, however, a small minority secured housing through housing associations or private rental. For our definition of bidding systems, see Section 9: Glossary.

Participants who were not in a financial position to rent privately had experience trying to access permanent accommodation through the "bidding system". This is an online process to access local authority-provided accommodation. Experiences of the bidding system varied based on the availability of properties and the level of support received from service providers or support workers. Some survivors reported bidding for years, while others had bid on properties and moved into permanent accommodation within a few months.

Barriers to accessing move-on accommodation

Survivors in a financial position to do so described moving directly into private rented accommodation, because they saw themselves as less likely to be eligible for local authority-provided move-on accommodation through the bidding system. This was experienced particularly by survivors without children or with no registered disabilities.

Some survivors described using the bidding system to access move-on accommodation as a slow, frustrating process that often took months to complete.

Participants who experienced trying to access move-on accommodation through the bidding system described a perceived lack of availability and choice of properties. Survivors reported feeling as though a lack of appropriate property options had been offered to them and their families.

Participants with physical disabilities sometimes believed it would take longer to find a suitable move-on property for their needs. For others, particularly those with dependent children, accepting the first move-on property offered was seen to be the only option.

Survivors who did not have children or a registered disability described feeling that they would not be prioritised over someone who had children or a disability.

For those using the bidding system, turning down a property considered to be unsuitable for their needs could be a source of anxiety. They worried this would move them further "down the list" for housing, therefore extending their stay in their current accommodation setting, particularly in the context of limited availability of accommodation. There may be penalties for those who refuse a property, however, this is dependent on their local council or housing association rules. If the local council or housing association disagree with a woman's reasons for refusing the home, they can move them down the waiting list or remove them from the list.

The lack of choice or autonomy described in relation to accessing move-on accommodation was likened to feelings experienced while living in the domestic abuse context.

Impacts on mental health, such as anxiety and stress, were attributed to the uncertainty and lack of control experienced while navigating the bidding system. This was particularly related to expected timescales for housing decisions and the location of their move-on accommodation.

This uncertainty could also be compounded by a perceived lack of communication from housing officers, and by a sense of being "passed around" between different service providers, making it difficult to know their status for move-on accommodation or who to contact for information.

Survivors with insecure immigration status faced additional challenges accessing move-on accommodation, such as having to wait for applications for right to remain in the UK to be decided, during which time they may also lack access to financial resources and be ineligible to apply for public housing.

For survivors with no or limited English proficiency, contacting housing officers was described as difficult. One participant noted that she wished someone could have helped to aid her access to move-on accommodation during this stage.

Self-reliance and self-advocacy appeared to be the only options available to those dealing with the bidding process without the benefit of support workers.

Ultimately, much like at the stage of initial access, survivors felt that they should be supported to have a choice in their move-on accommodation to ensure their needs and those of their children were met.

Survivors staying in specialist "by" and "for" refuges did describe receiving support with accessing move-on accommodation, alongside assistance with immigration applications. Those who received these types of support felt it had helped them to access move-on accommodation.

Those with experience of other accommodation types highlighted the importance of having help to navigate the bidding system to gain access to move-on accommodation, describing a lack of help in their own situations. Survivors explained how the quality of assistance from a support worker was important to navigate the bidding system, not just the allocation of a support worker.

Importance of support when transitioning into move-on accommodation

Survivors who secured move-on accommodation reported that financial and practical support for furnishing their new accommodation (mostly accessed through local authorities or charitable organisations) helped it feel like "home".

However, the experience of receiving such support varied across participants.

Perceptions of the process of transitioning to move-on accommodation were mixed and depended largely on the level of support survivors received with their move. Access to transport and removals services varied among participants. Survivors who had their own cars described an expectation from others that they should be self-sufficient in their move.

Survivors' feelings about accessing move-on accommodation

The extent to which survivors recalled feeling prepared for the transition to move-on accommodation often depended on the perceived quality and suitability of the accommodation they had been placed in after leaving domestic abuse. Participants who felt supported in their recovery journey generally described feeling more positive about moving on. The level of support received during the move-on process also contributed to feeling "prepared" to take the next step.

Some survivors described feeling "unprepared" to move into move-on accommodation because of the uncertainty of change and more upheaval for themselves and their children, as well as having to rebuild their lives again. This was particularly the case for those who had experienced living in multiple types of accommodation because each move could involve having to leave behind established support networks and education.

