Shared Domestic Abuse Refuge in the Age of Housing First: An Outdated Model?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Refuges are the most well-known accommodation response to domestic abuse. They initially emerged in the 1970s to provide a safe space for women seeking immediate escape from abusive partners. The original provision largely involved different households sharing accommodation and facilities, reflecting the scarcity of resources available to provide such a response, but also an ethos of feminist solidarity. Homelessness responses more broadly have begun to move away from shared forms of accommodation in light of growing evidence discrediting their effectiveness and appropriateness, but refuges for domestic abuse survivors have largely escaped this critical interrogation and instead remained supported as an essential and therapeutic model. Based on qualitative data gathered via key informant interviews in England and Scotland, this paper examines the merits and demerits of this kind of shared accommodation and reflects on whether the housing needs of domestic abuse survivors are as different from those of other groups facing homelessness as the domestic abuse sector appears to hold. We conclude that the critiques of shared and congregate living that are so persuasive as regards hostels apply with at least equal weight to refuges. Domestic abuse survivors have similar requirements for privacy, autonomy, choice, and control over their living environments as other populations experiencing or at risk of homelessness. While domestic abuse survivors may have specific needs for intensive, gender-informed professional and peer support, this can be achieved without utilizing outdated shared models of accommodation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".