Abuse, homelessness or debt? The impossible choices facing survivors of domestic abuse

A common myth about domestic abuse is: ‘If it was really that bad, she’d leave’. But leaving is not simply a question of deciding to do so (which can itself be a difficult process). It involves navigating personal danger, children’s needs and multiple different support agencies, each with different processes and criteria. And it can cost £50,000 or more, including the costs of rebuilding a new life over the course of a year.

This is a significant amount of money for anyone, let alone for women who have faced years of economic abuse. Women’s Aid’s research in 2022 found that two thirds of survivors (67%) couldn’t get even £500 together if they needed to. The combined effects of economic abuse and the cost-of-living crisis are reducing survivors’ options.

Whilst support is available from the state – in the form of benefits, legal aid and grants – it does not cover the full costs survivors face. Women’s Aid’s new report, The Price of Safety, finds a £10,000 deficit for a survivor with a ‘typical’ fleeing journey (survivors with no recourse to public funds face double this). This deficit can push survivors who leave into debt, poverty or homelessness. Perpetrators know this. The inadequacy of financial support is something they exploit to keep survivors trapped.

What would it take to make the system work for survivors, rather than perpetrators? Our research shows the need for financial support which is sufficient, accessible and domestic abuse informed.

Sufficient

Earlier this year, the Work and Pensions Committee noted ‘the wide range of evidence which suggests that benefit levels are too low’ and render daily living costs unaffordable.

For survivors who leave, they have to cover not just daily expenses, but also the high upfront costs of setting up a new life: possessions, housing, furniture. Many do not have savings or employment income to fall back on, due to previous economic abuse. This triple bind – low benefits, low savings, high costs – can make safety and independence near on impossible.

On top of this, survivors are often hit by arbitrary limits like the benefit cap. The cap disproportionately affects lone parent households, which are mostly led by women. It contributes towards homelessness by making private rents and even some social rents unaffordable. As a result, some survivors are forced to return to the perpetrator, which exposes them and their children to more harm.

For the social security system to be sufficient, the level of benefits must be tied to the cost of living. The Government should scrap arbitrary caps which break the link between entitlement and need, as well as investing in funds targeted at the specific financial challenges survivors face, like the Flexible Fund.

Accessible

The second principle is accessibility, because it doesn’t matter how high benefits levels are if survivors can’t receive them.

A major issue is that survivors on certain visas or with insecure immigration status have no recourse to public funds. This prevents them from accessing benefits and means that they face a £20,000 deficit – double that of other survivors.

According to research by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, granting these survivors eligibility for public funds could lead to an additional 32,000 reports of abuse each year, enabling them to access lifesaving support. It would also result in social gains worth almost £2.3 billion over 10 years.

For the social security system to be accessible, survivors should be exempted from the no recourse to public funds condition so they can access lifesaving benefits.

Domestic abuse informed

Most support is not domestic abuse informed, meaning it does not account for the trauma survivors have gone through or the reality of their current circumstances. Here are some examples:

• Some survivors applying for child maintenance have been asked to investigate their ex-partners finances themselves, which would put them in danger of further abuse.
• Some survivors applying to the council for emergency accommodation have been housed in mixed sex hostelswith poor security, where they are exposed to further harm.
• The Universal Credit application form cannot be submitted without providing bank details, even though the law does not require them at this stage. This delays survivors’ access to benefits until they can order new ID (as the perpetrator often hides this) and set up a new bank account (as the perpetrator may have access to the old one).

An example of best practice is the Flexible Fund. This fund, provided by the Home Office and distributed by Women’s Aid, supports survivors with grants to flee and ‘stay fled’. Crucially, applications for Flee Fund grants are approved within two working days, unlike Universal Credit which is paid in arrears. They can also be paid in cash or vouchers for survivors who do not yet have a bank account. At vital transition points, this can mean the difference between staying fled and having to return to the perpetrator.

The Government should guarantee ongoing funding for the Flexible Fund and assess all new social security policies for their impact on survivors’ ability to flee.

Saving money, saving lives

The Government has committed to halving violence against women and girls (VAWG) – of which domestic abuse is the most common type. To do this, they will need to enable survivors to leave abusers and rebuild safe, secure lives for them and their children. This won’t be possible without significant improvements to the social security system.

Whilst these improvements will require investment, they will save the Government money in the long run. Domestic abuse costs society around £78 billion a year, which include criminal justice, health and employment costs. The longer a survivor is forced to stay with the perpetrator, the more harms she and her children will experience and the higher the costs will be.

It makes economic as well as moral sense to reduce the financial barriers to fleeing. Survivors’ safety depends on it.

All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of the IPR, nor of the University of Bath.