Safehouses for modern slavery survivors

This report and research summary ‘A rapid, realist-informed review of safehouse provision for survivors of modern slavery and human trafficking’ is based on a research project conducted by Dr Nicola Wright (University of Nottingham), Dr Elizabeth Such (King’s College London) and in partnership with Naeema Ahmed and Debbie Ariyo (BASNET BME Anti-Slavery Network). This project was funded by the Modern Slavery and Human Rights Policy and Evidence Centre (PEC), at the University of Oxford, which in turn is funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC).

The Modern Slavery and Human Rights PEC have actively supported the production of the research summary and the full report. However, the views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily of the funders.

Background

Adequate housing is a human right enshrined in international law and relevant to all states (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2014). The right to adequate housing encompasses both freedoms and entitlements, including protection against forced eviction, security of tenure, and equal and non-discriminatory access.

Safe, stable, and appropriate housing is also closely linked to health and wellbeing, making it an important intervention in addressing health inequalities. Research on preventing intimate partner violence (IPV), for example, highlights how safe and accessible housing options — ranging from emergency shelters to permanent supportive accommodation — form a crucial component of holistic response strategies (Yakobovich et al., 2022). Similar considerations apply in the context of modern slavery and human trafficking.

For survivors of modern slavery and human trafficking, exploitation often involves the denial of a safe and secure home. In many cases, sites of exploitation are also places of residence, where individuals experience severe physical and psychological abuse. Leaving exploitative situations can therefore result in homelessness, destitution, and heightened vulnerability to retrafficking.

Internationally, safehouses are often the primary means through which survivors receive crisis accommodation and support in the immediate and intermediate post-exploitation period. Previous research has found that appropriate, supportive, and secure safehouse provision can promote recovery, support post-exploitation identity reconstruction, and facilitate community integration and stabilisation. However, not all survivors have positive experiences of safehouses, and in some cases individuals may be left feeling isolated, vulnerable, or unsafe.

This research therefore sought to examine for whom, and in what circumstances, safehouses promote recovery for survivors of modern slavery and human trafficking. Specifically, it aimed to understand how safehouses provide safe and appropriate support, and to identify the contexts in which they are most likely to facilitate recovery.

Key Findings

The research found that safehouses are not a single, uniform intervention, but a diverse accommodation of models operating within a complex system, both in organisational and policy contexts. However, the evidence base overwhelmingly focuses on traditional group home models, with limited evaluation of alternative approaches.

Across the dataset, four interrelated themes emerged as central to how safehouses function:

1. Safety and Security: Physical protection and confidentiality are essential, but overly restrictive or punitive practices can undermine autonomy and replicate dynamics of control experienced during exploitation.
2. The therapeutic milieu: The physical and relational environment of the safehouse plays a critical role in recovery. Trauma-informed, culturally responsive and accessible environments support emotional regulation, dignity, and agency, while poorly maintained or discriminatory environments can exacerbate harm.
3. Staff capacity and support: Consistent, trained and well-supported staff are central to building trust and relational security. Workforce instability, high caseloads, and lack of supervision undermine the quality and continuity of care.
4. Community connections and transitions: Recovery is shaped not only by time spent in a safehouse but also by the support provided to build social connections and transition into the wider community. Abrupt or poorly planned exits represent significant risk points for renewed vulnerability.

Key Recommendations

Safehouse providers and service managers

• Rights-based safety and autonomy: Apply restrictions only when necessary and proportionate; communicate clearly to survivors.
• Trauma-informed, culturally appropriate environments: Design accessible, therapeutic spaces and embed trauma-informed, culturally responsive practices into routines, activities, and skill development.
• Early, transparent transition planning: Begin survivor-led transition planning at entry with clear communication.
• Co-production and lived experience leadership: Meaningfully involve survivors in the design, delivery and evaluation of services, including through advisory groups, governance roles, and co-design of rules, routines and training.

Frontline practitioners

• Prioritise relational consistency and trust: Ensure survivors receive consistent, trauma-informed support by promoting continuity in staffing, behaviour and support models, embedding clear and consistent communication practices, and establishing structured processes for transferring case responsibility when staff changes occur.
• Trauma-informed practice in daily work: Apply rules and safeguarding practices that preserve dignity, choice, and collaboration.

Policymakers and system leaders

• Rights- and trauma-informed inspection and regulation: Include autonomy, therapeutic design, workforce support, and survivor experience in accountability frameworks.
• Sector-wide governance and accountability: Develop collaborative structures for shared learning, benchmarking, and lived experience input.

Researchers, funders and evaluators

• Trauma- and realist-informed research: Improve reporting of models and contexts, explore variation across survivor groups, use safe methods for asking about exploitation, and apply longitudinal designs.