Domestic Violence Discrimination in Housing
April 24, 2008 6:06 AM Subscribe
Disclosing victim status could mean being denied that housing is even available. Women strong enough to flee their homes and their abusive situations were more likely to be denied housing outright, something that did not happen to people not disclosing.
Okay, but is there any info as to why this might be? The thread abstract rather succinctly tells us everything in the article, so there's barely a need to click on it...
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:33 AM on April 24, 2008
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:33 AM on April 24, 2008
That's still not good, but not as dumbstriking as I found it at first (who denies abused women shelter??).
Well, the landlords are trying to run a business, not provide social services. I'm not surprised they would prefer a tenant who can't break the lease without penalty.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 6:36 AM on April 24, 2008
Well, the landlords are trying to run a business, not provide social services. I'm not surprised they would prefer a tenant who can't break the lease without penalty.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 6:36 AM on April 24, 2008
It could also be that 8 out of 93 landlords don't want to rent to people who won't call the landlords themselves.
posted by Citizen Premier at 6:37 AM on April 24, 2008
posted by Citizen Premier at 6:37 AM on April 24, 2008
There's probably also the impression (whether accurate or not) that abuse victims who are seeking shelter are underemployed.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 6:41 AM on April 24, 2008
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 6:41 AM on April 24, 2008
The discrimination doesn't surprise me though because the law creates obvious incentives not to rent to domestic abuse victims - the instant get out of lease clause creates an imbalance where the tenant can easily bail but the landlord cannot.
That said, why would you, or an agency, tell a landlord about domestic abuse? A women's shelter has no business disclosing that regardless of their intentions.
posted by srboisvert at 6:44 AM on April 24, 2008 [3 favorites]
That said, why would you, or an agency, tell a landlord about domestic abuse? A women's shelter has no business disclosing that regardless of their intentions.
posted by srboisvert at 6:44 AM on April 24, 2008 [3 favorites]
It's an awful situation. For perspective, I used to volunteer at Alternatives For Battered Women in Rochester, NY and currently make an annual donation to the Elizabeth Stone House here in Boston, so it's an issue that I feel strongly about. Women in that situation need to be given a chance to start over.
However, I don't think I'd want to rent to one. For one thing, the women at the shelter I helped out at were constantly sneaking around to meet their abusers, so renting to one highly increases the possibility that there's going to be a drunk, violent asshole coming around to your property making a scene, causing damage and, worst of all, assaulting people.
Also, the women were by-and-large not responsible in many other ways. Most of them had not worked in years, had substance abuse problems and just generally didn't have their shit together enough to be good tenants. Surely some of them just needed a chance, but most of them were going to be big problems for a landlord.
I think it's unreasonable to expect some family with an apartment to rent to be philantropists or social workers. Someone's going to lose out in that situation, whether it's the battered woman lacking housing or the landlord who gets his place trashed and is constantly begging for the rent s/he's owed.
So what's the solution? I think it lies in making those women look for their own housing instead of having advocates do it. Let the advocates help-- they can stand by the phone and coach the women. Show these women who have never had control over their situation how life's annoyances like finding an apartment work, but make them do it themselves so they learn and can see that it's something they can do by dialing the phone and talking to people. Or these women will end up requiring handholding for the rest of their lives. And the women can withhold the fact that they're just out of an abusive relationship, just like most of us would try to hide considerations that might make us less-desirable tenants.
Legislating a non-discrimination law around abuse and putting the responsibility on advocates is ugly. It solidifies these women as victims and perpetuates their dependence as well as puts small-time landlords who are just looking to have someone offset a portion of their mortgage in an awkward position. There's housing available for people with weak finances and spotty histories. All people who are poor and in the rough should have the same access to it whether they've been hit or not-- all poor people are victims on a fundamental level.
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:48 AM on April 24, 2008 [9 favorites]
However, I don't think I'd want to rent to one. For one thing, the women at the shelter I helped out at were constantly sneaking around to meet their abusers, so renting to one highly increases the possibility that there's going to be a drunk, violent asshole coming around to your property making a scene, causing damage and, worst of all, assaulting people.
Also, the women were by-and-large not responsible in many other ways. Most of them had not worked in years, had substance abuse problems and just generally didn't have their shit together enough to be good tenants. Surely some of them just needed a chance, but most of them were going to be big problems for a landlord.
I think it's unreasonable to expect some family with an apartment to rent to be philantropists or social workers. Someone's going to lose out in that situation, whether it's the battered woman lacking housing or the landlord who gets his place trashed and is constantly begging for the rent s/he's owed.
