Social Work With Female Victims of Gender Violence

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to reflect upon how the gender and/or feminist perspectives have been incorporated into social action, an issue recently being tackled in Spain. By analyzing the care provided by the Comprehensive Care Service for female victims of gender violence in Andalusia, I shall identify issues such as adopting a feminist or gender perspective for social action, perpetuating or changing the gender imperatives of social resources, and so on. These debates feature strongly in what are termed the contemporary perspectives of social work.

Keywords

feminist social work gender perspective gender violence social action social work

Introduction

Taking a specific experience as starting point—the care provided by the Comprehensive Care and Refuge Service for female victims of gender violence in Andalusia (hereinafter the Comprehensive Service)—the purpose of this article is to reflect on the interrelationship between gender and/or feminist perspective and social work.

This focus comes about as the result of a professional and personal process, along the same lines as the comment made many years ago by feminist Millett (2010, first edition 1970) when she stated that “the personal is political,” which put me in a number of different contexts where social work and “gender”² interacted. Thus, 12 years spent working as a technical coordinator within the Comprehensive Service, along with my participation in women’s associations, my move into the academic field and my doctoral thesis on issues relating to the creation and intersection of inequalities (see Alcázar Campos, 2010), led me to reflect upon what my working environment has been. This reflection inevitably turns into “reflexivity”³ when considering one’s own path and career and objectively analyzing personal experience, particularly as regards the collective unconscious covered by scientific knowledge categories.

To do this, I shall first set out how and why I came to deliberate on the interaction of social action and gender analysis. I shall then go on to outline an attempt to define both elements of the equation. Third, I shall connect them to my particular area of analysis: the Comprehensive Service. To conclude, I shall set out a number of reflections that look once again at the question posed at the beginning of this article: When are we undertaking feminist social work?

The History of a Relationship

The Comprehensive Service was consolidated in Andalusia principally as the result of a tragic event: the death in Granada of Ana Orantes, burnt alive by her husband in 1998. This event, and the wide media coverage it attracted (see analysis by Fagoaga, 1999, among others), encouraged the regional government to implement a plan (the First Action Plan of the Regional Government of Andalusia for the Eradication of Violence Against Women, 1998/2000), which formulated and coordinated initiatives that, until that point, had been fragmented and were being promoted by the feminist and women’s movements. At that point, by means of a concession granted by the regional government to the cooperative SEGRAMAAL SCA (later AGISE SL), the Regional Government of Andalusia created and gradually implemented what would finally be launched in 2004 as the Comprehensive Care and Refuge Service for female victims of gender violence in Andalusia.

I joined the Cooperative at its creation in 1998 as a technical coordinator, having previously worked as an “Educator” in Granada’s Home for Female Victims of Gender Violence (the Refuge) intermittently for 3 years.

Among my functions as a technical coordinator were those relating to supervising teams of professionals with different educational backgrounds and origins: male and female social workers, psychologists, legal advisers, social assistants,⁴ and female directors. The process by which these interdisciplinary teams were created was slow and gradual and reflected, to some extent, the evolution of the Service itself. This evolution was marked by gradually moving away from women’s associations characterized by their radical, activist, and voluntary nature, and adopting a more professional approach by setting out operation criteria and standardized practices.⁵ This struggle between activism and professionalism was always present and continues to be so today, with the result that women from women’s movements who keep the activist faith work alongside women who do not come from such organizations; there are, furthermore, philosophical principles of equality and social commitment⁶ that guide the course of action, along with the drive given by professional initiatives (such as the standardization of the documentation and procedures to be used).

At the same time as I was performing my job, I was also actively participating in women’s groups, mainly the Andalusian Association for Solidarity and Peace (ASPA) Women’s Group (an Andalusian Non Governmental Development Organization [NGDO]) and started my training in cultural and social anthropology. All of these elements shaped my professional career and led me to think about my own practice. From a feminist activism point of view, I thought about issues such as the power relationships within the interactions with the women we term users,⁷ the tactical and strategic objectives of planned actions (again taking up the distinction being made from the development cooperation perspective as regards gender perspective actions; an area I shall develop further later on in this article), the participation of the women in their own processes, and respecting each women’s pace (based on the pluralistic and diverse training that the anthropological viewpoint gives me), and so on. These were the questions that filled up the scarce moments available for reflection while at work (and which usually coincided with drafting annual performance reports or with the management of complex situations in the Women’s Shelters).

