Which statement best describes the relationship between housing instability among women and intimate partner violence?

• A. There Is No Relationship Between Housing Instability and IPV.
• B. Housing Instability Is Solely a Consequence of IPV, With No Impact on Future IPV Risk.
• C. There Is a Bidirectional Relationship; IPV Can Lead to Housing Instability, and Housing Instability Can Predict Future IPV.
• D. Housing Instability Only Occurs After an Abusive Relationship Ends.

Answer: (C)

The relationship between housing instability and intimate partner violence is bidirectional. IPV can lead to housing instability when a person leaves an abusive partner, seeks safety, or loses financial stability due to control or economic abuse, making stable housing hard to maintain. Conversely, unstable housing conditions—such as eviction risk, homelessness, or reliance on unstable shelters or temporary arrangements—can increase vulnerability to future IPV by limiting access to resources, trapping someone in precarious living situations, and increasing dependence on an abusive partner for shelter or financial support.

In practice, this means that when you screen a patient for IPV, also assess housing status, and vice versa. Recognize that improving housing stability can be an important part of reducing future IPV risk. Connect patients with safe housing options, social services, and trauma-informed support, and coordinate care with social work or housing resources to support safety planning.

Other statements don’t fit because they imply a one-way or post-relationship only relationship, which ignores how housing instability can precede and predict future IPV, and how IPV can precipitate housing instability.