So what's the solution? I think it lies in making those women look for their own housing instead of having advocates do it. Let the advocates help-- they can stand by the phone and coach the women. Show these women who have never had control over their situation how life's annoyances like finding an apartment work, but make them do it themselves so they learn and can see that it's something they can do by dialing the phone and talking to people. Or these women will end up requiring handholding for the rest of their lives. And the women can withhold the fact that they're just out of an abusive relationship, just like most of us would try to hide considerations that might make us less-desirable tenants.
Legislating a non-discrimination law around abuse and putting the responsibility on advocates is ugly. It solidifies these women as victims and perpetuates their dependence as well as puts small-time landlords who are just looking to have someone offset a portion of their mortgage in an awkward position. There's housing available for people with weak finances and spotty histories. All people who are poor and in the rough should have the same access to it whether they've been hit or not-- all poor people are victims on a fundamental level.
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:48 AM on April 24, 2008 [9 favorites]
We can speculate all we want, but we shouldn't have to. I find it hard to believe that this 200-word article is all that's out there on the subject. I know it's timely and all, but seriously, there's necessary background to this story that just is not present.
On preview: Thanks, cashman.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:50 AM on April 24, 2008
On preview: Thanks, cashman.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:50 AM on April 24, 2008
there's necessary background to this story that just is not present.
Welcome to what passes for journalism these days. Guess I have to read the Atlantic Monthly to find stories with in-depth detail.
posted by mr. creosote at 6:53 AM on April 24, 2008
Welcome to what passes for journalism these days. Guess I have to read the Atlantic Monthly to find stories with in-depth detail.
posted by mr. creosote at 6:53 AM on April 24, 2008
Well, the landlords are trying to run a business, not provide social services follow the law that bans discrimination against victims of domestic abuse. I'm not surprised they would prefer a tenant who can't break the lease without penalty prefer to crime to non-crime.
FTFY
posted by delmoi at 6:54 AM on April 24, 2008
FTFY
posted by delmoi at 6:54 AM on April 24, 2008
These 300 word article about an inconclusive study is deeply disturbing.
posted by LarryC at 6:57 AM on April 24, 2008
posted by LarryC at 6:57 AM on April 24, 2008
People often prefer "crime" to "non-crime" when there's little or no incentive structure making the non-crime option more attractive. The fact that something is illegal, absent anything else, doesn't seem to be much of a motivator when money is on the line.
posted by Kadin2048 at 7:00 AM on April 24, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by Kadin2048 at 7:00 AM on April 24, 2008 [1 favorite]
Because of a lot of what Mayor Curley said, I think transitional housing makes a lot more sense. According to this article:
posted by lunit at 7:00 AM on April 24, 2008
While many battered women need only short-term, emergency shelter, others face numerous barriers to achieving independence free from the abuse and require long-term housing assistance and a variety of social services. Recognizing the housing needs of battered women, many domestic violence service providers now offer long-term, transitional housing to the women and children they serve. While no official account exists, every state has at least one transitional housing program specifically for victims of domestic violence.
posted by lunit at 7:00 AM on April 24, 2008
1. Appointments
By far the most frequent form of disparate treatment to the disadvantage of Tester A was the lack of an offer of an appointment by the leasing agent to view apartments. Agents often not only offered Tester B an appointment, but encouraged Tester B to come into the office by giving the tester the office hours and offering an appointment twice or more during the conversation. In the 93 tests conducted in this study, appointments were offered by the leasing agent to at least one tester in 49 tests. In 36 of these 49 instances (74 percent), Tester B was offered an appointment, while Tester A was not. To the contrary, Tester A was offered an appointment, while Tester B was not, in only four tests (8 percent). Both testers were offered an appointment in nine tests (18 percent).
E. Anecdotal Data
Some of the most disturbing evidence of discrimination observed comes from anecdotal experiences of Tester A during the study. The following anecdotes are from tests in which both testers spoke to the same agent:
In a test conducted in Ward 2, the leasing agent spoke to both testers in a similar manner, seemingly friendly and eager to rent out an apartment. However, Tester A was told that a credit check and criminal background check were performed on every applicant. Tester B was not told of such requirements. Tester B was also offered an appointment and was invited to call back, but neither of these offers was extended to Tester A.
In a test conducted in Ward 4, the leasing agent gave very different information to each of the testers: Tester B was offered an economic incentive that Tester A was not (the agent offered to waive Tester B’s application fee); the agent offered to call Tester B back, offered Tester B an appointment and was invited to call back, while Tester A was not.
Finally, in a test conducted in Ward 8, the leasing agent simply offered Tester B a significantly lower rental and deposit amount for the same apartment than was offered to Tester A.