Finding the answers to these questions was something I put off while I got involved in other challenges that, however, were always related the analysis of inequalities, central to which are gender inequalities. It was not until what I term my return to social work, this time from the academic perspective, that I decided to reflect on some of these questions which, obviously, are not mine alone, but also exercise many of the colleagues I have worked with.⁸

My participation in the launch and consolidation of the Comprehensive Service from its beginnings in SEGRAMAAL SCA, along with a certain “perspective” and my connection with feminist thinking and the feminist movement, hence led me to ponder on whether the mere fact of working with women meant working for women with the deliberate aim of social transformation; that is, to what extent we can talk about feminist action processes from the social work viewpoint. I shall reflect from here onward on this wider question, which has no clear-cut answer, by linking it to the actions carried out by the Comprehensive Service and to the rules and regulations of the Regional Government of Andalusia in this area. Nevertheless, as a way to give context to this analysis, I feel that it is first necessary to map out the intersections that have existed between social action and the feminist perspective in the Spanish context.

Social Work and Feminist Perspective: An Overview of an Ambiguous Relationship

The link between social work and feminism began in the 1980s, connected with the second wave of feminism, and focused on attempts to identify the nature of women’s oppression. In social work, feminist social work practitioners rely on theory to challenge the pathologizing discourses about women, inequalities, and oppression. Social workers are asked critically to examine feminist theory in order to provide a suitable fit for a broad range of problems experienced by women (Saulnier, 1996).

In the 1980s, Dominelli and McLeod (1999 [1989], p. 27) wrote about feminist social work. They regarded feminist social work as being informed by Marxism, socialism, and liberalism. According to the authors, the construction of feminist social work could be condensed into:

a very simple idea: that there are not two sorts of people in the world, the superior and the inferior, or in terms of power relations, the dominant and the subordinate. We are all equal irrespective of our gender. Social relations that obliterate this fact must therefore be transformed and recreated in ways that reflect equality in terms of gender. (Dominelli & McLeod, 1999 [1989], p. 1)

Today, recent works about feminist social work connect with the recent debates in feminism, especially with debates around women’s diversity. Dominelli (2002, p. 2) recognizes that “the current scene has diverged substantially from that evident when Eileen McLeod and I wrote Feminist Social Work” and this situation implies that “it is more appropriate, therefore, to speak of feminisms”. According to the author, however:

There are a number of principles that feminists share, regardless of their overall analyses and calls for action. These include integrating the personal and political dimensions of life, respecting the diversity encompassed by women, seeking more egalitarian forms of social relationships and transforming the existing social order… Women have persevered in searching for ways of symbolically and practically emphasizing their commitment to “unity in diversity.” (Dominelli, 2002, pp. 3–4)

Recently, others issues have been included in feminist social work, such as incorporating men more fully into social work theory and practice (Cavanagh & Cree, 1996; Orme, Dominelli, & Mullender, 2000) or the existence of various forms of women’s oppression, not only gender (Orme, 1998), this latter issue worth particular emphasis. From Dominelli (2002, p. 37), “Deconstructing the category ‘woman’ enables social workers to focus on women’s complex and fluid identities within and across a range of social divisions and variations across time and space.” Accordingly, feminist social workers have been encouraged to “recognize and work with the ways in which they are divided as well as the ways in which they are united” (Featherstone & Fawcett, 1995).

A recent contribution to the literature about feminist social work is White’s (2006, p. 3) work. This author, in her book titled The State of Feminist Social Work, tries “to explore these tensions between literature and practice by focusing on women social workers’ experiences in statutory settings.” White (p. 11) addresses the theory, particularly the eclecticism, and the practice, and how both interact. In this book, she reflects on the emergence onto the feminist social work agenda of a diverse range of women’s standpoints. This question has often been discussed in terms of how differences among women can be incorporated into feminist practice and ultimately transcended. In addition, she is interested in the power relationships between women social workers and women service users and the existence of diverse and splintered identities among social workers.

