TY - JOUR
AU - Wood,, Leila
AB - Abstract Domestic violence (DV) shelters provide safety for survivors to consider their options and heal from abuse. Unfortunately, survivors have reported negative experiences associated with shelter rule enforcement. Rules, such as curfew, decreased access to community social networks; and staff’s rule enforcement may trigger survivors’ past experiences with abusive control and structural racism. Rule enforcement may deter safe, trusting relationships between staff and residents. Statewide DV coalitions have been innovation leaders in shelter rules reduction efforts over the past decade. Seven DV shelter directors and coalition trainers with expertise implementing reduced-rule shelter models were interviewed for this study. Interview data were then analyzed using modified constructivist grounded theory methods. A three-stage implementation process emerged from the data. The initial stage highlighted efforts to create an organizational vision rooted in shared values. Shelters then intentionally focused on enhancing organizational capacity through staff development and team building. Third, rule-reduction practices were enacted through specific shelter policies and staff practices. Findings have broader implications for social work organizations also implementing anti-oppressive, survivor-centered, trauma-informed approaches, as this process involves considerable intention, training, and resources beyond services as usual. Social workers can support these efforts through student training, program development, and research efforts. Domestic violence (DV) is a pervasive social problem that affects 27 percent of women and 11 percent of men in the United States with documented consequences for survivors and their children, including increased risk for health and mental health concerns (Dillon, Hussain, Loxton, & Rahman, 2013; Smith et al., 2017) and for housing instability, employment, and financial ruin (Adams, Tolman, Bybee, Sullivan, & Kennedy, 2012; Pavao, Alvarez, Baumrind, Induni, & Kimerling, 2007). DV is a leading cause of homelessness (Baker, Niolon, & Oliphant, 2009; Panchanadeswaran & McCloskey, 2007). Social workers regularly work with DV survivors, including child witnesses, in nearly every facet of practice. The range of services for DV survivors includes shelter programs, which were designed to address the intersection of DV, safety, and financial vulnerability (Davies & Lyon, 2013; Goodman & Epstein, 2008). Like many social work settings, DV shelters traditionally used an empowerment and strengths-based model to work with survivors on their expressed needs. However, over time DV residential services, encouraged by national trends toward increased professionalization and institutional policy, have become more reliant on shelter rules and regulations within service delivery. Previous research indicates that rule-heavy models may be disempowering and cause early exit from needed services (Fisher & Stylianou, 2016; Wood, Cook Heffron, Voyles, & Kulkarni, 2017). Acknowledging the potential harm of unnecessary shelter rules, many DV agencies are interested in reducing or eliminating rules with limited available resources to guide practice change. The current study draws on expert perspectives from the field to improve understanding of DV shelter rules reduction philosophy and practice. DV SHELTER PROGRAMS DV shelters provide safe refuge and stable housing linkages for survivors facing housing instability or homelessness. Such shelters are designed to offer safe, and often confidential, residence where survivors may consider options and heal from abuse. Shelters typically provide a range of support services including, but not limited to, safety planning, crisis intervention, individual and group therapy, advocacy, legal services, employment assistance, and children’s programming (Lyon, Lane, & Menard, 2008; Sullivan, 2018). The National Network to End Domestic Violence (2017) estimated that there are over 41,195 survivors living in DV emergency shelter programs each day in the United States. The limited available research suggests that DV shelters are an effective intervention (Lyon et al., 2008). Survivors report feeling safe in DV shelters (Sullivan & Virden, 2017), and shelter use is significantly associated with termination of an abusive relationship (Jonker, Sijbrandij, van Luijtelaar, Cuijpers, & Wolf, 2015). However, survivors also report negative shelter experiences. Qualitative studies suggest that survivor dissatisfaction with DV shelter policies is not uncommon (Gregory, Nnawulezi, & Sullivan, 2017; Wood et al., 2017). Shelter rules, such as curfew, mandated services, parenting restrictions, chores, program time limits, alcohol/drugs/medication policies, and confidentiality restrictions are especially problematic for survivors (Fisher & Stylianou, 2016; Gregory et al., 2017). These policies negatively affect survivors’ engagement with their external social networks, and thus limit social support and material resources associated with those networks (Gregory et al., 2017; Wood et al., 2017). For some survivors, shelter rule enforcement closely mimics their abusive partners’ power and control behavior (Glenn & Goodman, 2015; Wood et al., 2017). Furthermore, for the disproportionate number of women of color served by shelters, oppressive regulations may also mirror the structural racism and implicit bias built into social services provision. In both situations, rule enforcement undermines the development of safe, trusting relationships between staff and residents. Generally, shelter rules tend to inhibit “the empowerment process by restricting survivors’ abilities to make their own choices about their lives and limiting their access to social networks” (Gregory et al., 2017, p. 15) and