There were also worries about their physical safety when accessing move-on accommodation, especially if this meant moving away from higher security measures to less secure accommodation.

Feeling "prepared" to move on to more permanent accommodation was often attributed to survivors' own actions in aiding their recovery and feeling ready to take the next step. This was often linked to support from staff which acted as a springboard.

However, concerns about losing this support and existing networks could lead to feeling unprepared, with fears of increased isolation after transferring to move-on accommodation.

Assurances that assistance from support workers would continue following their departure were important in helping survivors feel more comfortable with accessing move-on accommodation.

Despite challenges associated with moving on, the perceived stability afforded by more permanent accommodation was described as appealing and could help survivors feel ready. This was particularly the case for those with dependent children.

Survivors' aspirations and thoughts about their futures

Participants who had accessed move-on accommodation, or would be doing so in the near future, described aspirations for the next stage in their life. Survivors wanted safe, peaceful properties which they could "make their own", with access to amenities such as schools, and enough living space for themselves and their families. This was described as somewhere they could make a "fresh start".

Some participants wanted a property in a different location, which was some distance from where they had lived with their perpetrator or where they had stayed in after leaving domestic abuse, while others wanted to remain close to support networks and their children’s schools.

Those who had navigated the move-on process and were now in their permanent accommodation described feelings of relief relating to their new surroundings. Reaching this stage in their journey meant being able to focus on their recovery, particularly if their accommodation experiences had been difficult to navigate.

Accessing move-on accommodation was associated with survivors being able to “move on” with their lives: having a stable home, being able to build new support networks with neighbours, accessing education for themselves and their children, and being able to find work and be financially independent.

Some survivors spoke about aspirations to work in the domestic abuse sector to help others who had also experienced domestic abuse.

🠕 Back to the top of the page

When asked what “safety” meant to them, survivors provided reflections on their safety needs throughout their accommodation journey after leaving domestic abuse, describing the need for different types of safety at different points in time.

For participants, initial discussion of notions of safety centred around physical safety. Putting physical distance between them and their perpetrator was universally described as necessary to feeling safe. For some, this was linked to wanting their new location to be confidential so they were assured their perpetrator would not find them. This aspect of physical safety was desired throughout the recovery process but was particularly important during the very early stages of accessing accommodation after leaving domestic abuse.

Physical security measures were an important part of feeling physically safe throughout the accommodation journey and could include CCTV, securely locked and gated properties, and 24-hour staffing.

Despite most types of accommodation providing distance and safety features, survivors often described a lingering feeling of insecurity. Survivors described feeling they were “always looking over their shoulders” because of anxiety about being located by their perpetrator. Some measures helped to reduce this worry somewhat, such as having a panic alarm or direct line to the police.

Feeling physically unsafe had a considerable impact on well-being and mental health.

Further discussion of notions of safety also revealed the importance of emotional safety, and how physical and emotional safety are closely related. Most survivors felt that living in another town or city from the perpetrator was crucial for their physical safety. However, some participants also described having support networks nearby, such as friends and family, as an important element of safety; moving far away could limit access to such support. Feeling unable to return to their local area or tell loved ones their new location could also lead to survivors feeling unsafe because they felt isolated or unable to seek help when needed.

Feeling more physically safe enabled survivors to start eating and sleeping properly, and to “feel like themselves again”.

Some survivors described feeling safe as “freedom”.

Alongside physical safety, emotional safety was facilitated by having the support of others throughout the recovery process. This included continuous practical support from service providers, such as refuge support workers, Independent Domestic Violence Advocates (IDVAs), accommodation staff and charity workers.

Receiving practical support with completing administrative forms, accessing other services, or attending appointments were all identified as freeing up space in survivors’ minds to be able to concentrate on their emotional recovery. Professional mental health support from a trained counsellor was also described as an important factor in feeling emotionally safe, however this was often not available to survivors.

Although survivors placed different levels of importance on different aspects of safety, they noted that feeling safe was a basic human value.

🠕 Back to the top of the page

Thinking retrospectively about their journeys, survivors suggested improvements for services and processes, and offered advice for others considering leaving domestic abuse and accessing accommodation in the future.

Preferences towards location differed. Some participants preferred to move further away for safety, while others wanted to stay closer to their previous homes for existing services or schools, or other social and local networks. 

