Understanding How Domestic Violence Shelter Rules May Influence Survivor Empowerment

Abstract

Domestic violence shelters have historically gone beyond providing emergency residential space for survivors by assisting in obtaining future housing, employment, health care, child care, or legal services. Domestic violence shelters are expected to operate within an empowerment philosophy, with an understanding that survivors are self-determining, can identify their needs, and know what it takes to meet those needs. Recent research has indicated that, as many shelters have become more rigid in creating rules that survivors must follow to access and retain free temporary housing, the result has been survivors’ feelings of disempowerment, the complete opposite of what was originally intended. This study builds on the small amount of research conducted regarding survivors’ experiences of shelter rules by specifically examining how rules were perceived to affect empowerment. Seventy-three survivors from two domestic violence shelters were asked about their experiences around specific shelter rules relating to curfew, parenting, chores, time limits, food, alcohol, drugs, and medications. A transcendental phenomenological approach was used to analyze the qualitative data, seeking explanations of how survivors made meaning of the rules and how those rules influenced their empowerment. Among those survivors who found the rules problematic, three major themes emerged: (a) rules acted as barriers to carrying out their normal, day-to-day activities; (b) the shelter staff’s flexibility with rules was based on contingencies; and (c) rules negatively affected their psychological well-being, and required them to engage in protective behaviors. Recommendations are made for the reexamination and restructuring of rules within domestic violence shelters.

Keywords

domestic violence anything related to domestic violence battered women

Survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV)¹ face numerous challenges when trying to address the abuse they have experienced. Abuse encompasses physical violence, psychological and emotional violence, sexual violence, and/or economic abuse through intimidation, isolation, threats, and the use of children (Pence & Paymar, 1993; Stark, 2007). Communities have developed a wide range of services to redress abuse survivors have experienced. One of those services, domestic violence (DV) shelters, was first designed to offer immediate residential support to those survivors who were no longer safe in their own homes (Ham-Rowbottom, Gordon, Jarvis, & Novaco, 2005; Lyon, Lane, & Menard, 2008). Shelters provide much more than beds, meals, and laundry facilities. They are designed as residential spaces through which staff and volunteers work individually with survivors, identifying unmet needs and assisting them and their children in any way possible. This may include assisting in finding housing, seeking employment, or obtaining health care or legal support. Shelter employees and survivors also engage collaboratively in safety planning, which is individualized to each survivor’s unique situation. Finally, shelters are designed to provide opportunities for survivors to talk with others who have been through similar situations (Goodkind, Sullivan, & Bybee, 2004; Pence, 2001; Sullivan, 2012a; Sullivan et al., 2008).

DV shelters are expected to operate within an empowerment philosophy (Goodman et al., 2016; McGirr & Sullivan, 2017). This means that advocates understand that survivors are able to identify their own needs and goals, and know what it takes to meet those needs (Cattaneo & Goodman, 2015; Kasturirangan, 2008). Previous studies have found that, overall, DV shelters positively affect survivors and their children by providing care that is accessible, welcoming, and helps in meeting their immediate needs (Lyon et al., 2008; Macy, Giattina, Montijo, & Ermentrout, 2010). However, in communal shelters where rules are pervasive, unrealistic, or punitive, survivors have reported less satisfaction and more problems (Gengler, 2012; Kolb, 2011; Moe, 2007; VanNatta, 2010). Given that DV shelters’ mission is to enhance survivors’ empowerment, this study examined how survivors perceived shelter rules to support or hinder their sense of empowerment.

The Application of the Empowerment Model Within DV Shelters

Empowerment has been defined as “a meaningful shift in the experience of power attained through interaction in the social world” (Cattaneo & Goodman, 2015, p. 84). Within the context of IPV, it involves a process of increasing survivors’ power through goal setting, their self-efficacy, their growing awareness of the larger social world, and the acquisition of social and material resources to support goal attainment (Cattaneo & Chapman, 2010). Advocates are expected to promote survivors’ empowerment by working with them to set personally meaningful goals, providing them information and resources, and advocating on their behalf with multiple systems.

Staff also enhance survivors’ empowerment by actively supporting their connections within their support networks and communities (Cattaneo & Chapman, 2010; Sullivan, 2012b). Support networks increase one’s access to opportunities and resources that are instrumental in having power over one’s life (Hobfoll, 2001). Social support is an especially important resource to increase for survivors, as abusers often rely on isolating their victims from supportive family and friends to escape detection and to limit survivors’ options for help (Stark, 2007).

