Addressing Housing Inequalities for Teenage Domestic Violence and Abuse Victims

The Issue of Housing Inequalities for Teenage Domestic Violence and Abuse Victims

The housing and health issue that will be considered in this assessment is lack of safe housing facilities for teenage domestic violence and abuse victims. This community often experiences inequalities in housing facilities as they are forced to reside in shelters with an abuser which impacts their health physically, emotionally, and mentally. In the United Kingdom, the cases of domestic abuse increased by 6% from 798,607 in March, 2020 to 845,734 in March, 2021. It must also be noted that about 600,000 incidents of abuse in a year the United Kingdom go unnoticed and un-reported (Elkin 2019). Domestic violence and abuse is linked with housing issues. Lack of safe home cause the women to stay or return back to their violent relationships. Violence is typically used by abusers as a strategy to exercise control and power over their partners and thereby isolates their partners from their support networks. Victims of domestic violence and abuse often have little or no access to money and very few friends to rely upon is they decide to flee from their violent relationship. According to literature research, women who live in rental houses experience intimate partner violence about three time the rate of women who have their own homes (Irving-Clarke and Henderson 2020).  This highlights the importance of safe housing facilities which can positively influence health.

Stakeholders are those people who impact the development of any process. Stakeholders involved in the process of property development include professionals involved in buying, development, and management of property. These include the central as well as the local government, landowners, local residents, amenity and environmental groups, building occupiers, architects, engineers and consultants, investors, and construction companies. The local government is an important stakeholder in this plan as they wear many hats in this developmental programme. It is the local government that is responsible for taking into account the views of other stakeholders such as environmental groups, local residents, and for evaluating the proposals against national and local planning policies. The local departments such as housing, education, environmental health, education, transport, and social services are also involved in taking the final decision by local politicians that may need internal negotiations (Shrestha, Sivam and Karuppannan 2019).

The Central government constitutes of different sections and services which have their own priorities and policies that may or may not work towards a common goal. Internal coordination is also needed among different departments and ministers of the department to deal with planning, national economic policy development, taxation, finance, urban regeneration, environmental regulation, crime and security, regeneration, social welfare, and regional policy. The local and the central government are involved directly in ensuring that the objective of housing development is addressed adequately in UK to address the housing inequalities faced by domestic violence and abuse victims (Jagpal et al. 2020). Landowners are also a crucial stakeholder in this process as they hold the resource- land, and their motives, attitudes, strategies, and interests majorly influences the developmental process. Other stakeholders such as amenity and environmental groups impact the development of homes by positively influencing the adoption of an organic approach which can ensure incorporation of ecological areas into the scheme. The power, openness, and the nature of variable influence of building occupiers also impact the intervention of developing safe homes for victims (Jagpal et al. 2020).

Stakeholders Involved in Property Development

Housing inequalities directly impacts neighbourhood amenities such as condition of other homes, the availability of social networks, pollution, rate of crime, and quality of social support. Possible changes that might be effective in addressing inequalities include constructing affordable and new housing units, addressing the gap in local funding, and limiting resistance that may arise from residents of established homes (Christophers 2021). The primary reason behind this can be attributed to increased stigma that exists in the society and the community towards victims of domestic violence and abuse. It is also important to ensure that appropriate housing supply such as credit and financial tools are available. The leaders can also incentivize and induce an equitable housing development plan that can aid in the development of housing plans and thereby address the issue of concern (Pain 2019).

To influence and negotiate with key holders in the development and delivery of proposed interventions, one can adopt the leadership strategies such as an autocratic leadership, as well as a Laissez-faire leadership approach. Autocratic leadership involves offering direction from a single direction- the top- by single figure who can lead the entire team. Adoption of this leadership strategy can determine the procedures, strategies, and policies in the direction of the team which ensuring that all the instructions are appropriately dictated to the subordinates. Such a leadership can be displayed which can ensure that that the leader holds all of the power and is in charge while being openly hostile and friendly (Chukwusa 2018). Laissez- faire leadership involves empowerment of employees, building trust with them to ensure accomplishment of task at the hand, and being hands- off. These leadership strategies can aid in negotiating with the stakeholders by competing, accommodating, avoiding, collaborative, and compromising which can ensure that the intervention of developing safe homes is established (Chen, Zhu and Liu 2021).