Although the numerical data quantifies the number of instances where obstacles are placed before domestic violence victims when trying to find housing in the District, these anecdotes give important qualitative information about what those obstacles look like and how they are imposed.
posted by cashman at 7:01 AM on April 24, 2008
By far the most frequent form of disparate treatment to the disadvantage of Tester A was the lack of an offer of an appointment by the leasing agent to view apartments. Agents often not only offered Tester B an appointment, but encouraged Tester B to come into the office by giving the tester the office hours and offering an appointment twice or more during the conversation. In the 93 tests conducted in this study, appointments were offered by the leasing agent to at least one tester in 49 tests. In 36 of these 49 instances (74 percent), Tester B was offered an appointment, while Tester A was not. To the contrary, Tester A was offered an appointment, while Tester B was not, in only four tests (8 percent). Both testers were offered an appointment in nine tests (18 percent).
E. Anecdotal Data
Some of the most disturbing evidence of discrimination observed comes from anecdotal experiences of Tester A during the study. The following anecdotes are from tests in which both testers spoke to the same agent:
In a test conducted in Ward 2, the leasing agent spoke to both testers in a similar manner, seemingly friendly and eager to rent out an apartment. However, Tester A was told that a credit check and criminal background check were performed on every applicant. Tester B was not told of such requirements. Tester B was also offered an appointment and was invited to call back, but neither of these offers was extended to Tester A.
In a test conducted in Ward 4, the leasing agent gave very different information to each of the testers: Tester B was offered an economic incentive that Tester A was not (the agent offered to waive Tester B’s application fee); the agent offered to call Tester B back, offered Tester B an appointment and was invited to call back, while Tester A was not.
Finally, in a test conducted in Ward 8, the leasing agent simply offered Tester B a significantly lower rental and deposit amount for the same apartment than was offered to Tester A.
Although the numerical data quantifies the number of instances where obstacles are placed before domestic violence victims when trying to find housing in the District, these anecdotes give important qualitative information about what those obstacles look like and how they are imposed.
posted by cashman at 7:01 AM on April 24, 2008
Well, the landlords are trying to run a business, not provide social services follow the law that bans discrimination against victims of domestic abuse. I'm not surprised they would prefer a tenant who can't break the lease without penalty prefer to crime to non-crime.
FTFY
So because it's The Law, it's just and appropriate? Think again. More Thoreau and less Stalin, please. And don't get me started on "fixed that for you."
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:35 AM on April 24, 2008
FTFY
So because it's The Law, it's just and appropriate? Think again. More Thoreau and less Stalin, please. And don't get me started on "fixed that for you."
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:35 AM on April 24, 2008
However, I don't think I'd want to rent to one. For one thing, the women at the shelter I helped out at were constantly sneaking around to meet their abusers, so renting to one highly increases the possibility that there's going to be a drunk, violent asshole coming around to your property making a scene, causing damage and, worst of all, assaulting people.
That's what a lot of people say about renting to blacks, hispanics, students....
I hear what you're saying Mayor Curley and sure, it makes sense, but when you're on the run it's hard to be rational and take responsibility for yourself. That's where having an advocate to help can make all the difference.
Renting is a tough business like any other. Every year I have at least one client that fails to pay. Landlords should have to take their lumps like the rest of us.
posted by three blind mice at 7:35 AM on April 24, 2008
That's what a lot of people say about renting to blacks, hispanics, students....
I hear what you're saying Mayor Curley and sure, it makes sense, but when you're on the run it's hard to be rational and take responsibility for yourself. That's where having an advocate to help can make all the difference.
Renting is a tough business like any other. Every year I have at least one client that fails to pay. Landlords should have to take their lumps like the rest of us.
posted by three blind mice at 7:35 AM on April 24, 2008
My mom has tried to leave my stepdad repeatedly (he's strangled her, beat her to unconsciousness, and chased me with a shotgun numerous times) and I have never gotten her to stay in a shelter or transitional housing because there's always some excuse as to why she can't go (I need my diabetic dog with me! I have to sell the house he kicked 1000 holes in so I have money to live on! I have to be at a meeting at work on Monday! He can't really kill me, he's terminally ill, he doesn't know what he's doing!).
Meanwhile, I'm almost too jaded to answer the phone when I see her number these days.
I see both sides of this story all too well.
All I know is, she's my mother, and I don't want her staying with me. I can understand why women in these situations have it tough. Not all of them are like my mother, but the ones that are make it hard for the ones who are genuinely trying to change their situations and save their lives.
posted by Unicorn on the cob at 7:55 AM on April 24, 2008
Meanwhile, I'm almost too jaded to answer the phone when I see her number these days.
I see both sides of this story all too well.