In Spain, the connection between social work and feminism or gender issues was not formulated by researchers until relatively recently (two of the first studies, one by Enrica Mata and Gloria Rubiol, entitled “El Treball Social Feminista” (Feminist Social Work) and one by Tomasa Báñez, entitled “Género y Trabajo Social” (Gender and Social Work, 1992 and 1997, respectively). Over the years, this connection has been made in different ways. Let us look briefly at some of these approaches, in which a distinction is drawn between the agents and recipients of social action.

Agents of Social Action

Social work has been analyzed taking gender perspective into account according to who does it, that is, the agents: Most of them are women. We are thus talking about a profession whose members are predominantly female (a situation that still prevails today but which is in the process of changing, as those of us who work in teaching social work observe).

This feminization of the social work profession is addressed from different points of view:

Social work is recognized as being mainly performed by women and this leads in some way to its being devalued. Lorente Molina (2002, p. 169) states:

(… ) gender content is inherent in and shapes social work. It is imbued with the values, representations and meanings of female culture. This culture, within the scope of Western civilization, corresponds to a model that includes a tradition of care and social support. It also includes expectations regarding characteristics such as sensitivity, tenderness, subjectivity, mediation capacity, solving problems within the private sphere (… ) which have historically been assigned to women and which, moreover, have burdened the profession.

Berasaluze Correa (2009) also considers a number of consequences for exercising the profession that arise from women’s gender socialization, that is, the gender socialization of the female agents who carry out social action. This author describes inter alia the subordinate position within the social services system, in which female social workers are very rarely in positions of power (something also highlighted by Dominelli & MacLeod, 1999 [1989]); the capacity to call for the improved well-being of others rather than demanding professional rights or interests; and carrying out social work as a continuation of the role traditionally assigned to women, with a set of attitudes and abilities considered “natural” (see Das Biaggio, 1999).

There is a strong case being made for the historical recovery of what has been termed “the pioneers of social work” (Morales Villena, 2010; Ploil, 2005) as a way of tracing the genealogy of the profession through its agents, mainly women.

Recipients of Social Action

In this case, the analysis of social work taking gender perspective into account is made according to who the recipients of social action are—mostly women—together with the effects that actions can have on these recipients (gender impact).

The fact that the population at which social work action is aimed is mostly women is analyzed. A distinction is made here between women who require and request direct social action, usually as a result of suffering gender violence, or assistance with integration into the labor market (Roldán García, 2004), and women who are the spokespersons for family problems and even find it difficult to express their own needs (Mata and Rubiol, 1992).

Analyses are made of what is termed the gender impact of social policies and the practice of social workers themselves. The first point refers to how diverse policies affect women’s lives. Various examples of this are the analysis of municipal gender policies, carried out by Elena Roldán García, Teresa Zamanillo Peral, Teresa García Giráldez, and Aurora Castillo (published in Roldán García, 2004), or the analysis by Patrocinio de las Heras (De las Heras Pinilla, 1999) of the implementation and operation of the Social Services system in Spain in terms of how it affects women’s lives.

The second point relates to the practice of social workers and how it is approached from the gender relationships point of view. In a research project carried out with social workers from different areas of the city of Valencia (Spain) using the technique of discussion groups, Fombuena Valero (2006, p. 148) reflects on the content of the profession. This reflection flags up some issues that can be read from the gender analysis viewpoint, such as the “isomorphism between users—social workers that narrows the action framework into a permanently reactive complaint” and the balance between the ethics of care, more associated with women, and social justice, more associated with men, without needing to establish a hierarchy for both of them (following the approach used by Gilligan, 1982).

Despite making this grouping for the purposes of presentation, we must not forget that all these issues are interconnected and some of them have been analyzed in a number of the studies cited in this article. However, this brief approach may help us to understand how gender and feminist and/or gender theory have become linked to social work in Spanish context.

Thus, in the following section, by using a case study (the Comprehensive Service), I shall focus on taking up some of these debates again and attempt to reflect on how to implement feminist and/or gender practice from the social work point of view.

The Comprehensive Care and Refuge Service for Female Victims of Gender Violence in Andalusia: An Example of Social Action With a Gender and/or Feminist Perspective?