As shelters have become more reliant on governmental funding over time, services have become more narrow and professionalized (Ferraro, 1983; Panzer, Phillip, & Haward, 2000). There is growing concern that this shift “entails patronizing, pathologizing services rather than empowerment, choice-based service philosophy” (Lehrner & Allen, 2009, p. 668). This concern is especially salient for women who occupy more vulnerable and stigmatized identities, such as women who use substances, women with criminal histories, and women who are chronically homeless (Smyth, Goodman, & Glenn, 2006). Furthermore, some studies have reported that women of color’s shelter experiences are less positive than are White women’s (Donnelly, Cook, Van Ausdale, & Foley, 2005; Donnelly, Cook, & Wilson, 1999; Nnawulezi & Sullivan, 2014). One possible interpretation of these findings has been that, many times, shelter rules are developed and enforced by White women staff who maybe imposing their cultural biases and prejudices on residents (Donnelly et al., 2005; Few, 2005; Gillum, 2008).

As services have become more professionalized, and in response to the communal nature of many shelters (with multiple families sharing one living space), some shelters have created an increasing number of rules that residents are required to follow (D’Enbeau & Kunkel, 2013; VanNatta, 2010; Vaughn & Stamp, 2003). For example, many shelters have policies that enforce curfews, require that survivors turn in prescription medication to shelter employees, and have set times and places when survivors can eat meals. Many shelters also implement policies restricting the length of time survivors can stay in shelter, and oversee how survivors monitor and discipline their children. Survivors in communal-living shelters are further expected to adhere to policies related to living with others, such as completing daily chores and attending mandatory house meetings. Although these rules were ostensibly developed to maintain safety and calm in the shelter, they may also undermine the tenets of empowering practice (Nichols, 2011).

The Influence of Rules on Clients and Residents in Residential Services

The impact of institutional rules on clients and residents has been examined across a number of settings, including homeless shelters, transitional housing, shelter for victims of human trafficking, and supportive services for intravenous drug users (Brunovskis & Surtees, 2008; DeWard & Moe, 2010; Klitzing, 2004; Krüsi, Wood, Montaner, & Kerr, 2010; Melbin, Sullivan, & Cain, 2003). Consistent findings across studies include clients and residents feeling the need to “prove” themselves worthy of services and favor by adhering to rules (e.g., documenting participation in activities, completing chores, and staying with children), leading to feelings of a loss of independence and autonomy (DeWard & Moe, 2010; Klitzing, 2004; Melbin et al., 2003). Residents of DV shelters have noted that rules are both restrictive and coercive (Anderson, Renner, & Danis, 2012; Gengler, 2012; Glenn & Goodman, 2015; Lyon et al., 2008; Moe, 2007). In one qualitative study with 20 women residents living at a homeless shelter, DeWard and Moe (2010) identified three ways residents negotiated the institution through submission or acceptance, adaptation or reframing, or rejection through resistance. In addition, residents who were mothers identified a specific loss of autonomy regarding parenting in their role as the head of the family.

The justification for restrictive shelter rules has been to enhance the safety and comfort of residents and establish boundaries for communal-living situations (Gengler, 2012; VanNatta, 2010), yet many rules are in direct contradiction with the empowerment philosophy. In the recent past, some DV coalitions and shelters within the United States have begun to critically examine and remove shelter rules for this very reason (Adams & Bennett, 2008; Curran & House, 2008; Hobart, 2007; Missouri Coalition Against Domestic & Sexual Violence, 2012; Tautfest, 2008).

Anecdotal evidence suggests that rules perpetuate the same controlling dynamics that survivors have experienced in their abusive relationships, yet there is a dearth of empirical evidence to support these assertions. In one small study of 19 DV shelter residents (Moe, 2007), survivors described rules as being counterproductive, especially those mandating that residents accomplish particular goals within set time limits. A survivor’s shelter stay was often “contingent on compliance with numerous policies” (p. 689), and shelter residents reported that the way shelter staff enforced the rules was reminiscent of their past abusive relationships.