All I know is, she's my mother, and I don't want her staying with me. I can understand why women in these situations have it tough. Not all of them are like my mother, but the ones that are make it hard for the ones who are genuinely trying to change their situations and save their lives.
posted by Unicorn on the cob at 7:55 AM on April 24, 2008
Landlords should have to take their lumps like the rest of us.
Uh, no, they should not. I have a basement apartment I'm going to be renting out soon, and you can bet that if I get even a whiff of eau de unstable person from any applicant, I won't be renting to that person. It's my responsibility to provide a clean, safe, apartment in which all the amenities are in good working order, but my tenant has certain responsibilities that she or he must meet as well. I'm not running a homeless shelter.
posted by orange swan at 8:06 AM on April 24, 2008 [3 favorites]
Uh, no, they should not. I have a basement apartment I'm going to be renting out soon, and you can bet that if I get even a whiff of eau de unstable person from any applicant, I won't be renting to that person. It's my responsibility to provide a clean, safe, apartment in which all the amenities are in good working order, but my tenant has certain responsibilities that she or he must meet as well. I'm not running a homeless shelter.
posted by orange swan at 8:06 AM on April 24, 2008 [3 favorites]
It could also be that 8 out of 93 landlords don't want to rent to people who won't call the landlords themselves.
Yeah, this experiment is begging to be redone without the whole "advocate" thing, which I think would confound the results a bit.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 8:12 AM on April 24, 2008
Yeah, this experiment is begging to be redone without the whole "advocate" thing, which I think would confound the results a bit.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 8:12 AM on April 24, 2008
I hear what you're saying Mayor Curley and sure, it makes sense, but when you're on the run it's hard to be rational and take responsibility for yourself. That's where having an advocate to help can make all the difference.
I don't think it's the issue of being on the run. It's the fact these women tend to be desperately, cyclically poor and as like other people in the category, they don't have life skills. No one's taught them how to do all the stuff that you have to navigate in order to prevent society from burying you. They can't take responsibility for themselves not because they're abused or in a shelter, but simply because they've generally had no modeling to demonstrate HOW to take responsibility.
I agree that advocates are essential-- why is a middle-class woman whose husband turns on her because of addiction or mental illness much less likely to end up in a shelter? Because she already generally has friends and family, and the mental resources to get the legal system to help her before she ends up in the hospital or on the street. Advocates should be a surrogate for that network and those inner resources to women who don't have them. But the level of handholding where the advocate does ALL the legwork for procuring permanent housing, down to actually making the calls, is giving these women fish rather than teaching them to fish. The next time a relationship turns sour (and the odds are depressingly strong that it will), she'll be back at the shelter and the advocate will prop her up again and then wait for that to unravel. What an ugly cycle.
Landlords should have to take their lumps like the rest of us.
Certainly you know there's an amount of risk when you elect to become one. But you shouldn't be forced to get into a situation that you know is going to cost you before you enter it.
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:13 AM on April 24, 2008
I don't think it's the issue of being on the run. It's the fact these women tend to be desperately, cyclically poor and as like other people in the category, they don't have life skills. No one's taught them how to do all the stuff that you have to navigate in order to prevent society from burying you. They can't take responsibility for themselves not because they're abused or in a shelter, but simply because they've generally had no modeling to demonstrate HOW to take responsibility.
I agree that advocates are essential-- why is a middle-class woman whose husband turns on her because of addiction or mental illness much less likely to end up in a shelter? Because she already generally has friends and family, and the mental resources to get the legal system to help her before she ends up in the hospital or on the street. Advocates should be a surrogate for that network and those inner resources to women who don't have them. But the level of handholding where the advocate does ALL the legwork for procuring permanent housing, down to actually making the calls, is giving these women fish rather than teaching them to fish. The next time a relationship turns sour (and the odds are depressingly strong that it will), she'll be back at the shelter and the advocate will prop her up again and then wait for that to unravel. What an ugly cycle.
Landlords should have to take their lumps like the rest of us.
Certainly you know there's an amount of risk when you elect to become one. But you shouldn't be forced to get into a situation that you know is going to cost you before you enter it.
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:13 AM on April 24, 2008
Not all of them are like my mother, but the ones that are make it hard for the ones who are genuinely trying to change their situations and save their lives.