Feelings of frustration were expressed at the injustice of survivors having their lives disrupted in order to remove themselves from the abusive situation, rather than the perpetrator being removed. To address this, participants suggested that more needed to be done to remove the perpetrator from the home so that survivors and their children could safely remain.

Survivors acknowledged that the need to leave your home because of domestic abuse could happen to anyone, and that everyone has unique circumstances and needs. It was noted that a “one-size-fits-all” approach did not work for all survivors and that each person needs to be listened to and considered as an individual, acknowledging any existing barriers women face.

While the decision to access accommodation support and services was universally recognised by participants to have been the right decision, not all participants looked back positively on their experiences in accommodations, particularly those in hotels, bed and breakfast accommodation and hostels. It was important for accommodation to be fit for purpose and have appropriate facilities to accommodate day-to-day living.

Among those who felt they had received empathetic support, survivors described such support as making a big difference to their experiences and to their domestic abuse recovery. Participants suggested that more mental health support was needed to help survivors deal with the ongoing impacts of domestic abuse.

After leaving an abusive situation, survivors saw their lives improving and had the space to build personal strength and confidence. They offered thanks to those who supported them along the way. There was appreciation of both the services they had received during their accommodation journeys and of the staff who provided support to regain their confidence and begin their journey to recovery.

Survivors’ positive reflections of their accommodation journeys and any feelings of gratitude towards support workers and other service providers do not diminish the difficulties they experienced throughout. Nonetheless, participants generally had positive messages for others who may be in similar situations, encouraging them to access accommodation as a first step to ending the domestic abuse and starting their recovery.

🠕 Back to the top of the page

🠕 Back to the top of the page

Domestic abuse

Domestic abuse is not limited to physical violence and can include a range of abusive behaviours. It can also be experienced as repeated patterns of abusive behaviour to maintain power and control in a relationship.

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 defines domestic abuse as any incident or pattern of incidents between those aged 16 years and over who:

• are a partner

• are an ex-partner

• are a relative

• have, or there has been a time when they each have had, a parental relationship in relation to the same child

The Act recognises children aged under 18 years who see, or hear, or experience the effects of the abuse, as a victim of domestic abuse if they are related or have a parental relationship to the adult victim or perpetrator of the abuse.

The Act outlines the following behaviour as abuse:

• physical or sexual abuse

• violent or threatening behaviour

• controlling or coercive behaviour

• economic abuse

• psychological, emotional, or other abuse

🠕 Back to the top of the Glossary

Move-on accommodation and the bidding system

Move-on accommodation refers to the permanent or longer-term accommodation that survivors access after leaving domestic abuse. This includes council properties, housing association properties, or private rental properties. Council and housing association refer to properties that are secured through the housing register.

According to Shelter's housing advice web page, policies vary across councils, and in some areas, homes are directly offered. The term "bidding system" describes a choice-based scheme in other areas where people who meet the criteria for the properties on the list express their interest in a home, usually online. The council then offer the property to the person on the housing register with the most priority, usually decided based on points or banding.

🠕 Back to the top of the Glossary

Non-private residential household populations

While there is no formal definition of non-private residential household populations, for the purposes of our research, this population includes people living in communal establishments and those who have a "temporary" household status.

🠕 Back to the top of the Glossary

No recourse to public funds

The House of Commons Library notes that migrants in the UK on visas, illegally or seeking asylum are usually ineligible for most social welfare benefits and public housing. This is referred to as having "no recourse to public funds" or "NRPF". Most temporary migrants have no recourse to public funds, with human rights exceptions.

Under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, people who do not have any immigration permission, or whose visa comes with an individual NRPF condition, are excluded from benefits and housing. An NRPF condition is mandatory for most types of visas. Citizens Advice's No Recourse to Public Funds web page notes that this condition excludes eligibility to vital benefits like Universal Credit and Child Benefit, as well as a range of other support like homelessness assistance or access to refuges that rely on public funds to operate.

A few categories of people, including those granted permission to remain in the UK for human rights reasons, can apply for a "change of conditions" granting them recourse to public funds.

The list of public funds covers a wide range of social security benefits, tax credits and housing assistance. Local authorities have some statutory duties to support people with NRPF, in particular families with children.

