Victims of domestic violence face numerous economic obstacles to obtaining and keeping housing.  Women who are financially dependent on their abusers and women whose abusers control their assets lack the economic means to leave their abusers without risking homelessness.  Shortages of affordable housing can have the same effect. Privatization of housing in Central and Eastern Europe has led to dramatic price increases. A 2003 report on domestic violence and housing in Georgia found “the lack of adequate housing to be one of the main discouraging factors for women to seek divorce; to rescue themselves from perpetrators; [and] to rest and find forces for rehabilitation” (Dadunashvili, et al, “Violence Against Women and Right to Adequate Housing: the Case of Georgia,” October 2003).  Research on domestic violence in Albania, Armenia, Bulgaria, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan has revealed similar situations in these countries. Housing costs and shortages are also a concern in the United States.  According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 12 million households currently pay more than half their annual income for housing costs. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) reported that 46% of homeless women in Minnesota said “they had previously stayed in abusive relationships because they had nowhere to go” and that in 36% of U.S. cities, “domestic violence was a primary cause of homelessness” (ACLU, “Domestic Violence and Homelessness,” 26 October 2004).

Housing policies can further complicate a battered woman’s situation.  The experience of battered women living in federally funded public housing in the United States provides a good case study.  The Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1996 shifted the control of some policies from the federal to the local level and established “a zero-tolerance policy toward criminal activity.”  These changes have had significant negative effects for domestic violence victims. Federal policy had previously considered battered women a special needs group and had given them preference in housing; now, this policy is under the discretion of local Public Housing Authorities (PHAs). Only about 35% of PHAs have maintained this preference. “Zero-tolerance” policies have caused landlords to evict battered women along with their abusers if the police make too many visits to their housing unit. If women fear eviction, they are much less likely to seek police intervention for their safety. 

Lease agreements provide a third barrier to housing.  The nature of domestic abuse often makes it necessary for a woman to leave her home immediately, but if she is the lessee of the housing unit, she may incur financial penalties for violation of her lease.  Payment of such penalties is economically unfeasible for many women.  Battered women may also have trouble during the application process for housing.  They may have been evicted because of their partner’s violence or fled their abuser in violation of a lease, and fighting their abuser in self-defense can be seen as “violent criminal history.”  The PHA may deny the victim housing based on this history; if the PHA is aware that domestic violence was the cause, he or she may or may not choose to make an exception.

In many cases, battered women seek alternative housing.  However, if a woman wishes to remain in her house and to evict the abuser, ideas about property rights can be an inhibiting factor.  Leases for shared housing units are often taken out in the abuser’s name, making it more difficult to evict him.  In Ukraine, the Constitution’s provision for the right to housing has been interpreted to protect the right of an abuser to remain in the home.

“[Interviewees] interpreted equal rights to mean that the government may not infringe on men’s rights in order to protect women’s rights, just as it would be wrong to infringe on women’s rights to protect men…. when explaining why she had no authority to order an abusive man to leave the house, a judge stated that ‘everyone has a right to somewhere to live, so we can’t deny a man that right.’ Based on the application of the law, it appears that in the hierarchy of rights in Ukraine, personal property rights supersede a woman’s right to live free from violence in her own home. Lawyers and judges both maintained that the law in Ukraine is very rarely used to exclude a man from his home.”

The Advocates for Human Rights, “Domestic Violence in Ukraine,” 2000

Shelters and safehouses have been an important part of the response to battered women’s housing needs by providing a temporary safe place for women to stay.  Some also offer long-term transitional housing where women can have still have access to the services of the shelter as they prepare to move to a permanent housing situation.  While shelters provide much-needed temporary housing, they do not solve the problem of a lack of affordable housing.  In CEE/FSU, there has also been a serious shortage of shelters, in part due to the lack of affordable housing.  Advocacy groups have created crisis centers and hotlines in an effort to respond to domestic violence.

Advocates and attorneys in the U.S. and CEE/FSUhave had success enacting changes that help victims of domestic violence obtain secure housing.  In the US, the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA), reenacted in 2006, includes grants for battered women’s shelters.  If it is reauthorized in its current form, VAWA 2005 will contain specific measures to address housing barriers.  The 2003 Public Housing Occupancy Guidebook includes a section on domestic violence.  This chapter encourages PHAs to establish preference policies for victims of domestic violence, to inquire into domestic violence as a possible cause of negative rental history, to take steps to avoid evictions of victims, and to otherwise assist victims in finding safe housing.  In addition, a favorable decision by the US District Court of Vermont in Bouley v. Young-Sabourin found evicting victims of domestic violence to be a form of sex discrimination, unlawful under the US Fair Housing Act. Bouley v. Young-Sabourin, 03-CV-320, (D.VT. March 10, 2005) (order denying motion for summary judgment).

While there is still a huge unmet need for shelters and housing alternatives for battered women, positive changes are also taking place in CEE/FSU.  New shelters have opened, such as the Women’s Counseling Center in Kukes, Albania and a shelter in Khujand, Tajikistan.  Funded by the German Embassy in Albania and the U.S. Department of State, respectively, and coordinated by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the opening of these shelters shows the ability of international efforts to address the need for safe emergency housing.  

Domestic violence victims’ housing needs are also reflected in new laws.  For example, years of work by the Bulgarian Gender Research Foundation resulted in a new Bulgarian law.  It includes a provision allowing a victim to seek an order that directs her abuser to leave the housing unit and to stay away from the victim.  A new family law in Serbia, effective on 1 July 2005, has a similar measure. 

Compiled from:

Addendum to 2000 Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, “Economic and Social Policy and Its Impact on Violence Against Women” E/CN.4/2000/68/Add.5, 24 February 2000

American Civil Liberties Union, “Federal Law Protects Battered Women From Housing Discrimination, Court Rules,” 1 April 2005

Correia, Amy and Rubin, Jen, “Housing and Battered Women,” November 2001

Dadunashvili, et al, “Violence Against Women and Right to Adequate Housing: the Case of Georgia,” October 2003

Martin, Emily J. and Stern, Naomi S. “Domestic Violence and Public and Subsidized Housing: Addressing the Needs of Battered Tenants through Local Housing Policy,” Clearinghouse REVIEW Journal of Poverty Law and Policy, January-February 2005

The Advocates for Human Rights, “Domestic Violence in Albania,” 1996; “Domestic Violence in Armenia,” 2000; “Domestic Violence in Bulgaria,” 1996; “Domestic Violence in Moldova,” 2000; “Domestic Violence in Poland,” 2002; “Domestic Violence in Ukraine,” 2000; “Domestic Violence in Uzbekistan,” 2000; “Lifting the Last Curtain: A Report on Domestic Violence in Romania,” 1995

National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, “Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization”

Office on Violence Against Women, “Violence Against Women Act”

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, “Head of OSCE Presence in Albania to open Women's Counselling Centre in Kukes,” 20 June 2005; “OSCE Centre in Dushanbe helps open first shelter for women in Tajikistan,” 1 July 2005

US Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Public Housing Occupancy Guidebook,” June 2003

US Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Affordable Housing,” 27 May 2005