often contribute to survivors prematurely leaving DV shelters (Fisher & Stylianou, 2016; Wood et al., 2017). Hence, social workers should be committed to creating DV shelter programing that reflects anti-oppressive, survivor-centered, trauma-informed principles. EMERGING BEST PRACTICES IN DV SHELTER PROGRAMMING Anti-oppressive, survivor-defined, trauma-informed practices are the gold standard for DV programming (Glenn & Goodman, 2015; Goodman & Epstein, 2008). Anti-oppressive practices critically examine the use of power that may be “overtly, covertly, or indirectly racist, classist, sexist, and so on” (Clifford, 1995, p. 65) and actively work to dismantle structural oppression. Survivor-defined practices support survivor decision making driven by their own goals, priorities, and risks rather than through program requirements that tend to direct survivors toward predetermined outcomes (Davies & Lyon, 2013; Goodman & Epstein, 2008). Trauma-informed service models focus on creating safe environments, facilitating trust through consistent and transparent responses, maximizing choice and autonomy, collaborating on goal achievement, and prioritizing survivor empowerment and staff power sharing (Levenson, 2017). The trauma-informed approach encourages DV shelter services that are individualized based on the survivor needs, focused on ensuring physical and emotional safety, and aim to maximize survivor choice and autonomy (Sullivan, Goodman, Virden, Strom, & Ramirez, 2018). Taken together, an anti-oppressive, survivor-centered, trauma-informed service model involves staff knowledge of trauma and discrimination impact, staff commitment to addressing power and privilege through self and organization reflection, and intentional focus on the survivor’s expressed goals while facilitating a safer environment to heal from trauma. Organizational change processes are often necessary for implementing anti-oppressive, survivor-centered, trauma-informed service approaches. Specifically, rule-reduction shelter policies and staff practices require a supportive and accountable organizational culture (Glenn & Goodman, 2015). As the social work profession prioritizes implementing anti-oppressive, survivor-defined, trauma-informed practices, many organizations are shifting direct service practices to better align with this paradigm (Wilson, Fauci, & Goodman, 2015). Two state coalitions, the Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence (WSCADV, 2015a, 2015b) and the Missouri Coalition Against Domestic & Sexual Violence (MCADSV, 2011), have led in the development of rule-reduction strategies within shelter programs. Emerging evidence illustrates that low-barrier, voluntary DV service policies positively influence survivor empowerment and service quality. According to DV service advocates, low-barrier voluntary service policies were rooted in cultural values of justice and access, encouraged survivor-centered practices, and promoted survivor autonomy (Nnawulezi, Godsay, Sullivan, Marcus, & Hacskaylo, 2018). Despite social workers’ growing interest in low-barrier, anti-oppressive, survivor-centered, trauma-informed DV services, research identifying best practices for implementing rules reduction approach is currently lacking. Therefore, this study sought to understand the process of successful implementation of rule-reduction philosophies and practices within DV organizations. METHOD Study The impetus for this study emerged from a collaboration between the first author and a DV organization seeking guidance in implementing rule-reduced shelter policies and practices. As literature on this topic is limited, the research team designed a modified constructivist grounded theory method study (Charmaz, 2014) to answer the overarching research question: How do DV shelters successfully implement rule-reduction philosophies and practices throughout the organization? Key informants At the time of study, only two state DV state coalitions had published literature on rule-reduction shelter initiatives (MCADSV, 2011; WSCADV, 2015a, 2015b). In Missouri and Washington state, there were a small number of shelters who began piloting these approaches. For example, the Missouri coalition piloted their rule-reduction initiative with six shelters and later added seven more (MCADSV, 2011). Not all shelters sustained their commitment to rule-reduction approaches over time. Potential respondents were recruited through outreach and consultation with Washington and Missouri state DV coalitions leaders. The research team contacted coalition leaders, explained the study, and asked for key informant recommendations. As rule-reduction practices have not yet been implemented in the majority of shelters, early adopters of rule-reduction approaches were sought to elicit shelter implementation experiences over time. Snowball sampling was used to reach participants who might not otherwise be known by asking interview participants to nominate other experts (Padgett, 2016). Purposive sampling was also used to capture the experiences of various size shelters (for example, fewer than 20 beds to over 100 beds) within various community contexts (for example, urban and rural). Interviews A semistructured interview protocol was developed in collaboration with the partner DV organization. The interview protocol included questions about organizational context, changes following and challenges associated with rule-reduced implementation, and specific policies and procedure adoption (for example, curfew, child supervision, substance use, and so on). Seven key informant interviews were completed between October 2015 and February 2016.The in-depth telephone interviews conducted by the first author ranged in length from 50 to 70 minutes. The research team determined that theoretical saturation had been