While making a claim for indefinite leave to remain, people who have come to the UK on a spousal visa are entitled to access accommodation and benefits through the Domestic Violence Destitution Concession for three months.

🠕 Back to the top of the Glossary

Specialist "by" and "for" services

Specialist "by" and "for" services are services that are designed and led by those that share the same characteristic or characteristics as the people they aim to serve, such as ethnic group, country of birth or religion.

🠕 Back to the top of the Glossary

Support workers

In this research, the term "support worker" covers a variety of different support staff who supported women who had survived domestic abuse. These include Independent Domestic Violence advocates (IDVAs), family support workers, social workers, voluntary and charity staff, accommodation staff, and any other staff allocated by services providers to give "support".

The term "support worker" was used by many survivors and often without detail about the capacity in which they provided support or through which organisation they accessed the support worker. For clarity, where survivors gave explicit information about the professional role of their "support worker", this has been included within the report.

🠕 Back to the top of the Glossary

Accommodation

This article uses a broad definition of accommodation that recognises the diversity of housing that domestic abuse survivors and their children may live in after leaving domestic abuse. Our research captures the experiences of those in accommodation provided by local authorities or services, such as specialist domestic abuse charities. It does not include privately-provided accommodation. The accommodation referred to includes:

• refuge accommodation, including specialist "by and for" refuges provided by charitable organisations, and local authority-provided refuges

• hotels and bed and breakfasts (B&B), primarily used as emergency accommodation

• hostels, including single-sex, mixed-sex, and mixed-needs hostels

• self-contained temporary accommodation, mostly provided by local authorities

• shared housing, provided by local authorities

This is not an exhaustive list of all accommodation types available to survivors. These are the accommodation types that were reported by participants in our research.

Local housing authorities have duties to prevent and relieve homelessness under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996. This includes duties to secure accommodation for people with a priority need. This extends priority need for homelessness assistance to eligible people who are homeless because they are a victim of domestic abuse. These changes mean that local authorities have a duty to secure suitable accommodation for eligible people, and any people who normally reside with them, who are homeless because of domestic abuse.

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 also places a statutory duty on Tier One local authorities to assess needs across their area and commission adequate support for domestic abuse survivors and their children in identified "safe accommodation". This is defined in statutory guidance on Domestic abuse support within safe accommodation. "Safe accommodation" is defined as single-sex, secure, and dedicated to supporting victims of domestic abuse, such as refuge accommodation.

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 identifies specific accommodation settings as safe. These include:

• refuge accommodation

• specialist safe accommodation

• dispersed accommodation

• second stage accommodation

• and other forms of domestic abuse emergency accommodation

In the context of emergency and temporary accommodation, most support focuses on physical safety. However, some researchers suggest it is important to consider "more-than-safety", as described in Bowstead's Spaces of safety and more-than-safety in women's refuges in England article (PDF, 634KB). The concept of more-than-safety suggests that survivors' recovery, autonomy, freedom, and preparation for independence beyond temporary accommodation settings are integral to their safety and protection from harm.

🠕 Back to the top of the Glossary

Refuge

The term "refuge" was most often used to describe single-sex accommodation provided specifically for survivors of domestic abuse. This accommodation often featured services, such as counselling, workshops and activities for survivors to participate in, and was mostly provided by specialist charities. However, some refuges were provided by the local authority.

The refuges described most often had individual bedrooms with shared communal spaces, such as kitchens and living room areas, while others were self-contained with their own kitchen and bathroom. The refuges ranged from housing a small number of single survivors to multiple families across 20 flats.

🠕 Back to the top of the Glossary

Hotel

Hotels were a form of "emergency accommodation" that were generally said to consist of an en-suite room in a large building. Some hotels were also open to members of the public. Survivors who stayed in hotels were sometimes caring for young children and described not having access to cooking facilities other than a kettle.

Hostel

Hostels, which were sometimes considered to be "emergency accommodation", were mostly described as "mixed-need", meaning they were also used to house other "at-risk" groups, such as those with a history of homelessness or substance misuse. Hostels were often described as requiring residents to share a kitchen and sometimes a bathroom, but were sometimes self-contained except for a laundry room.

Shared and self-contained local authority-provided accommodation

Local authority-provided properties varied between self-contained and shared housing. Self-contained accommodations were generally described as flats or studios in mixed-need buildings but did not require residents to share facilities. Shared housing was described as a room within a mixed-need shared house where facilities such as bathrooms, kitchens, living areas and washing facilities were all shared.