My profound sympathies, unicorn on the cob. I went through a lot with a friend of mine who had an abusive boyfriend. She eventually married him. We aren't friends anymore. I doubt there are many of her other friends sticking by her anymore either. She pretty much sucked all her friends dry with her constant crises and neediness - and then complained how she was giving other people too much and not getting anything back. Yes, people in abusive relationships need help getting out. But what a lot of people don't understand is that someone who stays in an abusive relationship, while he or she may be completely non-abusive, is usually just as messed up as his or her partner. They often don't have any time or energy left to even realize how much they impose on other people, or to take care of their own most basic responsibilities.
posted by orange swan at 8:30 AM on April 24, 2008
My profound sympathies, unicorn on the cob. I went through a lot with a friend of mine who had an abusive boyfriend. She eventually married him. We aren't friends anymore. I doubt there are many of her other friends sticking by her anymore either. She pretty much sucked all her friends dry with her constant crises and neediness - and then complained how she was giving other people too much and not getting anything back. Yes, people in abusive relationships need help getting out. But what a lot of people don't understand is that someone who stays in an abusive relationship, while he or she may be completely non-abusive, is usually just as messed up as his or her partner. They often don't have any time or energy left to even realize how much they impose on other people, or to take care of their own most basic responsibilities.
posted by orange swan at 8:30 AM on April 24, 2008
For one thing, the women at the shelter I helped out at were constantly sneaking around to meet their abusers, so renting to one highly increases the possibility that there's going to be a drunk, violent asshole coming around to your property making a scene, causing damage and, worst of all, assaulting people.
Also, the women were by-and-large not responsible in many other ways. Most of them had not worked in years, had substance abuse problems and just generally didn't have their shit together enough to be good tenants. Surely some of them just needed a chance, but most of them were going to be big problems for a landlord.
Do you suppose that the fact that your sample set comes from women at a shelter might skew your perspective a bit? Employed women are less likely to go to shelters and more likely to find their own temporary housing with friends, family, or motels, because they're more likely to have resources and contacts to fall back on. They're still going to need long-term housing, and if they should let slip, "I left my asshole boyfriend and I need a place to stay," they shouldn't be penalized for that.
These women who were "constantly sneaking around to meet their abusers," did they tell you this, or was this grapevine information? How many women do you know for a fact did this? One? Ten? Fifteen? Out of how many who passed through the shelter? And those who didn't, why should they be held responsible for those who did?
Many abusers deliberately isolate women from support networks and control the household funds to make it harder for their victims to leave. They may not allow the victim to work, or to keep money she earns. They may enable, encourage, or instigate substance abuse. It is in their interests to do everything they can to keep the victim dependent on them.
Painting abuse victims with a broad brush of irresponsible, substance-abusing, never-gonna-get-their-shit-together loser victims is a great way to keep those who are in that cycle in it, and push those who aren't in it toward it.
posted by notashroom at 9:46 AM on April 24, 2008
Also, the women were by-and-large not responsible in many other ways. Most of them had not worked in years, had substance abuse problems and just generally didn't have their shit together enough to be good tenants. Surely some of them just needed a chance, but most of them were going to be big problems for a landlord.
Do you suppose that the fact that your sample set comes from women at a shelter might skew your perspective a bit? Employed women are less likely to go to shelters and more likely to find their own temporary housing with friends, family, or motels, because they're more likely to have resources and contacts to fall back on. They're still going to need long-term housing, and if they should let slip, "I left my asshole boyfriend and I need a place to stay," they shouldn't be penalized for that.
These women who were "constantly sneaking around to meet their abusers," did they tell you this, or was this grapevine information? How many women do you know for a fact did this? One? Ten? Fifteen? Out of how many who passed through the shelter? And those who didn't, why should they be held responsible for those who did?
Many abusers deliberately isolate women from support networks and control the household funds to make it harder for their victims to leave. They may not allow the victim to work, or to keep money she earns. They may enable, encourage, or instigate substance abuse. It is in their interests to do everything they can to keep the victim dependent on them.
Painting abuse victims with a broad brush of irresponsible, substance-abusing, never-gonna-get-their-shit-together loser victims is a great way to keep those who are in that cycle in it, and push those who aren't in it toward it.
posted by notashroom at 9:46 AM on April 24, 2008
There is an unfortunate and baseless idea that permeates the old-guard "continuum of care" school of homeless services for families that women should be homeless during a incidence of domestic violence. They should live in transitional housing facilities where their caseworkers will save them from themselves by trying to prevent them from "sneaking around to meet their abusers." This is maternalistic bullshit left over from an era in social services where primarily white women understood themselves to be the saviors of poor blacks who couldn't lead normal lives without them. What this model really does is just keeps moms homeless during a domestic violence episode. Now mom has a homelessness problem, and a domestic violence problem. The city pays extra tax dollars to provide herwith a service rich environment that doesn't really amount to much if she doesn't want the services; and if she's still returning to her abuser she's clearly not ready to seriously engage in domestic violence services at that level of intensity. Many transitional housing services demand that mothers leave their jobs, thus creating a third problem for mom, an unemployment problem. Now mom has a homelessness problem, a domestic violence problem and an unemployment problem. Thanks social services!