achieved when all categories within the emergent framework had been elaborated (O’Reilly & Parker, 2013). Interviews were conducted with shelter directors (n = 4), coalition leaders (n = 2), and one participant who previously had been a coalition trainer but served as a shelter director at the time of the interview. Experts were based in Missouri, Oregon, and Washington states, locales that have been experimenting with rule-reduction approaches for some time, with one expert located in the metropolitan region of a northeastern city. All respondents provided informed consent and the entire study was approved by the institutional review board of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Analysis Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. The primary author and her research assistant identified preliminary thematic codes during the data collection process, reviewed themes, and resolved any discrepancies through consensus. Initial coding focused on broad categories (for example, specific shelter policies; advocate–resident relationships) associated with the interview guide questions. These initial codes were then validated with a volunteer study respondent and local shelter service provider to increase confidence that codes were sound and relevant. Subsequently deeper analysis was sought to elicit organizational processes from initial themes. Thus, a secondary analysis was undertaken by all three authors (one of whom is a current practitioner). The coding team engaged in report writing, memoing, and feedback within the data analysis process. Some coding categories were collapsed within broader thematic categories, whereas other categories were separated into more distinctly meaningful categories. Relationships between themes were explored and tested using constant comparison with interview transcripts so as not to extend interpretations beyond what the data would support (Charmaz, 2014). RESULTS Respondents described a three-stage process for successful implementation of rule-reduced shelter policies and procedures (see Figure 1). The initial stage highlighted efforts to create an organizational vision that was operationalized by shared values. The second stage described an intentional focus on enhancing organizational capacity through staff development and team building. The third stage involved supporting rule-reduction practices through specific policies and procedures. Figure 1: View largeDownload slide Rule-Reduction DV Shelter Design Organizational Change Process Figure 1: View largeDownload slide Rule-Reduction DV Shelter Design Organizational Change Process Stage 1: Creating an Organizational Vision According to respondents, organizational culture was essential in aligning anti-oppressive, survivor-centered, trauma-informed philosophies within shelter program design and staff practices. Organizational culture was created and expressed through the shared staff values, norms, and practices. An organizational culture with anti-oppressive, survivor-centered, trauma-informed practices requires staff to espouse shared values. These shared values tended to be expressed as supporting clients’ “healing” and “empowerment.” One respondent enumerated her organizations’ values as “safety, relationship, emotional intelligence, awareness, intentionality, and belief in resilience, growth, and change.” Another respondent noted that their organization began by “rethinking its victim-defined, survivor-driven” values. Shared values were subsequently embraced across all organizational levels. As one respondent noted, from executive director to board of directors to “people who clean the floors,” the organizational philosophy and values were “relevant to everybody.” It is important to note that trauma-informed and anti-oppressive values had implications for shelters as workplace environments. As one respondent explained, the organization’s “cultural competency definition” specified a “respectful environment and interactions” and encouraged leadership to create the “places, space, and opportunity for staff to heal as much as the survivors.” Although cultural competence was identified by some respondents more concretely (for example, having the right hair products for black women or offering services in Spanish), one respondent described the more insidious racial bias that may be enacted by service providers without their knowledge (for example, “seeing a woman of color who is messy differently than a white woman who is messy”). The same respondent also described the structural racism inherent in shelters where staff are disproportionately white and survivors are disproportionately of color. According to many respondents, shared values were supported by organizational processes that helped to monitor and assess the operationalization of these values over time. Initially, potential staff might be assessed on their value-based decision-making skills. For current employees, supervision was viewed as critical in monitoring staff adherence to core values and when necessary to “get feedback from survivors on their experience” with specific staff. Stage 2: Shifting Organizational Culture As previously suggested, embracing shared values across the organization was a first important step in shifting organizational culture. Respondents spoke about leadership’s obligations to staff within a trauma-informed organization, including protecting staff from secondary trauma resulting from their work. In addition, respondents highlighted the importance of staff development and cohesive teams. Developing Staff Talented, committed staff was considered the lynchpin for providing anti-oppressive, survivor-centered, trauma-informed services within a rule-reduced shelter. Respondents described the importance of investing in staff through intentional hiring