In tune with the formulations made by a number of British and American authors (Bricker-Jenkins & Hooyman, 1986; Dominelli, 2002; Dominelli & McLeod, 1989; Featherstone, 2001; White, 2006), I consider that the word “feminist” fits the transforming approaches that form part of social action (there are even authors who state that “social work is inherently feminist” [Collins, 1986]). Thus, the questions are as follows: When can we talk about feminist social action? Are there some elements and/or questions that we can use to guide us? How do these analyses connect with the theory debates? I shall try to elaborate on these questions using a specific case as my basis: the care provided in Women’s Shelters to female victims of gender violence in Andalusia.

This analysis is based on both the diverse regulations that govern the Service (particularly those concerning operating models) and on my own experience working as a technical coordinator for Andalusia for 12 years.

The Emergence of Women’s Shelters Within the Spanish Context

Around the world, feminist agitation against domestic violence has ensured that the police, courts, probation officers, and social workers handle the issue differently now than they did a few years ago (Mullender, 1997). This connection is clear when we refer to the shelters for female victims of domestic violence that emerged within the European and the U.S. contexts in the 70s (Giebeler, 2006; Olsen, 2007). As stated by Olsen (2007, p. 2) regarding the U.S. experience: “Groups of women purchased or rented both large and small homes, sought non-profit status, and began sheltering women and children from abusers” (see also Kenney, 2005). These shelters are almost always not for profit and rely on government and privately donated funds and goods. In the United States, there has been a greater professionalization (Stark, 2007) and diversification of the services (Olsen, 2007) with special emphasis on transitional housing (Sullivan, 2003). Baker, Billhardt, Warren, Rollins, and Glass (2010, p. 432) cite two types of transitional housing models. First, facility-based programs, where a domestic violence agency utilizes a building specifically set aside for victims of domestic violence and their children. Second, programs that offer temporary vouchers or rent assistance, helping women to pay their rent in houses or apartments located in the community, or helping women remain in their existing homes if the abuser has vacated and they feel it is safe for them to stay.⁹ The majority also engage in some form of advocacy (Peled & Edleson, 1994) and offer crisis intervention services and may or may not also provide immediate shelter, long-term counseling, and support (Sullivan & Guillum, 2001).

Spain timidly joined this trend in the 80s (Walker, Rey, Segovia, & Alonso, 1986), but it was not until the 90s that the care response to gender violence as a specific problem was approached. Different instruments have therefore been adopted which have guided the development of responses to this problem, including the establishment and operation of Women’s Shelters. As stated by Osborne (2008), in this way, the interests of public administrations and feminism coincide and, consequently, the latter remobilizes and gains more social space by encouraging people to speak out and report violence against women (Marugán and Vega, 2001).

Within this confluence of interests, something that has not been without friction (for a deeper analysis of this issue, refer to Osborne, 2008), Women’s Shelters have been replaced by centers for comprehensive care, as was made clear by the subheading of a national conference held in Oviedo in 2006 (Instituto de la Mujer [Spanish Institute for Women's Affairs], 2007). It must be highlighted that the comprehensive approach is one of the recent requirements applied to these centers.

The Case of Andalusia

In Andalusia, the comprehensive option is part of the provisions of Law 13/2007 of November 26, on Prevention and Comprehensive Protection from Gender Violence. Article 44 of this Law concerning the requirements and types of comprehensive care centers reads as follows:

1. Types of comprehensive care centers shall be organized according to the following care levels:

a) Emergency shelters

b) Women’s shelters

c) Supervised Flats¹⁰,

2. In these centers, efforts shall be made to achieve the complete recovery of women and the minors accompanying them by means of multidisciplinary action that covers actions within the following areas: socio-educational, social, educational, psychological and legal.

The Comprehensive Service is thus set up based on a system of coordinated resources that aim to offer the protection and support needed for women’s personal recovery.¹¹ This service comprises centers located in the eight provinces of Andalusia and offers immediate response 24 hr a day. The care system is therefore structured into three levels, following a “concentric circles” type of organization without it being necessary or automatic to pass between them.

There is a technical team that works together with social assistants who, by means of a shift system, ensure that there is a permanent presence of professionals in both Women’s and Emergency Shelters, but not at the Supervised Flats. This technical team consists of:

A director; she is responsible for the three resources, in charge of coordinating and supervising the action of all the professionals.

A legal professional; she provides legal advice on both civil and criminal issues to all women who pass through the different centers.