🠕 Back to the top of the Glossary

Trauma-informed practice

Trauma-informed practice recognises that individuals' responses are a way of adapting and coping with symptoms of trauma. It requires understanding of the effects of trauma, recognising trauma triggers and trauma responses, and integrating trauma-informed practice into professional conduct or a programme of work, or both.

Trauma-informed practice is based upon strengths and the principles of safety, trustworthiness, choice, collaboration and empowerment alongside respect for diversity, as outlined in Fallot and Harris's Creating Cultures of Trauma-Informed Care (CCTIC): A Self-Assessment and Planning Protocol (PDF 201KB).

Trauma-informed practice:

• prevents trauma

• contributes to, and supports, recovery from trauma

• provides professionals in a wide range of settings with knowledge and confidence when working with people affected by trauma

• enables physical and psychological safety for those affected by trauma and for those working with them

• reduces the risks of re-traumatising

• builds reparative relationships that support engagement and recovery

• supports practice to achieve what it sets out to do

🠕 Back to the top of the Glossary

Women who have survived domestic abuse

“Survivors of domestic abuse” refers to the women aged 18 years and over who took part in this research, with current or previous (within the last five years) experiences of living in various types of accommodation because of domestic abuse that are provided through local authorities or services, such as specialist domestic abuse charities, in England. Civil society organisations and service provider gatekeepers assisted this research by identifying survivors of domestic abuse with relevant experience.

🠕 Back to the top of the page

From January to March 2023, Interventions Alliance conducted 40 in-depth interviews with women who have survived domestic abuse across England on behalf of the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Interventions Alliance are a specialist provider of justice and social care, with a dedicated in-house research team with previous experience researching domestic abuse. 

Approach to sampling and recruitment

A maximum variation purposive sampling approach was used to gather a wide range of perspectives relating to accommodation experiences. For our definition of accommodation, see Section 9: Glossary. The sampling frame for this research focused on achieving a diverse sample of women who have survived domestic abuse and who either had current, or previous accommodation experience, or both, after leaving domestic abuse within the last five years and:

• had lived in different types of accommodation

• currently lived in different areas of England (including rural and urban areas)

• were of different ages and ethnic backgrounds

We used this approach to explore how these different characteristics may shape access and engagement experiences. The sample information in our accompanying dataset provides aggregate information on the characteristics of participants for the planned and achieved sample. Most survivors had accommodation experiences within the last five years, with the exception of one participant.

Participants were recruited through referrals from civil society organisations and are referred to as either “current experience” or “previous experience” based on their situation at the time of their interview.

Design and materials

The design of the research and the research materials were developed using trauma-informed practices (see Section 9: Glossary). These practices seek to: 

• prevent traumatisation or re-traumatisation

• contribute to and support recovery from trauma 

• enable physical and psychological safety for those affected by trauma and for those working with them 

The research also received approval from the National Statistician's Data Ethics Advisory Committee (NSDEC). 

A 10 to 15-minute pre-interview briefing call was held with participants prior to the main interview. This was to outline the research process in detail, ensure informed consent, and provide an opportunity for the participant to ask any questions. 

A participant-led approach was taken in the interviews, which lasted approximately 75 minutes, to allow participants to discuss their journeys and what was most important to them. The flexible, trauma-informed interview format accommodated the specific needs and preferences of each participant, such as checking in with participants during the interview and taking breaks whenever needed. Participant preference for interview mode was discussed during the pre-briefing call, with most interviews conducted online using Microsoft Teams (38), and the remainder in person (2). 

A translation service was offered for those who preferred to participate in a language other than English. Where participant interviews were conducted in a language other than English, translated quotes used in this report have been attributed accordingly. 

Two expert advisory groups guided the research to ensure that all research materials reflected the diverse experiences of survivors. The "experts by profession" advisory group included academics, policy colleagues, domestic abuse charities and regional stakeholder networks. The "experts by experience" advisory group included women who had survived domestic abuse and had experiences of living in different types of accommodation after leaving domestic abuse.

The participant materials used in the in-depth interviews are available on request from equalities@ons.gov.uk.

Approach to analysis

In-depth interviews were audio recorded following participants' consent and then transcribed verbatim. Interview transcripts were analysed thematically using coding to identify themes, patterns and concepts within participants' accounts. 