practices, ongoing training, quality supervision, and peer support. Staff recruitment based on trauma-informed competencies, particularly the ability to work relationally in unstructured, sometimes chaotic environments, was deemed very important. DV shelter staff were charged with responding to the unique, and often complex, needs of each resident. Advocates needed to be able to “put aside the intake sheet and connect and have conversations… get off script and connect and build rapport.” Most respondents valued these relational skills even more than educational credentials or professional work experiences. One respondent noted that rather than academic degrees she looked for “life experience that includes travel, connecting with people, volunteer work,” or “the things going on in this person’s life that show that they connect and like and have a curiosity for people.” As shelters more fully committed to anti-oppressive, survivor-centered, trauma-informed philosophies, hiring strategies also evolved to better assess survivor-centered practice skills. One shelter director always toured the shelter with candidates and watched candidates’ body language to see “how they feel when they meet” residents. Respondents asked applicants about how they “establish trust” or “enter into difficult conversations” with curiosity and respect. Scenario interview questions were seen as useful in gauging potential staff’s response to challenges. Interviewers asked questions such as these: Why do you think a client or a resident might lie to staff and what impact might that have if a resident lied to you? You walk into the shelter and you notice the dishes are dirty, there’s a crying baby, two women are yelling at each other, what are you going to handle… in what order and how? Candidates’ answers were then evaluated by their ability to convey “dignity toward the residents even though they [residents] might not be doing what they [staff] think they [residents] should be doing.” Training provided shelter staff with the knowledge, skills, and motivation to successfully provide anti-oppressive, survivor-centered, trauma-informed services within rule-reduced environments. Whereas larger shelters were able to provide in-house training, all shelters benefited from state coalition–provided trainings. Strongly endorsed training topics included trauma, brain development, vicarious trauma, trauma stewardship, DV survivor advocacy, and implicit bias. Skills trainings around DV survivor advocacy and conflict management were identified as foundational. In addition, broader topic trainings helped to philosophically reinforce staff values and roles. For example, two respondents described the importance of specific trainings that helped staff reflect on their work with residents. These included trainings that connected values, biases, and judgments with service provider responses, for example, teaching staff about the relationship between “privilege” and being a “gatekeeper,” or the “neurobiology” of judgment. Supervision was seen as a critical accountability tool for survivor-centered care best practices. Respondents endorsed readily available, strengths-oriented supervision to promote staff’s survivor-centered skills and competencies, and helping staff feel empowered to exercise those competencies. One shelter director described an “open door process” with much time “spent in conversation” or “double-checking on how to implement a certain procedure or if a policy applies in a certain situation” or “if they’re feeling vicarious trauma.” Another respondent explained, “I empower my staff to do good jobs. And they empower the victims to do well, and the children are empowered. And that’s just the way we operate in this building.” However, some advocates struggled to adapt to new expectations about roles and relationships with shelter residents—as they transitioned from “rule enforcers” to making decisions based on “conversations that put survivors [and survivor needs] at the center of the conversation.” One respondent explained the need for transparency and direct communication, especially in the face of staff performance issues: With some staff, I just have those straight-up conversations to say, this isn’t changing… and you are… increasingly going to become dissatisfied with your job and in the best cases, those folks would just leave on their own. Respondents highlighted peer support as essential. Support during working hours involved having available staff backup to manage crises, and also restorative physical spaces and wellness opportunities. Available peer support was critical as staff frequently encountered difficult professional choices, which they were expected to resolve without the benefit of hard-and-fast rules. Staff working independently needed to “talk through tricky things” or address “feelings coming up that are interfering with their ability to do survivor-centered advocacy.” Building Internal Collaborations Cohesive and coordinated staff teams were needed to sustain survivor-centered practices and a healthy work environment. Specific strategies for enhancing communication and encouraging community seemed to undergird collaborations. Well-functioning teams demonstrated effective communication. One respondent described the value of frequent communication between leaders and staff and regular team and all-staff meetings. Another respondent suggested that healthy communication involved focusing on individual staff needs and potential responses to secondary trauma: “instead of [asking] what’s happening in the house, ask how people are doing, what are the things that they are working on or might want to talk about and being consistent [in asking].” Most DV shelters are staffed 24/7; therefore staff working with the same residents may not work the same hours