A psychologist; she provides one-to-one and group counseling, mainly to women who are in Women’s Shelters and Supervised Flats, acting on demand for specific cases in Emergency Shelters.

A social worker; due to the essential role of this person as regards providing care for female victims of gender violence, there is a professional who works in Emergency Shelters whose main task is to assess the most appropriate options for each case, and there is another professional who deals with social care in Women’s Shelters and Supervised Flats, whose work focuses on managing the social benefits to which women are entitled as citizens and advising them on social issues.

A brief description of the action model is:

An action model based on gender perspective (if we understand this as the promotion of women’s empowerment) and the defense of women’s rights and equal opportunities is formulated, at least in the objectives. Both aspects are covered in the Service Charter for the Comprehensive Service (Order of February 24, 2010, Official Gazette of the Regional Government of Andalusia, number 51 of March 16, 2010).

Predominance is given to one-on-one work, with some instances of family work (without the male parent), while group intervention is more limited although meetings and group counseling activities are held. Community-level work is the most difficult to carry out, partly due to the characteristics of the population we work with; the need to preserve a degree of secrecy (particularly in Emergency Shelters); the temporary nature of the stay; single-parent families with precarious integration in the labor market that makes it difficult for them free up time, so that they can organize and/or participate collectively, and so on.

A model of comprehensive, quality work is advocated, but there is no clear definition of this model:

“1. The Comprehensive Care and Refuge Service offers comprehensive and quality care to female victims of gender violence who are forced to leave their homes, providing them with temporary refuge in residential facilities together with the care required during their stay in these facilities. This care is provided by a multidisciplinary team consisting of social workers, psychologists, lawyers and social assistants.” (Service Charter, italics added by the author)

It must be highlighted that although in the rest of the Service Charter a number of quality criteria and commitments are adopted as regards comprehensive care (such as the guarantee of sufficient available places in emergency shelter places to meet the entire demand), such care appears to be provided through the multidisciplinarity of teams and by using what it is called the process management approach (without, once again, defining what this actually means).

A distinction is drawn between the work to be done in Emergency Shelters and the work to be done in Women’s Shelters and Supervised Flats. The first aims primarily to reassure women and their children, providing them with a safe space and emotional assistance, so that they can face the decision made to leave the violent situation in which they were living. At the emergency level, objectives relate to practical needs of gender according to Moser’s (1991) proposal. This author follows the distinction made by Molyneux (1985) to the effect that strategic gender interests aim to overcome women’s subordination from a structural point of view, while practical needs address improving specific conditions of women’s lives. At this level, although work is being undertaken to raise gender awareness by supporting and backing women’s decisions to break away from situations of violence, the urgency of the care, its extremely temporary nature (of a maximum of up to 1 week), and the condition of the women who arrive in the Center (on many occasions after suffering physical aggression), make it difficult to carry out more strategic work, that is, work which takes into account the changes in the subordination relationships involved and thus give an answer to strategic gender interests.

By contrast, in the second and third levels, Women’s Shelters and Supervised Flats, there is higher emphasis on empowerment and promotion of women’s independence, trying to recreate as far as possible independent ways of life for women in the shelters, so that they have to take on responsibilities similar to those they would have if they were living outside the Center. These levels seem to be the most suitable for carrying out action that not only targets practical needs but also strategic gender interests. Specifically, we could talk about building empowerment, understood as a process the goal of which is to reorganize power relationships and provide the capacity to change them. This is a question of supporting women throughout a process in which each one, at their own pace, achieves the highest possible degree of empowerment.

In essence, there seems to be a move toward promoting women’s empowerment, an issue that must be dealt with by interdisciplinary teams as a guarantee of comprehensiveness; these teams must accompany women in their process of personal construction. Some of the actions carried out are aimed at achieving this end: Developing an individualized plan for each woman (and her children) that addresses vulnerable situations and the potential of each woman; giving the highest participation to women, so they themselves define their objectives; flexibility of objectives; accessibility and nearness of professionals; cooperative work focusing on capabilities; reinterpreting the gender violence situation from a social standpoint (shifting from individual to social pathology, based on gender inequality); and promoting the participation of women in the operation of the Service, and so on. However, in spite of being considered feminist approaches, their practical application reveals a numbers of problems that will be set out as conclusions in the section below.

