Locked Out: Lily’s domestic abuse dissertation
Lily Soaper is a University of Birmingham graduate, who joined the Gilgal team earlier this year to undertake research for her dissertation as part of her BA Social Policy.
I joined the team at Gilgal to undertake research for my undergraduate dissertation ‘Locked Out: A Socioecological Analysis of Systemic Housing Barriers for Domestic Violence Survivors’. Over the course of a few weeks, I spent around 27 hours with the team at one of the refuges, shadowing the staff to conduct research into the barriers that prevent survivors from accessing safe, long-term housing. I looked at the structural, policy and resource-related barriers, and how these challenges affect both the services supporting them and the recovery journeys of women fleeing from domestic abuse.
My time spent in the refuge with both the staff and the women staying there was eye-opening. I saw first-hand how staff worked tirelessly to navigate a system that too often hindered rather than helped. I witnessed the resilience of women forced to rebuild their lives amid uncertainty. And I came to understand that many of the challenges they faced were not isolated or exceptional, but systemic.
A system built to fail
These experiences are far from unique. They reflect recurring patterns described by frontline workers and documented in research. While it’s government policy for local authorities to grant domestic violence survivors ‘Band A’ priority (a category intended for those with the most urgent housing needs) in practice, this designation offers little protection against delay. As one domestic violence Support Worker reflected, “When I first started, six months in a refuge was considered a long time. Now? It’s often over two years.”
Behind these delays are deeper structural issues: repeated eligibility checks, inconsistent communication between agencies, and severe shortages in available housing. These issues do not entirely lie at the fault of local authorities like Birmingham; they have been compounded by long-standing structural problems. Policies such as Right to Buy, coupled with years of underinvestment and cuts fuelled by austerity, have eroded the UK’s social housing stock. One council representative explained, “We lose houses every week, and we can’t build them fast enough.” In Birmingham alone, over 24,000 households remain on waiting lists, while just 2,847 homes were allocated last year. Being categorised as ‘high priority’ means little in a system fundamentally unable to meet demand.
The resulting bottleneck turns refuges – intended as short-term safety nets – into indefinite holding spaces. For survivors, this means prolonged uncertainty and emotional exhaustion, feeling trapped in a system that replicates the control they sought to escape. For refuges, this creates unsustainable financial strain as they absorb costs without adequate funding – funding that austerity measures have stripped significantly in recent years. Between 2010 and 2012, 31% of funding to violence against women and girls (VAWG) services from local authorities was cut, with smaller organisations disproportionately impacted; 70% of smaller organisations lost funding compared to 29% of larger ones. Recent reports by Women’s Aid show these funding challenges persist, intensified by competitive contracting that further disadvantages smaller refuges. As a result, refuges are frequently forced to turn away women in urgent need due to extended housing wait times and severely limited capacity.
Trapped in transition: the human cost of housing delays
The emotional toll of prolonged housing instability emerged as a consistent theme across both interviews and observations during the research. While policy tends to frame housing as a logistical challenge, Support Workers spoke about the very real psychological strain placed on survivors who remain in temporary accommodation far longer than expected. One explained that, after several months in the refuge, women often begin to disengage from services entirely; not because they no longer needed help, but because they had lost confidence in the system. This shift was most visible around the eight- to nine-month mark, when women would ask: “Why am I still here?”.
In many cases, survivors felt they had no real choice in the process. Birmingham City Council – in an attempt to deal with long housing wait times – utilises a ‘two-offer’ rule. The rule dictates that applicants be removed from the housing register after a second refusal; while local authorities grapple with the housing crisis, this leaves some women feeling forced to accept poor or unsafe accommodation. Several Support Workers described women reluctantly agreeing to housing that was unsuitable simply to avoid being penalised. These policies, while designed to manage limited housing stock, risk replicating the dynamics of control and disempowerment that survivors are trying to escape.
‘The Housing Benefit Regulations (2006)’ states under section 7 that you cannot get Housing Benefit for two homes, except in limited circumstances, such as when someone is fleeing domestic violence intends to return to their previous home (Regulation 7(6)). However, when someone moves from a refuge to social housing, their entitlement to Housing Benefit for the refuge must end, and they must claim Housing Benefit (or housing costs through Universal Credit) for the new accommodation (Regulation 7(6)). This lack of overlap causes financial strain on refuges and adds further stress for survivors during an already difficult transition. This research highlighted several instances where women, lacking support from friends or family, had to move out quickly and alone, exacerbating feelings of isolation and anxiety. If the policy were adapted to include a short-term grace period, where both accommodations could be covered, it would ease this transition for survivors and protect refuges from absorbing the financial loss. One staff member explained, “It can cost us £330 per week per room, and if a woman’s transition takes two to three weeks, that adds up to nearly £1,000.” This lack of flexibility not only financially strains refuges, but forces survivors into rushed and isolated moves, intensifying their emotional distress.
Survivors with No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) status face even graver uncertainties. Their access to support is contingent upon discretionary decisions and charity intervention, leaving their safety almost completely to chance. Frontline workers highlighted the precariousness: “We can’t afford to house or support more than one or two women with NRPF because we’d lose too much money; we’d essentially be operating at a loss.” The absence of dedicated national funding for NRPF survivors exacerbates their vulnerability, reinforcing isolation and instability.
Policy priorities: from survival to stability
The stories shared in this research reveal deeply entrenched issues that require immediate policy intervention. Central among these is the urgent need for reforming Housing Benefit regulations, which currently prevent overlap in payments between refuge accommodation and permanent housing. Introducing a short grace period would offer survivors critical breathing space during transitions, ensuring that they move safely and with adequate support rather than under rushed and stressful conditions.
Equally pressing is the creation of a national, dedicated funding mechanism for survivors with NRPF. As evidenced, the current reliance on charities and discretionary support creates dangerous uncertainty and inequality, leaving many survivors vulnerable and dependent on chance. Establishing clear national funding pathways would eliminate postcode lotteries and provide consistent, secure support for survivors irrespective of their immigration status.
Finally, safeguarding continuity for survivors moving between local authorities is essential. Current gaps in multi-agency responses, such as losing Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) support during relocations, expose survivors to renewed risks. A robust, cross-county referral and safeguarding system is necessary to ensure continuous protection.
These policy recommendations are grounded in the realities faced daily by survivors and the staff supporting them. They represent tangible, achievable steps toward a system that prioritises survivor dignity, safety, and long-term stability, transforming housing from merely shelter into a foundation for true recovery and empowerment.
This blog is based on research conducted as part of my undergraduate dissertation in Social Policy at the University of Birmingham titled Locked Out: A Socioecological Analysis of Systemic Housing Barriers for Domestic Violence Survivors. Supported through the Jane Slowey Memorial Bursary from Commonweal Housing, the project involved 27 hours of observation and nine interviews with refuge staff, local authority representatives, and a domestic abuse survivor. It used and adapted Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory to explore how housing challenges for survivors are shaped across different structural and institutional levels. While the dissertation itself is not publicly available, I’m always happy to discuss the research further or connect with others working in this space.
Lily Soaper, BA Social Policy Graduate, University of Birmingham | Linkedin | LXS105@alumni.bham.ac.uk