or days as each other. In larger shelters staff may work together but occupy different professional roles. Successful organizations encouraged positive relationships between staff across different shifts and job functions. When staff don’t see each other [they] start to mistrust each other and each other’s decision-making skills, so it’s really critical that people have time together… to reaffirm their values and their practice and have models for their advocacy stance of being compassionate, nonjudgmental, clear, matter-of-fact. Leadership provided resources necessary for staff to spend time together. One respondent described bringing in others to “keep things running for a day while the staff spends time together learning, reflecting, and having fun and building trust.” Another respondent described the staff’s decision to create a break room to encourage informal staff gatherings. Stage 3: Transforming Staff Practice The final stage of the implementation process involved staff practice transformation through organizational policies and procedures. According to one respondent, reducing rules created opportunities for shelter staff’s work to be positively changed in ways that benefited survivors and the organization. Without rules to “hide behind,” many staff became more proactive to “seek [residents] out instead of waiting for them to come.” Furthermore, freed from rule enforcement activities, “advocates have so much more time for working with people in productive ways that actually meet their needs and address their agendas.” Respondents identified several broad staff practice categories influenced by rule-reduction implementation. Encouraging Family and Parental Autonomy Survivor-centered approaches were advanced through practices that encouraged greater resident autonomy within shelter environments. These included reorienting or eliminating specific policies around curfew, parenting and child supervision, and maintenance of personal spaces. For example, curfew policies restrict residents’ control over their time and mobility. These policies can be remade to better support resident autonomy through examination of the rationale behind rules. We feel so worried as staff when people are out late at night… that has to do with control and boundaries and trauma stewardship on a staff side. There’s other ways to do that. One way… is that they [programs] just ask people to check in every 24 hours. The only respondent whose program had retained its curfew policy described the shelter’s transition to a more flexible approach where residents were asked “what kept you out?” with concern rather than being motivated by curfew enforcement. Respondents also described supportive interventions that strengthened alliances between staff and residents with the common goal of keeping kids safe and happy. They recommended “talking with parents early” in their stay and having “really frank conversation(s) about the ups and downs of parenting in shelters.” When child safety concerns emerged, programs focused on working with survivors on building parenting skills in respectful ways, such as providing parenting respite even if just for a few minutes. Finally, respondents described shelter policies and standards about the maintenance of residents’ personal spaces. Survivor-centered programs focused on creating a supportive approach that recognized housekeeping issues through a trauma-informed lens. Programs often re-evaluated their own cleanliness standards (that is, “their clean may not be my clean”) and about whose responsibility it was to maintain shelter cleanliness. One respondent noted that beyond “personal habits… trauma and depression can impact somebody’s ability to really care about any of that [cleanliness].” Individualizing Services The importance of shelter staff individualizing care and responding to residents’ unique needs was frequently referenced. Notably, survivor-centered care forced staff to think beyond survivors’ physical safety, absolute sobriety, and strict time limits for services. Though staff fears for residents’ safety come from a place of concern, respondents pointed out excessive rules were often “paternalistic” and were often experienced by residents as similar to abusers’ tactics of “coercive control.” Similarly, respondents endorsed substance use policies focused on risk reduction. Substance use might be assessed as either an attempt to manage trauma symptoms or as a sign of more significant addiction issues. As one program’s substance abuse policies recognized, residents “will use drugs and alcohol, and if it’s not causing a problem for other persons in the community, we look at it in terms of behavior not just use.” Length of program stay was often a challenging arena in which to balance survivor needs with limited resources. Program rules for stay extension varied; however, consensus emerged that reducing rules allowed more time to focus on personalized advocacy to improve residents’ outcomes. This more active emphasis on advocacy was contrasted with “watching to see if a person is worthy of a shelter stay.” One respondent described her program’s process in granting stay extensions as a “weekly client review” for the whole team—“so the team kind of makes the decision and sometimes they are not ones we want to make, but we need to.” Building Community The risk for communication breakdowns between staff and residents may be heightened with rule reduction. Shelter staff must transparently communicate with residents about resources, decision making, and organizational processes. In addition, they are expected to listen deeply to survivors to better understand their priorities, needs, and values. Respondents believed that with appropriate training staff could engage in difficult but effective conversations with residents. For