“It Has Probably Saved My Life:” Experiences of Utilizing and Maintaining an Emergency Housing Voucher Among Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence

Background and Purpose: It is well documented that permanent supportive housing, especially in the form of federal vouchers, is the most effective strategy for interrupting the cycle of housing instability. Their efficacy, however, is in direct contrast to their availability, making them a coveted yet scarce resource. As a result, those who have vouchers often do whatever it takes to avoid losing them, enduring unsafe neighborhoods, subpar housing, long commutes, and loss of community. Few studies on this topic, however, have focused specifically on voucher holders who are experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV). Given that this population is dealing with at least two major sources of trauma—housing instability and victimization—their experiences warrant investigation. Thus, this study asked the following research questions: What are IPV survivors’ experiences of utilizing and maintaining a housing voucher? How has having a voucher affected their life, and what tradeoffs have they had to make?

Methods: This study was embedded within a longitudinal, mixed methods project to evaluate a program in a mid-Atlantic U. S. city to support IPV survivors who had an emergency housing voucher. We conducted interviews with a purposive sample of program participants (n=26) recruited from the full sample (n=223) approximately two years after they leased up with their voucher. The majority of participants identified as female (92.3%), BIPOC (80.8%), and with a child/ren at home (76.9%). At the time of the interview, all participants still had their voucher, and 73.1% were in their original unit. Over half (57.7%) reported IPV since voucher lease up, and three requested a formal transfer due to IPV. We analyzed data using qualitative content analysis, involving a two-cycle coding process and constant comparison.

Results: Four overarching themes emerged from the data, each with several subcategories. First, voucher holders experience an overwhelming lack of control over their housing situation that mirrors IPV dynamics. For example, participants described experiencing abusive treatment during the housing search and being blamed for system-level mistakes. Second, the “work” of maintaining the voucher requires time, resources, and skills that they need for other areas of survival. Third, achieving housing stability with a voucher is inextricably linked with the quality and fit of the housing they have access to. Finally, the voucher is a “blessing” but does not solve everything. For example, participants were effusive in their gratitude for the voucher and its many positive effects (e.g., escaping IPV, improving children’s wellbeing), but noted several costly tradeoffs (e.g., feeling “stuck” financially and in their units, ongoing anxiety about losing voucher).

Conclusions and Implications: Findings underscore the critical role of housing vouchers in IPV survivors’ safety and stability. In addition, IPV survivors need access to individualized support services to help them navigate the gatekeeping systems that determine their ability to maintain a voucher and focus on healing. Our findings have direct implications for practice and policy in light of an ongoing decimation of federal funding for permanent housing supports.