Initial interview transcripts were coded using open, descriptive coding, with codes subsequently organised into a coding framework. This formed the basis of continued analysis in NVivo 12 (QSR, Australia), with codes being further developed and adapted as analysis progressed. 

Findings were constantly compared within and between cases to test and explore initial themes, and differences were actively sought. 

Strengths and limitations

Strengths of the research include: 

• a flexible, participant-led approach to interviews, which enabled a nuanced understanding of how survivors experienced their accommodation journeys, what was important to make them to feel safe, and what could help improve accommodation experiences for survivors in future

• the familiarity and rapport built during a pre-briefing call used to introduce the participant to the research and the researcher, providing an opportunity for questions prior to the interview, and to gain an understanding of participant needs for the interview

• the purposive sampling strategy which achieved a spread of participant characteristics; this encouraged a wide range of participant experiences and accounts to emerge 

• participant recruitment through civil society organisations, which meant that survivors already connected with services could access relevant support following the interview if needed, as well as facilitating trust and encouraging participation by working with trusted sources 

• support from advisory groups throughout the research process, which ensured the appropriateness and relevance of the research and the research materials, maximising the potential benefit and minimising risk of harm

Limitations of the research include: 

• the generalisability of the research findings, because these are limited to the concepts presented by participants; findings may not apply in different contexts or settings, and may change over time

• the recruitment being heavily reliant on civil society organisation gatekeepers to identify and invite eligible participants; this may have unintentionally excluded potential participants from taking part 

• the variation of language used by participants and within policy documents when referring to types of accommodation and services, making it difficult to compare or contrast experiences directly 

• the ability to collect details about accommodation and service providers; this was limited because participant recruitment was carried out by a third party 

• the ability to capture experiences and barriers which contribute to some survivors not accessing accommodation support, because all participants in this research had accessed accommodation after leaving domestic abuse

🠕 Back to the top of the page

This publication represents the outcome of a collaborative effort. The Centre for Equalities and Inclusion Qualitative Research Team are grateful for the expert advice, contributions and assistance provided by many people throughout this research. Most notably, our "experts by experience" and "experts by profession" advisory groups.

Our experts by profession group comprised Sarah Davidge (Women’s Aid), Michaela Bruckmayer (Refuge), Baljit Banga (Imkaan), Hannana Sidiqui (Southhall Black Sisters), Janet Bowstead, Nicky Stanley (University of Central Lancashire), Nancy Lombard (Glasgow Caledonian University) and Michele Burman (University of Glasgow).

We would specifically like to acknowledge the help provided at important stages of the research by:  

• Kerry Ellis Devitt and Jess Lawrence (Interventions Alliance, part of the Seetec Group) 

• Stacey Musimbe-Rix (Freelance researcher) 

• Ravi K. Thiara (University of Warwick) 

• Emilie Smeaton (Independent trauma-informed research advisor)

🠕 Back to the top of the page

If you or someone you know has experienced abuse, help is available: 

• if you feel unsafe call 999 and ask for the police 

• if you cannot use a voice phone, you can text REGISTER to 999 and you will receive a text message which tells you what to do next 

• you can call Refuge's National Domestic Abuse Helpline for free 24 hours a day on 0808 200 0247 

• you can call the National LGBT+ Domestic Abuse Helpline on 0800 999 5428 (run by Galop) 

• for information and support via a live chat, you can visit the Women's Aid website 

• you can call Welsh Women's Aid on 0808 801 0800 

• you can contact The Forced Marriage Unit on 02070 080151 

• you can call Mind's mental health support on 0300 123 3393 or email info@mind.org.uk  

• you can call Rape Crisis on 0808 500 2222 

• you can call The National Stalking Helpline on 0808 802 0300 (run by Suzy Lamplugh Trust) 

• you can call Samaritans on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org 

• you can call The Survivors Trust on 0808 801 0818 

• you can call Victim Support on 0808 168 9111 

• male victims of domestic abuse can contact ManKind Initiative on 01823 334244 

• male victims of domestic abuse can contact Respect's men's advice line on 0808 8010327 

• for people who are worried they may be perpetrating domestic violence, Respect's phoneline can be called on 0808 802 4040

🠕 Back to the top of the page

🠕 Back to the top of the page

🠕 Back to the top of the page