example, as one respondent stated, It all comes back to talking to the survivor [and trying to understand]. How are they trying to socially reconnect? How are they coping? Rather than just assuming somebody is out carousing around and drinking, trying to get what is happening? What did it mean for you to go to that bar? Were there people there that you haven’t seen in a while? Or if you were going to go there and drink, safety plan, think how do you do that and stay safe? What are your concerns about it? What are your guidelines about how much you can drink and with who and you know, how can you check in? Respondents also indicated that residents needed clear information about shelter services, policies, and routines. Ongoing orientation practices allowed survivors time to adjust and feel supported while transitioning to shelter living. Respondents recommended creating a welcoming environment focused on resident needs rather than overwhelming residents with program requirements in their first days. Successful programs relied on multiple resident feedback strategies, including regular focus groups, anonymous surveys, exit interviews, advisory committees, and post-shelter follow-up through outreach programs. Increasing Access to Resources Shelter residents required a range of resources during their shelter stays. Respondents endorsed practices that increased timely access to resources by making supplies readily available and offering supplies in a manner sensitive to stigma associated with having to justify needs. Some respondents recommended freely giving away items to eliminate stealing and any sense of scarcity for residents and staff. Programs also facilitated survivors’ access to community-based social networks. As one respondent stated, Some programs gave up the idea that you [residents] have to spend every single night in the shelter. Some people… could go stay with relatives on the weekends or they could go stay with their mother a 40-minute drive away overnight sometimes, and that provided a real relief from the stress of shelter, but the fact that they could do that didn’t mean that their relative or their friend had the capacity to keep them in their house all the time. DISCUSSION Reducing rules represents an organizational approach for improving trauma-informed practices in DV shelters (Glenn & Goodman, 2015) and a shift from an agency-centered to a survivor-centered service model (Davies & Lyon, 2013; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2014). As numerous studies have documented the negative impacts of DV shelter rules (Gregory et al., 2017; Wood, et al., 2017), shifting shelter practice toward anti-oppressive, survivor-centered, trauma-informed approaches is a necessary step toward enhancing positive outcomes for survivors and their children. In this study, seven DV professionals, actively engaged in rule-reduction efforts in DV shelters, were interviewed about the organizational strategies that supported a successful transition to trauma-informed rule-reduced DV shelter services, including the ways in which staff practices were operationalized within a revised services model. During the first stage of the implementation process, organizational leaders communicated an anti-oppressive, trauma-informed, survivor-centered vision that connected rule-reduction practices with the shelter program’s mission and values. This stage often introduced new knowledge and skills through training that encouraged staff to think critically about their roles and practices (Gregory et al., 2017). State coalitions were instrumental in helping shelters to reduce rules by providing technical assistance and promoting learning across programs. For example, both the MCADSA (2011) and the WSCADV (2015a) developed rule-reduction training and resource materials. During the second stage of the implementation process, programs made strategic investments in shifting their organizational cultures to be supportive of rule-reduction practices. These investments involved hiring, training, and supporting DV survivor advocates with critical thinking and relational competencies necessary for anti-oppressive, survivor-centered, trauma-informed practice. Building internal collaborations across shelter staff was also necessary to create effective team problem solving and creative solutions. Teamwork required trust, a shared language, and ongoing communication channels. In the final implementation stage, staff practices were examined and operationalized to reflect the rule-reduction philosophy. Shelter rules, such as curfew, mandated services, parenting expectations, program time limits, and substance use policies, seen as particularly problematic by residents (Fisher & Stylianou, 2016; Gregory et al., 2017), were either modified or eliminated. As organizational culture shifted to embrace anti-oppressive, survivor-centered, trauma-informed values, staff practice could shift to incorporate rule-reduction approaches. The shifting of both organizational culture and staff practice responded to survivors’ needs in ways that encouraged autonomy, built community, increased resources, and individualized services. Such practice aligns with gold standards for DV shelter programming that emphasizes practices supporting survivors’ own goals, priorities, and risks within environments that prioritize choice, autonomy, and collaboration (Davies & Lyon, 2013; Levenson, 2017). This study has limitations in that its insights are drawn from a small group of experts and it may not be representative of perspectives of a broader spectrum of DV service providers or survivors. Furthermore, although these shelter practices have been held up as trauma-informed models, our study did not allow for trauma survivors to confirm their own experiences as shelter residents within