Conclusion: Critical Feminist Aspects in the Shelters

In this article, we use the analysis of a specific case, the implementation of the Comprehensive Care and Refuge Service for female victims of gender violence in Andalusia, to reflect upon issues related to feminist social work. As stated in Social Work and Feminist Perspective, An Overview of an Ambiguous Relationship section, feminist social work can be understood as “a form of social work practice that takes women’s experience of the world as the starting point of its analysis and by focusing on the links between a woman’s position in society and her individual predicament, responds to her specific needs, creates egalitarian relations in ‘client’—worker interactions and addresses structural inequalities” (Dominelli, 2002, p. 7).

However, there are some professional dynamics which call into question (or oppose) this task of responding to women’s specific needs and seeking a transformation of their situation of subordination. Some examples, stated in Alcázar Campos (2011, p. 180), are as follows:

A degree of “inertia” in the action processes that homogenizes the women with whom work is carried out and, at the same time, strips them of their agency and makes them victims. Issues such as the multiplicity of roles and tasks that the teams are required to carry out on a daily basis, within a context of stresses coming from both the demands of the women in the shelters and the issues of funding by public institutions, together with gender socialization that prioritizes the ethics of care (Fombuena Valero, 2006) that can be subject to a degree of maternalism are just a handful of the factors that drive this dynamic.

A mismatch between the objectives established to measure the “success” of action and those genuinely pursued by the women with whom work is carried out. The emphasis on empowerment as an objective to be met (understood as living in an independent domicile) creates demands relating to the application of a success model that does not take into account these women’s specific points of both departure and arrival. In this way, by imposing the objectives of the institution ahead of user objectives, we are acting contrary to one of the fundamental principles of feminist or gender social work (Dominelli, 2002; Featherstone, 2001).

The burnout syndrome that is observed in some teams, mainly due to women leaving the centers and the aforementioned mismatch of objectives. This leads to certain attitudes similar to those described by Fombuena Valero (2006, p. 148) coming into play, what she calls “isomorphism between users—social workers,” in addition to a degree of “rejection” of users.

The prevalence of individualized action at the expense of group and community-level action. This contradicts some of the principles of social work put forward with a gender perspective that understands group work as a key factor, since through it women cease experiencing their problems as individual failures. At the same time, women become aware of the power they have and begin gaining greater control over their lives (Howe, 1999, p. 196).

The difficulties in adapting to the diversity of women and situations dealt with in the Shelters. The recent phenomenon of the increase in women of different nationalities, as reflected by the 37.17% of non-Spanish women attended in 2008 (latest figures published by the Andalusian Institute for Women’s Affairs), is worth highlighting. The need to take into account this diversity has already been stated by black feminists in the United States. In this regard, Mama (1989) pointed out the differences in black women’s experience of domestic violence and difficulties encountered because of racism. These impacts have ranged from having their experiences belittled by being portrayed as accepting domestic violence as a cultural norm, to jeopardizing their right to remain in European countries when they have entered as sponsored dependents of husbands or fiancés.

These and other drawbacks and difficulties, both external and internal, can lead us to state that, just as in society and institutions, and in this case in the Comprehensive Care and Refuge Service, there are plenty of good intentions and even appropriate theoretical formulations, but they are difficult to implement.

To continue thinking about and researching this complexity will be a task for everyone, the objective being to facilitate the operational implementation necessary for social action. In sum, we agree with Lay and Daley (2007, p. 59) that “promoting feminist principles for social work is a critical priority for the future. Women face issues of equity related to economics, poverty, healthcare, childcare, and so forth. The analysis of these issues must also include race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, and how these play out on a global landscape. Strategies to create a practice framework that empowers and honors women are the challenge for the future.”

In Spain, recent developments that include variables such as age, class, ethnic origin, and so on, in the analysis (Lorente Molina, 2003), or that analyze how masculinities interact with social work (Blanco López, 2006), play their part in enriching this task.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Alcázar Campos

. (2010). La Cuba de verdad: construcción de alteridades y turismo en la contemporaneidad. Granada, Spain: Universidad de Granada. Consultado en mayo de 2012, from http://0-hera.ugr.es.adrastea.ugr.es/tesisugr/18955186.pdf

Alcázar Campos

(2011). Recursos Asistenciales para mujeres víctimas de violencia de género. Una síntesis necesaria. En C. Nieto Morales (Coord.), La Violencia de género en el contexto de la globalización (pp. 791–811). Málaga, Spain: Universidad Internacional de Andalucía.