In another more recent study of 11 shelter residents (Glenn & Goodman, 2015), survivors’ overall experience with shelter was affected by (a) how the shelter environment and staff supported them emotionally, (b) survivors’ perceptions of when rules were in place for the sake of their and others’ safety, (c) whether staff enforced rules flexibly or inflexibly, and (d) the consequences of rules on survivors’ access to resources as well as their children’s well-being. Survivors in the study identified concrete examples of their frustrations about how rules affected their access to short-term resources (e.g., medications and ability to run errands) and long-term resources (e.g., curfews limiting ability to obtain or maintain jobs with alternative shifts or access housing in harder to reach areas). In addition to the daily frustrations, almost half of the survivors described the rules as “controlling and limiting,” suggesting the environment to be similar to their abusive partners. Many survivors indicated how the rules caused emotional distress for themselves and their children. This distress was further affected by their isolation from the social support of friends and family outside the shelter.

These small qualitative studies provide preliminary evidence that shelter rules can affect survivors negatively. Yet, little is known about the connection between shelter residents’ experiences of rules and how these experiences influence their ability to regain power. The current phenomenological study expands upon this earlier work examining the frustrations survivors’ had with their shelter’s rules, and whether those experiences enhanced or inhibited their autonomy in setting and meeting their goals.

Method

Sample

The sample for this study was a subset of a larger mixed-method project examining the impact of empowering practices on IPV survivors. Residents from two DV shelter programs in midsized, Midwestern cities participated in the study. Both communal-living programs embraced an empowerment philosophy, had similar organizational structures, and provided similar services. These contextual factors are comparable with many shelter programs across the country (Lyon et al., 2008). Shelter residents were eligible for participation in the study if they were more than the age of 18, English-speaking, and had exited shelter within the prior 30 days. Flyers describing the study were posted throughout common areas, and a recruiter went into each shelter approximately 4 times every week to talk about the study. An initial 177 women expressed interest in participating, 126 women were successfully contacted after exiting shelter, and 103 participated in the larger study. Of those, four women’s interviews were removed due to significant missing data. Twenty women did not consent to be recorded and six women did not provide sufficient content to be coded qualitatively. Analyses were, thus, completed on 73 interviews.

Women were between the ages of 19 and 60 with an average age of 35 years (SD = 10.45). About 44% of the sample was Black, 31% were White, 18% identified as multiracial, 4% were Hispanic, and 3% identified as Asian-Pacific Islander or Native American. Compared with a national shelter sample, there were more women of color in this sample (Lyon et al., 2008). Almost half (49%) had completed some college, 34% had a high school degree, and 17% reported not completing high school. Most were unemployed (70%). On average, participants had resided in shelter for an average of 45 days (SD = 52.04), with some participants staying as few as 3 days and others as many as 300 days. Women were interviewed, on average, almost 15 days (SD = 7.74) after they had left shelter.

Procedures

Interviews took place in locations of the participants’ choosing, including their homes, coffee shops, or other locations. All research assistants were trained in feminist interviewing techniques that focused on engaging in ways to reduce power and control within the interview context, normalizing survivors’ experiences, attending to the emotional needs of survivors, learning how to safety plan with someone, and connecting them to resources when necessary (Hesse-Biber, 2006). All interviews were transcribed verbatim. On average, interviews lasted approximately 90 min and survivors were compensated US$25 for their participation. The university institutional review board approved the study.

Measures

The qualitative portion of the interview guide covered survivors’ perceptions of seven shelter rules. First, rules related to curfew: Survivors had to be back in the shelter at a certain time which varied on weekdays and weekends. Second, rules related to parenting suggested that survivors had to keep their children with them at all times while in the shelter, and they could only discipline their children using approaches approved by shelter staff. Third, survivors were responsible to sign up for and complete daily chores. Fourth, shelters had time limits that did not allow survivors to stay at the shelter past the 30- to 45-day time limit without written approval by staff. Fifth, although both shelters varied in implementation, there were rules that did not allow survivors to bring in outside food. Sixth, both shelters stated that survivors were not allowed to consume drugs or alcohol, nor come into the shelter intoxicated. And seventh, both shelters also required that survivors’ medication be kept in the shelter staff’s possession or in a locker on the main floor.

Staff were engaged in multiple conversations with researchers for the duration of the project. They were instrumental in choosing the research questions and helping to design the interview guide. Rules were of interest to the two shelter programs because staff knew anecdotally that some residents found them to be problematic, but they wanted systematic evidence. For each rule, interviewers first asked whether participants viewed the rule to be a problem (yes/no). Interviewers probed participants’ responses to gain a deeper understanding of their perceptions.