When I did housing first for families we worked with women currently involved in protracted domestic violence disputes, who were clearly not ready to break with their abusers. We made sure mom knew which police unit to call to report her ex-boyfriend to if he broke the terms of a protection order, which we made sure was in place. We made domestic violence counseling services available at every turn. When the boyfriend did return, we dealt with that crisis. Sometimes it involved finding black site shelters for mom to flee to with the children while the ex-boyfriend was laying up in her house smoking rocks and trashing the place. Shit, in one case I drove a client to Pittsburgh after getting a pro bono attorney to get an emergency custody order to retrieve her abducted child. I went into a drug house at 2 am with a crew of cops and came out with a two year old girl. If you're going to do housing work with women in domestic violence disputes, those are the kind of lengths you should be willing to go to.
The fact is, most caseworkers won't do that. They don't want to go into the field, let alone to another city. They want to have a nice office in a prime facility where poor women come to them to get "fixed." In trying to save moms from themselves by playing relationship cop and policing their interactions with men they set up a fundamentally adversarial and unproductive relationship where now the client feels she needs to hide things. You're not her partner in progress now, you're her opponent, someone who is trying to control her, who also has control of resources that she needs like housing subsidies and employment referral services. So now that you've made her dependent on your agency you're saying, "No, no, Ms. So-and-so, the agency doesn't think you're ready for housing yet. We heard you saw your ex-boyfriend last week. We think you still have work to do." This does not create a constructive psychological dynamic for providing effective social services.
Yes, if the domestic violence is active and flaring up child welfare might need to be involved. If the mom has an acute need for shelter based on a threat to her physical safety, black site shelters MUST be involved. But this idea that moms should be homeless and need to be fixed by the system before returning to permanent housing needs to die. There are plenty of housing first for family agencies nationwide that are providing the intensive level of services these women need in the home, during which the women are able to determine their own destinies for better or worse.
posted by The Straightener at 10:42 AM on April 24, 2008 [3 favorites]
When I did housing first for families we worked with women currently involved in protracted domestic violence disputes, who were clearly not ready to break with their abusers. We made sure mom knew which police unit to call to report her ex-boyfriend to if he broke the terms of a protection order, which we made sure was in place. We made domestic violence counseling services available at every turn. When the boyfriend did return, we dealt with that crisis. Sometimes it involved finding black site shelters for mom to flee to with the children while the ex-boyfriend was laying up in her house smoking rocks and trashing the place. Shit, in one case I drove a client to Pittsburgh after getting a pro bono attorney to get an emergency custody order to retrieve her abducted child. I went into a drug house at 2 am with a crew of cops and came out with a two year old girl. If you're going to do housing work with women in domestic violence disputes, those are the kind of lengths you should be willing to go to.
The fact is, most caseworkers won't do that. They don't want to go into the field, let alone to another city. They want to have a nice office in a prime facility where poor women come to them to get "fixed." In trying to save moms from themselves by playing relationship cop and policing their interactions with men they set up a fundamentally adversarial and unproductive relationship where now the client feels she needs to hide things. You're not her partner in progress now, you're her opponent, someone who is trying to control her, who also has control of resources that she needs like housing subsidies and employment referral services. So now that you've made her dependent on your agency you're saying, "No, no, Ms. So-and-so, the agency doesn't think you're ready for housing yet. We heard you saw your ex-boyfriend last week. We think you still have work to do." This does not create a constructive psychological dynamic for providing effective social services.
Yes, if the domestic violence is active and flaring up child welfare might need to be involved. If the mom has an acute need for shelter based on a threat to her physical safety, black site shelters MUST be involved. But this idea that moms should be homeless and need to be fixed by the system before returning to permanent housing needs to die. There are plenty of housing first for family agencies nationwide that are providing the intensive level of services these women need in the home, during which the women are able to determine their own destinies for better or worse.
posted by The Straightener at 10:42 AM on April 24, 2008 [3 favorites]
Employed women are less likely to go to shelters and more likely to find their own temporary housing with friends, family, or motels, because they're more likely to have resources and contacts to fall back on. They're still going to need long-term housing
I made the point a few comments up (after you stopped reading, obviously) that women of better means don't tend to end up in shelters and have an easier time getting back on their feet. I also suspect that they don't need someone make phone calls on their behalf to prospective landlords.
and if they should let slip, "I left my asshole boyfriend and I need a place to stay," they shouldn't be penalized for that.
Yes they should. They shouldn't be ashamed that it happened, but they should know to whom it's appropriate to mention. It makes the prospective tenant seem less stable. Would you think it appropriate to tell a prospective landlord "I have a severe mental illness that has prevented me from earning a living in the past, but I'm stabilized now,"? It's not a good thing to tell a prospective landlord, but not because one should be ashamed of having a mental illness.
