IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/houspd/v30y2020i5p783-805.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

No Easy Decisions: Developing an Evidence-Informed Process to Allocate Housing Choice Vouchers to Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence

Author

Listed:
  • Kristie Thomas
  • Jill T. Messing
  • Allison Ward-Lasher
  • Allie Bones

Abstract

This article describes the development of an evidence-informed screening tool and process to allocate 25 Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs) to homeless and unstably housed survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV) through an innovative pilot program called SASH (Survivors Achieving Stable Housing). Informed by empirical and community-defined evidence, the screening tool comprised two forms, a survivor self-referral form and a form completed by a domestic violence (DV) advocate on the survivor’s behalf. Responses were scored such that higher scores indicated fewer barriers to the SASH definition of housing success (i.e., to lease up with and maintain an HCV). We received 92 applications, primarily from survivors living in DV shelters. Of those, 31 were excluded; the remaining 61 were randomized into either the voucher or the queue group. Survivors needed considerable advocacy from the SASH team to move through the public housing authority application process as well as financial assistance to lease up. Lessons learned during the SASH project have important implications for DV and housing practitioners, especially those involved in developing coordinated entry procedures. These lessons include the utility and feasibility of screening questions and tools, moral dilemmas of resource allocation, and challenges of working across siloed systems and policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Kristie Thomas & Jill T. Messing & Allison Ward-Lasher & Allie Bones, 2020. "No Easy Decisions: Developing an Evidence-Informed Process to Allocate Housing Choice Vouchers to Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence," Housing Policy Debate, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(5), pages 783-805, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:houspd:v:30:y:2020:i:5:p:783-805
    DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2020.1755336
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/10511482.2020.1755336
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/10511482.2020.1755336?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:houspd:v:30:y:2020:i:5:p:783-805. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RHPD20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.