Example of where strategies have been effective in addressing the issue and housing and health inequalities among teenage victims of domestic violence and abuse in the United Kingdom is the CRUSH intervention. This intervention is a wide part of another initiative called the ‘Bristol Ideal’ which ensures that all schools create an approach to prevent sexual as well as domestic violence in all forms. This strategy was developed by West Mercia Women’s Aid. It is an intervention that is based on domestic violence and abuse (DVA) which targets about 13- 18 years old. The primary aim of the program is to offer adequate training to the facilitators to ensure that groupwork is structured with young people in practice settings. The CRUSH project increases awareness among teenagers regarding domestic violence and abuse and supports the recovering process of victims by facilitating long- term changes in their attitudes and values with regards to domestic violence and abuse victims. The initiative was undertaken by the Bristol City Council which is a unitary authority of both the district council and non- metropolitan county that focuses on tackling drug use, domestic abuse, crime, and alcohol usage among teenagers (Sweetland et al. 2020).

Addressing Housing Inequalities and Neighbourhood Amenities

In Bristol, it is estimated by the Home Office that approximately 14,273 women and girls between the age of 16- 59 years have been victimised due to domestic abuse. Domestic violence and abuse costs the local economy more than £40 million each year but the impact it has on the victims and the families cannot be measured in any way (Liebmann 2019). The potential implementation of CRUSH in the Bristol City in UK was discussed by the West Mercia Women’s Aid who confidently supported the proposal as the program was evidence- based and also appeared to be safe for the population of young girls. The intervention targeted young females primarily as they were at an increased risk to experience domestic violence and abuse. The program focussed to prevent and make interventions by changing the values and norms in relation to domestic violence and abuse (Hague 2021). 

CRUSH also aimed to target the facilitators who would aid in the delivery of sessions for teenagers at youth friendly locations such as schools, community groups, youth clubs, and other voluntary groups. Implementation of this strategy has also not faced any challenges with respect to partnership, however one apparent issue that arose was that participants who attended and underwent the CRUSH course were not able to deliver the information accurately to young females due to other factors. To address this challenge, CRUSH trainers were required to deliver at least 2 courses to young females within 1.5 years of their completion of the CRUSH training course. Few factors that ensured that the CRUSH program was safely implemented was the ability of the professionals to secure adequate funding, and to deliver the program widely, having a pre- established group on domestic violence that had good understanding of domestic violence and abuse issues and prior undertaken work on DVA which led to successful implementation of this intervention (Hague 2021).

In summary, the intervention aimed to achieve the outcome of raising the awareness of young people regarding issues in relation to domestic violence and abuse, inspire them for advocating the cause, supported the recovery of victims of domestic violence and abuse, and addressed the gap that arose in domestic violence and abuse victims with a primary focus on preventing and implementation of this intervention. All these outcomes positively reduced stigma among the population and also decreased incidence of domestic violence and abuse which ensured that safe homes were offered to the victims and thereby also positively influenced the health of the victims (Sweetland et al. 2020).

Leadership Strategies to Negotiate with Stakeholders

Recommendations that can outline the best way forward to address the issues of housing inequalities include collaborating in Systems Advocacy, improving the provision of services to survivors and victims, implementing public policy to reduce the barrier that exists between survivors and housing, and using a broad housing agenda to increase the number of options for survivors (Sullivan and Goodman, 2019). Victims often face barriers to safe housing which can be aggravated by housing systems which do not address the particular needs. Therefore, it is recommended that offering in-depth assistance to communities and the states to enable transformation can make the housing systems better (Sullivan et al. 2019). Technical assistance and training can be offered to professionals working in this field of domestic violence and housing advocacy who can aid in developing of resources that highlight the issue of housing, domestic violence, and homelessness. Increased collaboration among the stakeholders is another recommendation that can improve the implementation of existing policies and thereby strengthen the collaboration that exists between the housing providers and victims of DVA. Improving the provision of services to victims of domestic violence and abuse is also another recommendation (Voth Schrag et al. 2022).