These women who were "constantly sneaking around to meet their abusers," did they tell you this, or was this grapevine information? How many women do you know for a fact did this? One? Ten? Fifteen? Out of how many who passed through the shelter?
I personally saw three separate women hanging out as close as one block from the shelter with men whom they had restraining orders against. Shelter staff indicated that it was at least as common as not to do this, and I can't think of a reason why they'd exaggerate about it seeing as how they were sympathetic and trained.
And those who didn't, why should they be held responsible for those who did?
They shouldn't. They should just have the good sense not to volunteer their problems to a potential landlord. I think orange swan's "whiff of eau de unstable" is a brilliant description of what landlords are looking to avoid-- no matter what your problems are in life, if you can't impart to me the sense that you're going to give me the rent and not give me drama, I shouldn't have to rent to you.
posted by Mayor Curley at 10:43 AM on April 24, 2008
I made the point a few comments up (after you stopped reading, obviously) that women of better means don't tend to end up in shelters and have an easier time getting back on their feet. I also suspect that they don't need someone make phone calls on their behalf to prospective landlords.
and if they should let slip, "I left my asshole boyfriend and I need a place to stay," they shouldn't be penalized for that.
Yes they should. They shouldn't be ashamed that it happened, but they should know to whom it's appropriate to mention. It makes the prospective tenant seem less stable. Would you think it appropriate to tell a prospective landlord "I have a severe mental illness that has prevented me from earning a living in the past, but I'm stabilized now,"? It's not a good thing to tell a prospective landlord, but not because one should be ashamed of having a mental illness.
These women who were "constantly sneaking around to meet their abusers," did they tell you this, or was this grapevine information? How many women do you know for a fact did this? One? Ten? Fifteen? Out of how many who passed through the shelter?
I personally saw three separate women hanging out as close as one block from the shelter with men whom they had restraining orders against. Shelter staff indicated that it was at least as common as not to do this, and I can't think of a reason why they'd exaggerate about it seeing as how they were sympathetic and trained.
And those who didn't, why should they be held responsible for those who did?
They shouldn't. They should just have the good sense not to volunteer their problems to a potential landlord. I think orange swan's "whiff of eau de unstable" is a brilliant description of what landlords are looking to avoid-- no matter what your problems are in life, if you can't impart to me the sense that you're going to give me the rent and not give me drama, I shouldn't have to rent to you.
posted by Mayor Curley at 10:43 AM on April 24, 2008
I personally saw three separate women hanging out as close as one block from the shelter with men whom they had restraining orders against. Shelter staff indicated that it was at least as common as not to do this, and I can't think of a reason why they'd exaggerate about it seeing as how they were sympathetic and trained.
Did anyone ask them why they were seeing their exes? Not that they give an honest answer to anyone on staff at an agency they suspected were monitoring their behavior in order to determine whether to grant or deny access to crucial services like housing or employment referrals. But had they provided an honest answer, it would likely have something to do with the fact that their ex-boyfriend was giving them money when they saw each other, either as an ad-hoc child support arrangement or as a mechanism of behavioral control, a sort of financial leash. Keeping a mom homeless, in the system, under or unemployed does not address central issues like the fact that many poor women caught up in protracted domestic violence episodes remain in such arrangements because they are financially dependent on their abuser.
posted by The Straightener at 11:29 AM on April 24, 2008
Did anyone ask them why they were seeing their exes? Not that they give an honest answer to anyone on staff at an agency they suspected were monitoring their behavior in order to determine whether to grant or deny access to crucial services like housing or employment referrals. But had they provided an honest answer, it would likely have something to do with the fact that their ex-boyfriend was giving them money when they saw each other, either as an ad-hoc child support arrangement or as a mechanism of behavioral control, a sort of financial leash. Keeping a mom homeless, in the system, under or unemployed does not address central issues like the fact that many poor women caught up in protracted domestic violence episodes remain in such arrangements because they are financially dependent on their abuser.
posted by The Straightener at 11:29 AM on April 24, 2008
I think orange swan's "whiff of eau de unstable" is a brilliant description of what landlords are looking to avoid-- no matter what your problems are in life, if you can't impart to me the sense that you're going to give me the rent and not give me drama, I shouldn't have to rent to you.
"I hear this place is restricted, Wang, so don't tell 'em you're Jewish, okay?"
