Making Public Safety Net Programmes Work Better for Survivors of Domestic Violence

This blog post is based on an article published in the Journal of Social Policy by Andrea Hetling, Vee Yeo, and Lillian McFarland.

Public benefits are often the difference between crisis and stability for survivors of domestic violence. Abusers often use economic abuse to control their partners, limiting access to financial resources and trapping individuals in harmful environments. Programmes that provide housing, food, and cash benefits can empower survivors to leave abusive situations and begin the long process of recovery. Yet, while the public safety net is designed to provide material and financial assistance to those most in need, it often falls short in practice. Administrative burden and stigma can undermine access, leaving survivors to navigate complex systems at a time when clarity and support are much-needed.

In our article, we examine the experiences of survivors with public safety net benefits and the perceptions of stakeholders who work in the field. Our findings are based on in-depth qualitative research conducted from August 2023 to January 2024 at a trauma-informed supportive housing programme in New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.

Importance of Public Safety Net Benefits

Survivors in our study consistently report that public safety net benefits are critical in allowing them to meet basic needs, avoid homelessness, and focus on healing. Stakeholders, including case managers and community advocates, agree. In many cases, benefits provide the initial stability required to escape an abusive relationship and simultaneously pursue employment, care for children, and rebuild credit or savings. Without this support, the path to independence would be significantly more difficult, if not impossible.

Barriers to Access

Accessing and maintaining public benefits, however, is rarely straightforward. At the outset, eligibility requirements can be prohibitive. In our study, citizenship status was discussed as a significant barrier by both survivors and stakeholders. Low benefit levels and low wages also pose difficult dilemmas for survivors when working out how to make ends meet. As one participant explained, “…when you’re not working, the government provides some money for food and some cash, but that is not enough. So, it’s like should I work? Because it’s when you’re working, it’s not enough. It’s so much, seriously. Sometimes I don’t know what to do…”

For survivors who qualify for benefits, other barriers — often called administrative burdens — can be overwhelming. These burdens typically fall into three categories: learning costs, compliance costs, and psychological costs. Learning costs involve understanding eligibility rules, application processes, and documentation requirements — tasks that can be confusing even for experienced advocates. Compliance costs include ongoing reporting, work requirements, and frequent recertifications. For survivors juggling trauma recovery, childcare, and unstable employment, these demands can be prohibitive. Equally significant are the psychological costs associated with public benefits. Survivors in our study describe feelings of disrespect and stress when interacting with staff at public welfare agencies. Negative encounters with caseworkers or bureaucratic processes can reinforce stigma and shame — feelings that directly conflict with the goals of recovery.

Trauma-informed Care as a Solution

This is where trauma-informed care (TIC) offers a compelling solution. Trauma-informed care is grounded in principles such as safety, trust, empowerment, collaboration, and choice. Our research indicates that programmes incorporating TIC, such as our study site, Town Clock, can significantly reduce administrative burden.

When we asked survivors and stakeholders about what helped facilitate access to public benefits and balance those negative experiences, participants identified three facilitating factors. First, strong case management provided at Town Clock helps survivors navigate complex systems, translating confusing requirements into manageable steps. Rather than expecting individuals to independently decipher bureaucratic processes, caseworkers provide guidance, advocacy, and continuity while also empowering and respecting their choices.

Peer support is another facilitating factor. Survivors often benefit from connecting with others who have faced similar challenges. These relationships can reduce isolation, build confidence, and provide practical insights into navigating public systems. Our study participants shared how they learned important information about public benefits from each other.

Flexibility is equally important. Public benefit systems often rely on rigid rules that fail to account for the realities of survivors’ lives. Trauma-informed programmes, by contrast, allow for adaptability — through flexibility and individualised service plans. Town Clock, our study site, allows survivors to reside in their apartments without a time limit. This flexibility acknowledges that recovery is not linear and that survivors may face setbacks related to health, childcare, or legal proceedings. By accommodating these realities, Town Clock serves as a critical complement to public benefits, safeguarding material well-being during times of income gaps and application delays.

Policy and Research Implications

The implications for policymakers and administrators are clear. Public benefits are a vital resource for survivors of domestic violence, but their effectiveness is too often undermined by administrative complexity and stigma. Findings from our study indicate that TIC principles work to counter administrative burden. Policymakers and administrators should prioritise providing TIC training and resources to public agency staff to recognise the impact of trauma, implement TIC principles, and engage in case management that embeds trust, collaboration, and empowerment. Such strategies could complement paperwork reduction and modernisation efforts already underway in many agencies. Survivors in our study relied on their Town Clock case manager; not all survivors are fortunate enough to be connected to non-profit agencies. Integrating TIC into public benefit systems could enhance emotional well-being, financial stability, and system navigation for all survivors.

Future research could extend our findings and provide detailed policy guidance by investigating the strength of the relationship between TIC and administrative burden. Evaluations of TIC initiatives could include administrative burden as an outcome measure to assess how effectively TIC reduces these burdens for all applicants. Similarly, administrative burden studies could measure TIC principles. In other words, by taking steps to reduce administrative burden, are programmes also becoming aligned with TIC principles, even without intention to do so?

Reference

Hetling, Andrea, Vee Yeo, and Lillian McFarland. 2026. “Easing Administrative Burden in the Public Safety Net: Insights from a Trauma-Informed Housing Programme.” Journal of Social Policy: 1–18. doi: 10.1017/S0047279426101354.

About the Authors

Andrea Hetling is a Professor at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University, New Brunswick NJ, USA.

Vee Yeo is a Graduate Student Assistant at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University, New Brunswick NJ, USA.

Lillian McFarland is a Graduate Research Assistant at the Heldrich Center for Workforce Development, Rutgers University, New Brunswick NJ, USA.