Baker

Billhardt

K. A.

Warren

Rollins

Glass

N. E

. (2010). Domestic violence, housing instability, and homelessness: A review of housing policies and program practices for meeting the needs of survivors. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 430–439. Retrieved December 15, 2012, from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.avb.2010.07.005

Báñez

Tello T.

(1997). Género y Trabajo Social. Acciones e Investigaciones Sociales, 6, 151–188.

Berasaluze Correa

(2009). El devenir del Trabajo Social en clave de género. Zerbitzuan: Gizarte zerbitzuetarako aldizkaria, 46, 133–140.

Blanco López

(2006). Aproximación a la intervención social con perspectiva de género. La masculinidad como un factor de riesgo. Acciones e investigaciones sociales, Extra, 1, 179–196.

Bourdieu

Wacquant

L. J. D.

(1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bricker-Jenkins

y Hooyman

N. R.

(Eds.). (1986). Not for women only: Social work practice for a feminist future. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of Social Workers.

Busch

N. B.

Valentine

(2000). Empowerment practice: A focus on battered women. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 15, 82–95.

10.

Cavanagh

Cree

V. E.

(1996). Working with men: Feminism and social work. London, England: Routledge.

11.

Collins

B. G.

(1986). Defining feminist social work. Social Work, 31, 214–219.

12.

Das Biaggio

(1999). Propuesta de formación de trabajadoras sociales desde una perspectiva de género. Revista de Servicios Sociales y Política Social, 45, 85–97.

13.

Davis

L. V.

Hagen

Early

T. J.

(1994). Social services for battered women: Are they adequate, accessible and appropriate? Social Work, 39, 695–704.

14.

De las Heras Pinilla

. (1999). Bienestar Social y Servicios Sociales desde una perspectiva de género. Revista de Servicios Sociales y Política Social, 45, 121–134.

15.

De Robertis

(2003). Fundamentos del Trabajo Social. Ética y Metodología. Valencia, Spain: Nau Llibres y Universitat de València.

16.

Dominelli

(2002). Feminist social work: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

17.

Dominelli

MacLeod

(1999). Trabajo Social feminista. Madrid, Spain: Cátedra. (primera edición en inglés, 1989).

18.

Fagoaga

(1999). La violencia en los medios de comunicación. Madrid, Spain: Instituto de la Mujer.

19.

Featherstone

. (2001). Where to for feminist social work? Critical Social Work, 2. Retrieved December 1, 2001, from http://www.uwindsor.ca/criticalsocialwork/where-to-for-feminist-social-work

20.

Featherstone

Fawcett

(1995). Power, difference and social work: An exploration. Social Work Education, 15, 3–20.

21.

Fombuena Valero

(2006). La influencia de la dimensión de género en el Trabajo Social. Cuadernos de Trabajo Social, 19, 133–154.

22.

Giebeler

(2006). Engendering social work. Conceptos teóricos y metodológicos feministas en su relación con el Trabajo Social. Acciones e investigaciones sociales, 1, 123–134.

23.

Gilligan

(1982). In a different voice. London, England: Harvard University Press.

24.

Howe

(1999). Dando sentido a la práctica. Granada, Spain: Maristán.

25.

Instituto de la Mujer. (2007). Congreso estatal: de las Casas de Acogida a los Centros de Atención Integral. Madrid, Spain: Instituto de la Mujer, Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales.

26.

Kenney

S. J

. (2005). Domestic violence intervention program. Unconditional shelter? Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 16, 221–243. Retrieved December 15, 2012, from http://tulane.edu/newcomb/upload/domestic_violence_intervention.pdf

27.

Lay

Daley

J. G.

(2007). A critique of feminist theory. Advances in Social Work, 8, 49–61.

28.

Lorente Molina

(2002). Trabajo Social, mujer y perspectiva de género. Anotaciones para pensar la intervención social más allá de una intervención sectorial. En M. Olza Zubiri y J. Hernández Arista (Comps.), Trabajo Social: (cuestiones sobre el qué y el cómo) (pp. 161–173). Zaragoza, Spain: Certeza.