You know I do hear what you're saying... but you gotta walk the talk. You're letting out a flat, you're running a business in your community. The "sense" should come from a credit, employment, and reference check without regard to race, creed, color, national origin, black sounding first name, or abused status. None of that is any of your business. You're taking them on as a tenant - not adopting them.
posted by three blind mice at 1:31 PM on April 24, 2008
"I hear this place is restricted, Wang, so don't tell 'em you're Jewish, okay?"
You know I do hear what you're saying... but you gotta walk the talk. You're letting out a flat, you're running a business in your community. The "sense" should come from a credit, employment, and reference check without regard to race, creed, color, national origin, black sounding first name, or abused status. None of that is any of your business. You're taking them on as a tenant - not adopting them.
posted by three blind mice at 1:31 PM on April 24, 2008
I agree with a lot of what has been said above -- including Mayor Curley and Straightener. I'm a landlord, and my mother is a caseworker. I've seen a lot of this first-hand.
Speaking as a landlord, I have a responsibility not just to be fair to all applicants, but also to maintain the safety of the premises for the other tenants, and now that our city has a nuisance ordinance, to ensure that the neighborhood has no cause for complaint against my/our tenants.
It is definitely, objectively, the case that we've had tenants who have allowed their abusive boyfriends to routinely violate restraining orders. This is part of a syndrome, and I refuse to simply lay it at the feet of the abuser; it's a relationship, and the victim has some responsibility to get her act together and break the bonds. If she's going to let a guy come over who's already broken down two doors and ripped a grate off a window (just for starters; yes, that's ONE GUY), we're not going to want her to remain as a tenant. Same as any other criminal activity such as a boyfriend who deals drugs or breaks into other apartments during the day.
My mother's experience is that women in these situations find it exceptionally hard to break the cycle. I'm sympathetic to that. But it isn't just black and white. Victims need support and maybe second chances, but that only goes so far.
Also, if there is paternalism in social services, I can attest that it was present in this once lily-white city long before there was any racial diversity. (see: mudsill theory). Along the same lines, I think I'm not far off base in observing that black victims of domestic violence actually seem to have broader support networks -- and places to go -- than white victims. It's an interesting piece of the puzzle.
posted by dhartung at 3:35 PM on April 24, 2008
Speaking as a landlord, I have a responsibility not just to be fair to all applicants, but also to maintain the safety of the premises for the other tenants, and now that our city has a nuisance ordinance, to ensure that the neighborhood has no cause for complaint against my/our tenants.
It is definitely, objectively, the case that we've had tenants who have allowed their abusive boyfriends to routinely violate restraining orders. This is part of a syndrome, and I refuse to simply lay it at the feet of the abuser; it's a relationship, and the victim has some responsibility to get her act together and break the bonds. If she's going to let a guy come over who's already broken down two doors and ripped a grate off a window (just for starters; yes, that's ONE GUY), we're not going to want her to remain as a tenant. Same as any other criminal activity such as a boyfriend who deals drugs or breaks into other apartments during the day.
My mother's experience is that women in these situations find it exceptionally hard to break the cycle. I'm sympathetic to that. But it isn't just black and white. Victims need support and maybe second chances, but that only goes so far.
Also, if there is paternalism in social services, I can attest that it was present in this once lily-white city long before there was any racial diversity. (see: mudsill theory). Along the same lines, I think I'm not far off base in observing that black victims of domestic violence actually seem to have broader support networks -- and places to go -- than white victims. It's an interesting piece of the puzzle.
posted by dhartung at 3:35 PM on April 24, 2008
You're letting out a flat, you're running a business in your community. The "sense" should come from a credit, employment, and reference check without regard to race, creed, color, national origin, black sounding first name, or abused status. None of that is any of your business. You're taking them on as a tenant - not adopting them.
You forgot a criminal background check. And my sense of whether someone will make a good tenant will also come from the applicant's behaviour. If she or he isn't together enough to behave appropriately during a business arrangement, then I'll pick someone else.
And why are you comparing not revealing the fact of being Jewish to not revealing that you're still seeing a violent ex? One of these things is not like the other.
posted by orange swan at 10:52 PM on April 24, 2008
You forgot a criminal background check. And my sense of whether someone will make a good tenant will also come from the applicant's behaviour. If she or he isn't together enough to behave appropriately during a business arrangement, then I'll pick someone else.
And why are you comparing not revealing the fact of being Jewish to not revealing that you're still seeing a violent ex? One of these things is not like the other.
posted by orange swan at 10:52 PM on April 24, 2008
« Older Metafilter Zomibified | "Redneck mansion." Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Also, their methodology has at least one problem. They've got two variables in there, abuse vs none and "advocate" vs straight call. And now that I think about it, the latter is actually multiple variables, such as tone of voice and so forth.
posted by DU at 6:30 AM on April 24, 2008