Although emergency shelters help the victims with their current needs, however providers of housing facilities ensure that the long- term needs of the victims are addressed. Provision of services can empower and strengthen the victims and make them more competent to adopt a safe and affordable option which can build their lives again and prepare them before hand for housing facilities for the long term. Public policies can ensure that all the needs of victims of DVA are addressed and met via the housing legislations and regulations. Policies can be revised such that they communicate the need for housing, lack of safe home, and shelter to the policymakers at the local level and thereby strengthen the option for the victims (Stivers 2022). A bill can be passed that can help the victim with historic investments. It can also fund new projects and help in renovation of old homes to make it more safe for the community. Lastly, keeping a broader housing agenda can also increase the options of safe housing for victims. Long- term housing facilities and emergency shelters are essential for victims of DVA who want to leave the place of their abuser and move to a safe place. Thus, flexible systems must be promote which can support this transition by increasing the level of affordability, and also offering subsidy to victims (Slakoff, Aujla and PenzeyMoog 2020).

An Effective Intervention: The CRUSH Program

Thus, in conclusion this essay linked housing and health issues among the teenage victims of domestic violence and abuse, and highlighted how unsafe home impacts the overall health of this community. The research has demonstrated why housing is an important subject and the key stakeholders involved in implementation of safe housing projects and plans. Next, adoption of leadership strategies which can influence stakeholders were also discussed. Lastly, example of a strategy that addresses the issue of housing inequality wad discussed which is the CRUSH strategy was also discussed which aimed to increase awareness among the population about DVA and therefore ensured that a safe living environment was promoted.

References

Chen, X., Zhu, Z. and Liu, J., 2021. Does a trusted leader always behave better? The relationship between leader feeling trusted by employees and benevolent and laissez-faire leadership behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 170(3), pp.615-634.

Christophers, B., 2021. A tale of two inequalities: Housing-wealth inequality and tenure inequality. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 53(3), pp.573-594.

Chukwusa, J., 2018. Autocratic leadership style: Obstacle to success in academic libraries. Library Philosophy and Practice, p.1.

Elkin, M., 2019. Domestic abuse in England and Wales overview: November 2019. London: Office for National Statistics.

Hague, G., 2021. History and Memories of the Domestic Violence Movement: We've Come Further Than You Think. Policy Press.

Irving-Clarke, Y. and Henderson, K., 2020. Housing and domestic abuse: Policy into practice. Routledge.

Irving-Clarke, Y. and Henderson, K., 2020. Housing and domestic abuse: Policy into practice. Routledge.

Jagpal, P., Saunders, K., Plahe, G., Russell, S., Barnes, N., Lowrie, R. and Paudyal, V., 2020. Research priorities in healthcare of persons experiencing homelessness: outcomes of a national multi-disciplinary stakeholder discussion in the United Kingdom. International Journal for Equity in Health, 19(1), pp.1-7.

Liebmann, M., 2019. Bristol: Working together to resolve conflict and repair harm. Int'l J. Restorative Just., 2, p.298.

Pain, R., 2019. Chronic urban trauma: The slow violence of housing dispossession. Urban Studies, 56(2), pp.385-400.

Slakoff, D.C., Aujla, W. and PenzeyMoog, E., 2020. The role of service providers, technology, and mass media when home isn't safe for intimate partner violence victims: best practices and recommendations in the era of CoViD-19 and beyond. Archives of sexual behavior, 49(8), pp.2779-2788.

Stivers, L., 2022. Home and Homelessness. Encyclopedia of Religious Ethics, pp.1084-1090.

Sullivan, C.M. and Goodman, L.A., 2019. Advocacy with survivors of intimate partner violence: What it is, what it isn’t, and why it’s critically important. Violence Against Women, 25(16), pp.2007-2023.

Sullivan, C.M., López-Zerón, G., Bomsta, H. and Menard, A., 2019. ‘There’s just all these moving parts:’Helping domestic violence survivors obtain housing. Clinical Social Work Journal, 47(2), pp.198-206.

Sweetland, S.O., Skinner, T., Bloomfield-Utting, J. and Buxton-Beales, J.A., 2020. An Evaluative study of Project CRUSH: Education, Young People, Healthy Relationships and Domestic Abuse.

Voth Schrag, R.J., Wood, L.G., Hairston, D. and Jones, C., 2022. Academic safety planning: intervening to improve the educational outcomes of collegiate survivors of interpersonal violence. Journal of interpersonal violence, 37(9-10), pp.NP7880-NP7906.