Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Make Housing More Secure, Not Less: Domestic Violence Survivors Need Safety

Opinion

Hand holding a little house with an orange roof. Conceptual image.

What domestic violence survivors in public housing need are more flexible options - and they need them now.

Getty Images, Catherine Falls Commercial

She called me while she walked her dog because it was the only time she could use the phone without being monitored by her husband. Reaching out to me as a program manager for domestic survivors in a major U.S. city, she wanted to see what her options were and where she and her seven-year-old son could go.

I went over the resources in the community for domestic violence survivors, which were few. The 35-year-old mother told me she had been in and out of domestic violence shelters over the years and could not stand to destabilize her son and herself yet again. She was living now in Section 8 housing.


Subsidized housing in this country is confusing as there are many different types. For those who are in the Project-Based Voucher (PBV) program, the rental assistance it provides makes up the difference between the tenant’s contribution, 30% of their income, and the unit’s total rent and utility costs.

In this country, 530,000 people in nearly 290,000 households use project-based vouchers. Three-quarters of households in public housing are headed by women. And one in three women will experience domestic violence in their lifetime.

That means approximately 72,500 households headed by women in project-based voucher housing could be expected to experience domestic violence at some point in their lives.

Complicating matters is that the latest Donald Trump administration 2026 budget bill heading to the U.S. Senate after passing the House includes drastic cuts to federal housing assistance. A $26.7 billion cut to rental assistance programs like project-based vouchers and tenant-based (housing choice) vouchers means that there will be fewer vouchers to go around for survivors, where there were already slim pickings at the start. And the restructuring of rental assistance to focus on elderly and disabled people may inadvertently leave out survivors of violence who do not meet this criteria.

When you are a survivor of domestic violence and need to leave for your own safety, it feels like jumping out of a plane without a parachute, hoping you will land on your feet. If you leave that address, you lose your rental assistance because it is tied to that specific unit.

Yes, the Violence Against Women Act allows a public housing authority to bifurcate or split the household on the lease. With a bifurcation, the housing authority will not create two subsidies, meaning that the abuser will no longer be offered assistance.

Ironically, bifurcation is supposed to work so that the survivor stays in the unit with rental assistance and the abuser is evicted. But in reality, it becomes a non-starter, as many survivors will not pursue bifurcation out of fear that their abusers will retaliate against them for causing their eviction.

Still, a survivor can apply for an emergency transfer to another unit, which is much more complicated than it sounds. Emergency transfers allow the individual to move to a unit where they would not be considered a new applicant.

But in my experience of serving survivors experiencing homelessness, they are often offered units in the very same neighborhood, even across the street from where they were victimized. Survivors in this situation become walking targets for continued stalking, threats, and repeated violence.

And unfortunately, the emergency transfer lists are long. A U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) study of 60 Public Housing Authorities shows that emergency transfers took between six months to one year to complete.

Survivors can also apply for a new Section 8 waitlist for either another project-based voucher or a housing-choice voucher. But most communities’ waitlists do not prioritize survivors of violence. So, it's a waiting game when survivors cannot afford to wait.

A few communities in the U.S., such as Oakland and Boston, do prioritize survivors. Many more communities need to follow suit.

What survivors in public housing need are more flexible options. These include hotel vouchers to have an immediate safe place to go to when domestic violence shelters are not available or not viable for a specific survivor's situation.

Options such as Housing Choice Vouchers specifically for survivors could be honored nationwide without a waiting period.

Survivors simply cannot afford to wait while their lives are on the line.

Elisabet Avalos is a leader in housing justice, developing programs for survivors of violence experiencing homelessness, and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project on Domestic Violence and Economic Security.


Read More

Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

An analysis of gun violence, political extremism, Islamophobia, and community resilience in America after the San Diego Islamic Center shooting.

GemaIbarra / Getty Images

Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

Last Monday, two teenage gunmen opened fire outside the Islamic Center of San Diego, murdering three Muslim men. Unfortunately, this is the type of horror Americans have been conditioned to expect. After years of political stagnation on gun safety and ongoing hateful acts of violence, our president has signaled once again to children, to the Muslim community, and to everyone else: he does not care if you get shot.

Gun violence has been on the rise in the United States for too long. Perhaps the most harrowing consequence is that gun violence is now the leading cause of death among children. Whether from school shootings, homicides, suicides, or accidents, the gun-death rate for children is nearly five in every 100,000. In fact, the number of domestic deaths due to gun violence is about as many as U.S. military deaths in every war since World War I combined. More children have been lost to gun violence since 2020 than troops lost since 9/11. Yet even with such a striking death toll—and one affecting children no less—happening on our own soil, Vice President J.D. Vance calls it a “fact of life.

Keep ReadingShow less
The dome of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., stands tall against a blue sky with the American flag waving proudly

Congress faces growing pressure to pass redistricting reform as lawmakers debate banning gerrymandering, independent commissions, and mid-decade map changes amid renewed national controversy over fair elections.

Getty Images, aire images

Congress's Missed Opportunities on Redistricting Reform

On April 29, Issue One posted an image on Facebook and Instagram: CONGRESS CAN FIX THIS WITH THREE SIMPLE STEPS:

  1. Establish Clear National Criteria for Fair Maps
  2. Require Independent Redistricting Commissions in Every State
  3. Ban Mid-Decade Redistricting.

Issue One added below: “… but it needs 60 Senate votes to do it.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
Tourists gather at Mather Point on the South Rim of the Grand Canyon, enjoying panoramic views of the iconic natural wonder

National Park Service budget cuts are reshaping America’s public lands through underfunding and neglect. Explore how declining park staffing, deferred maintenance, and political inaction threaten national parks, local economies, and public trust in government.

Getty Images, miroslav_1

They Won’t Close the Parks. They’ll Just Let Them Fail.

This summer, before dawn, the Liu family from Buffalo will load up their SUV, coffee in hand, bound for a long-planned trip out west. The Grand Canyon has been on their list for years, something to do before the kids get too old and schedules get too tight. They expect crowds. They expect long lines at the entrance. That is part of the deal. In recent years, national parks have drawn more than 325 million visits annually, near record highs.

What they do not expect are shuttered visitor centers and closed trails, not because of weather but because there are not enough staff to maintain them. What they do not see is the budget decision in Washington that made those trade-offs, quietly, indirectly, and without much debate.

Keep ReadingShow less