these environments. However, as innovators these experts can provide useful guidance for those interested in implementing anti-oppressive, survivor-centered, and trauma-informed approaches, especially within residential service contexts. IMPLICATIONS Research Implications Social work researchers can continue to engage in thoughtful, rigorous research and evaluation efforts to support the development, implementation, and evaluation of rule-reduction approaches in shelter settings. Further research is needed to understand how different types of social work organizations operationalize and implement trauma-informed approaches and shift their culture to infuse trauma-informed values across all staff. Research can focus on synthesizing lessons learned from leaders in the social work field already implementing rule-reduced approaches across a variety of shelter settings. In addition, research is needed to understand the impact that relying on rule-reduction approaches to shelter programming has on the organization, staff, and clients over time. Practice Implications These findings have important implications across social work settings. Trauma-informed models are being promoted as emerging best practice models for traditional homeless shelters, recovery centers, and group homes (SAMHSA, 2014). However, as this study highlights, implementing anti-oppressive, survivor-centered, trauma-informed approaches, such as rule-reduction practices in DV shelters, involves considerable intention, training, and resources beyond services as usual. Organizations aiming to incorporate trauma-informed models into service delivery need to be prepared to create an organizational vision focused on anti-oppressive, trauma-informed, and survivor-centered values and communicate to staff how that vision links to the service delivery model. As the organization shifts to the implementation of trauma-informed models, it needs to consider hiring staff with critical thinking and relational competencies and building strong internal collaborations critical for the implementation of trauma-informed practices. Finally, organizations need to find ways to operationalize trauma-informed values into their organization’s specific program practices. Social Work Education Implications Social work educators can support the proliferation of anti-oppressive, survivor-centered, trauma-informed approaches in a number of important ways. All social workers should explicitly connect social work values around self-determination, social justice, and relationality to emerging trauma-informed approaches. These practitioner-driven and individualized approaches should be considered ethical practice in the same way that other more manualized evidence-based practices have been promoted. Social work educators can prepare future practitioners in critical thinking, self-reflection, effective communication, and organizational and systems change strategies that support the implementation of these approaches. While these competencies are already reflected in accreditation standards, educators can emphasize how these skills relate to emerging anti-oppressive, survivor-centered, trauma-informed practice models across practice fields. In addition, as social work education programs are producing specific trauma certifications and tracks, these trauma-focused programs should continue to help future social workers understand the important links between community, organization, and practice (Pantas, Miller, & Kulkarni, 2017). CONCLUSION DV shelter services, as other residential programs that serve vulnerable populations, provide critical support for individuals and families in crisis. However, such services cause unintended harms when trauma responses are not recognized, self-determination is unduly constrained, and social networks are undermined. Social workers should promote anti-oppressive, survivor-centered, trauma-informed practices, such as rules reduced shelter design, that effectively align social work values and service delivery. REFERENCES Adams , A. E. , Tolman , R. M. , Bybee , D. , Sullivan , C. M. , & Kennedy , A. C. ( 2012 ). The impact of intimate partner violence on low-income women’s economic well-being: The mediating role of job stability . Violence Against Women, 18 , 1345 – 1367 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Baker , C. K. , Niolon , P. H. , & Oliphant , H. ( 2009 ). A descriptive analysis of transitional housing programs for survivors of intimate partner violence in the United States . Violence Against Women, 15 , 460 – 481 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Charmaz , K. ( 2014 ). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis ( 2nd ed. ). London : Sage Publications . Clifford , D. ( 1995 ). Methods in oral history and social work . Oral History, 23 ( 2 ), 65 – 70 . Davies , J. , & Lyon , E. ( 2013 ). Domestic violence advocacy: Complex lives/difficult choices ( 2nd ed. ). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage Publications . Dillon , G. , Hussain , R. , Loxton , D. , & Rahman , S. ( 2013 ). Mental and physical health and intimate partner violence against women: A review of the literature . International Journal of Family Medicine, 2013 , Article 313909 . doi:10.1155/2013/313909 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Fisher , E. M. , & Stylianou , A. M. ( 2016 ). To stay or to leave: Factors influencing victims’ decisions to stay or leave a domestic violence emergency shelter . Journal of Interpersonal Violence . Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0886260516645816 Glenn , C. , & Goodman , L. ( 2015 ). Living with and within the rules of domestic violence shelters: A qualitative exploration of residents’ experiences . Violence Against Women, 21 , 1481 – 1506 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Goodman , L. A. , & Epstein , D. ( 2008 ). Listening to battered women: A survivor-centered approach to advocacy, mental health, and justice . Washington, DC : American Psychological Association . Gregory , K. , Nnawulezi , N. , & Sullivan , C. M. ( 2017 ). Understanding how domestic violence shelter rules may influence survivor empowerment . Journal of Interpersonal Violence . Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0886260517730561 Jonker , I. E. , Sijbrandij , M. , van Luijtelaar , M. J. , Cuijpers , P. , & Wolf , J. R. ( 2015 ). The effectiveness of interventions during and after residence in women’s shelters: A meta-analysis . European Journal of Public Health, 25 ( 1 ), 15 – 19 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Levenson , J. ( 2017 ). Trauma-informed social work practice . Social Work, 62 , 105 – 113 . Lyon , E. , Lane , S. , & Menard , A. ( 2008 ). Meeting survivors’ needs: A multi-state study of domestic violence shelter experiences. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/225025.pdf Missouri Coalition Against Domestic & Sexual Violence . ( 2011 ). How the earth didn’t fly into the sun: Missouri’s project to reduce rules in domestic violence shelters. Retrieved from https://www.mocadsv.org//FileStream.aspx?FileID=13 National Network to End Domestic Violence . ( 2017 ). Domestic violence counts 2016: A 24-hour census of domestic violence shelters and services. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://nnedv.org/mdocs-posts/census_2016_handout_report/ Nnawulezi , N. , Godsay , S. , Sullivan , C. M. , Marcus , S. , & Hacskaylo , M. ( 2018 ). The influence of low-barrier and voluntary service policies on survivor empowerment in a domestic violence housing organization . American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 88 , 670 – 680 . doi:10.1037/ort0000291 Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS O’Reilly , M. , & Parker , N. ( 2013 ). ‘Unsatisfactory saturation’: A critical exploration of the notion of saturated sample sizes in qualitative research . Qualitative Research, 13 , 190 – 197 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Padgett , D. K. ( 2016 ). Qualitative methods in social work research ( 3rd ed. ). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage Publications . Panchanadeswaran , S. , & McCloskey , L. A. ( 2007 ). Predicting the timing of women’s departure from abusive relationships . Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22 , 50 – 65 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Pantas , S. , Miller , S. A. , & Kulkarni , S. J. ( 2017 ). PS: I survived: An activism project to increase student and community trauma awareness . Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 37 , 185 – 198 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Pavao , J. , Alvarez , J. , Baumrind , N. , Induni , M. , & Kimerling , R. ( 2007 ). Intimate partner violence and housing instability . American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32 , 143 – 146 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Smith , S. G. , Chen , J. , Basile , K. C. , Gilbert , L. K. , Merrick , M. T. , Patel , N. , et al. ( 2017 ). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010–2012 state report . Atlanta : Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control . Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration . ( 2014 ). Trauma-informed care in behavioral health services: Treatment Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series 57 . (HHS Publication No. [SMA] 13–4801). Rockville, MD : Author . Sullivan , C. M. ( 2018 ). Understanding how domestic violence support services promote survivor well-being: A conceptual model . Journal of Family Violence, 33 , 123 – 131 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Sullivan , C. M. , Goodman , L. A. , Virden , T. , Strom , J. , & Ramirez , R. ( 2018 ). Evaluation of the effects of receiving trauma-informed practices on domestic violence shelter residents . American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 88 , 563 – 570 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Sullivan , C. M. , & Virden , T. ( 2017 ). An eight state study on the relationships among domestic violence shelter services and residents’ self-efficacy and hopefulness . Journal of Family Violence, 32 , 741 – 750 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence . ( 2015 a). Critical questions to ask about shelter rules. Retrieved from https://wscadv.org/resources/critical-questions-to-ask-about-shelter-rules/ Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence . ( 2015 b). Model policy on shelter rules. Retrieved from https://wscadv.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Model-Policy-on-Shelter-Rules.pdf Wilson , J. M. , Fauci , J. E. , & Goodman , L. A. ( 2015 ). Bringing trauma-informed practice to domestic violence programs: A qualitative analysis of current approaches . American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 85 , 586 – 599 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Wood , L. , Cook Heffron , L. , Voyles , M. , & Kulkarni , S. ( 2017 ). Playing by the rules: Agency policy and procedure in service experience of IPV survivors . Journal of Interpersonal Violence . Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0886260517716945 © 2019 National Association of Social Workers This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)
TI - Successful Rules Reduction Implementation Process in Domestic Violence Shelters: From Vision to Practice
JF - Social Work
DO - 10.1093/sw/swz010
DA - 2019-04-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/successful-rules-reduction-implementation-process-in-domestic-violence-blJo8040xG
SP - 147
VL - 64
IS - 2
DP - DeepDyve
ER -