29.

Lorente Molina

(2003). Perspectivas de género y trabajo social. Construyendo método desde el paradigma intercultural. Portularia, 4, 33–47.

30.

Mama

(1989). Hidden struggle: Statutory and voluntary responses to violence against black women in the home. London, England: Race and Housing Unit.

31.

Marugán

Vega

(2001). El cuerpo contra-puesto. Discursos sobre la violencia contra las mujeres. En Bernárdez

(Ed.), Violencia de género y sociedad: una cuestión de poder (pp. 109–133). Madrid, Spain: Instituto de Investigaciones Feministas y Ayuntamiento de Madrid.

32.

Mata

Rubiol

(1992). El treball social feminista. Revista de Treball Social, 125, 84–95.

33.

Millett

(2010). Política sexual. Madrid, Spain: Cátedra. (primera edición en inglés de 1970).

34.

Molyneux

(1985). Mobilization without emancipation? Women’s interests, the state, and revolution in Nicaragua. Feminist Studies, 11, 227–254.

35.

Morales Villena

(2010). Género, mujeres, trabajo social y sección femenina. Historia de una profesión feminizada y con vocación feminista. Granada, Spain: Universidad de Granada.

36.

Moser

(1991). Planificación de género en el Tercer Mundo. En Guzmán

Portocarrero

Vargas

(Comps.), Una nueva mirada: Género en el desarrollo (pp. 55–124). Lima, Peru: Entre Mujeres.

37.

Mullender

(1997). Rethinking domestic violence: The social work and probation responses. London, England: Routledge.

38.

Olsen

. (2007). Battered women’s shelters. Seattle, WA: Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Retrieved December 12, 2012, from http://www.wscadv.org/docs/Mar_07_Inside_Scoop.pdf

39.

Orme

(1998). Feminist social work practice. In Adams

Dominelli

Payne

(eds.), Social work. Themes, issues and critical debates (pp. 218–228). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

40.

Orme

Dominelli

Mullender

(2000). Working with violent men from a feminist social work perspective. International Social Work, 43, 89–116.

41.

Osborne

(2008). De la “violencia” (de género) a las “cifras de la violencia”: una cuestión política. Empiria. Revista de Metodología de Ciencias Sociales, 15, 99–124.

42.

Peled

Edleson

J. L.

(1994). Advocacy for battered women. Journal of Family Violence, 9, 285–296.

43.

Ploil

(2005). Género y Trabajo Social. La Aljaba, IX, 208–211.

44.

Ricoeur

(1970). Freud and philosophy: An essay in interpretation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

45.

Roldán García

(Ed.). (2004). Género, políticas sociales e intervención social. Madrid, Spain: Editorial Complutense.

46.

Saulnier

C. F.

(1996). Feminist theories and social work: Approaches and application. New York, NY: Haworth Press.

47.

Stark

(2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

48.

Suárez Soto

Palomar Villena

(1993). El cliente en el trabajo social: cuestiones conceptuales y análisis tipológico. Alternativas. Cuadernos de Trabajo Social, 2, 101–117.

49.

Sullivan

C. M

. (2003). Transitional housing policy and practices: Battered women’s and service provider’s perspectives. National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women. Retrieved December 11, 2012, from http://www.vawnet.org/assoc_files_vawnet/transhouspolicy.pdf

50.

Sullivan

C. M.

Guillum

(2001). Shelter and community based services for battered women and their children. In Renzetti

C. M.

Edleson

J. L.

Bergen

(Eds.), Sourcebook on violence against women (pp. 247–260). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

51.

Thomas

E. J

. (2004). Building a statutory shelter for victims of domestic violence: The United States housing act and violence against women act in collaboration. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, 16, 289–312. Retrieved December 19, 2012, from http://digitalcommons.law.wustl.edu/wujlp/vol16/iss1/14

52.

Walker

Rey

Segovia

Alonso

(1986). Informe sobre casas de acogida para mujeres que sufren malos tratos. Madrid, Spain: Ministerio de Cultura—Instituto de la Mujer.

53.

White

(2006). The state of feminist social work. London, England: Routledge.