Analytic Plan

The first and second authors were the primary coders for this study. We chose a phenomenological analytic approach which generally explores participants’ collective meaning (Creswell, 2007; Moustakas, 1994). Specifically, we employed the Stevick–Colaizzi–Keen method (Moustakas, 1994) as an analytic technique for data reduction and analysis. We separately read each of the interview transcripts multiple times, and then coded for significant statements related to the phenomenon of interest (e.g., singular statements within the transcripts that described whether rules were a problem and why survivors identified something as problematic or not). After initially identifying 883 significant statements, we began horizontalization, which is the process of developing formulated meanings for each significant statement. We read each significant statement and formulated an interpretation of the statement.

To establish reliability, we randomly chose nine interviews previously coded by the opposite coder, identified significant statements separately, and came together to establish agreement. Then, we separately developed formulated meanings based on the other author’s established significant statements. We identified potential themes and grouped codes into those themes, and wrote textual descriptions of the themes that described survivors’ meaning making around how the rules influenced their experiences of shelter (Moustakas, 1994).

Establishing Trustworthiness

To establish trustworthiness of the findings, we engaged in a number of strategies. The first two authors coded data separately and then examined level of agreement in coding and interpretation. The third author, an expert in conducting research and evaluation with DV shelter programs, reviewed thematic maps and the subsequent inferences that were being made in the data. The thematic map was refined based on the feedback. We wrote the composite textual and structural description using rich, thick description (Creswell, 2007). Finally, the interpretations were shared back with the two programs, who agreed that they represented many survivors’ experiences.

Results

The most problematic rules related to food restrictions, shelter time limits, and parenting. Survivors were least likely to object to rules about locking up medications and prohibiting drug and alcohol use. Table 1 provides the percentage of survivors who found each shelter rule to be problematic.

Table 1.

Percentage of Shelter Residents Who Found the Rule Problematic.

Rule	% of Survivors Stated It as a Problem
Food	58
Time limits	47
Child discipline and monitoring	36
Chores	36
Curfew	18
Medication/prescription drugs	14
Drugs and alcohol use	7

Survivors generally reported that rules were problematic because they added unnecessary stress to their lives. Many of the rules were described as being myopic, not taking into account the complexities of survivors’ lives and forcing them to regularly ask for permission for everyday things such as bringing food home or visiting a friend or family member. Among the survivors who described rules as problematic, four major themes emerged: (a) rules acted as barriers to carrying out their normal, day-to-day activities; (b) rules were applied inconsistently, leading to both confusion and perceived favoritism; (c) rules had a negative impact on survivors’ psychological well-being and required some to engage in protective behaviors; and (d) survivors regained a sense of their own power by subverting the rules.

Theme 1: Rules as Barriers to Day-to-Day Activities

Many survivors identified rules as restricting their ability to engage in everyday activities. Some specifically described how the rules dictated (a) their access to food, (b) when they could sleep or visit friends, and (c) how they chose to parent. In turn, these rules impeded survivors’ ability to make their own decisions and limited access to their social support, thus limiting their sense of power over their own lives.

Rules around food were a source of stress because they affected how survivors were able to eat, including what they could eat, when they could eat, and where food was available and allowed within the shelter. Some survivors suggested that the food rules keep the shelter sanitary (e.g., keeping bugs away to ensure a sanitary living space), yet still viewed them as problematic. Other survivors were frustrated because they could not bring their own food into the shelter. Survivors also described how the regulated meal times created major inconveniences because they were not aligned with their personal schedules. For one survivor, Sarah,² the meal schedule came in direct conflict with the pressure she was already feeling to accomplish specific goals and move out of the shelter:

They expect us to like be out looking for jobs and housing and stuff, some of us can’t make it back on the exact scheduled times that they had for breakfast, lunch and dinner. And it’s like once you missed it, it’s over. You know, you have to wait until they serve it again and you like, you can’t eat . . . because you missed their times that they have for you.

Food rules were also problematic because some survivors had special dietary restrictions or their children were having a difficult time adjusting to eating what was available. Survivors talked about how their children had specific tastes that were in opposition to what food was available (e.g., “my child is a picky eater”), and that the food served in the shelter was different from what they previously had at home. Survivors with children also found it difficult to have rules restricting their ability to store food and having food available only during specific hours of the day. As one survivor noted, her young children needed smaller meals more often throughout the day, which meant they left shelter to eat elsewhere.

Some survivors described the rules around curfew as problematic because curfews required them to get special permission to attend to their daily needs (e.g., modifying when their chores needed to be completed) and access support networks (e.g., entering shelter after hours). For example, some women were required to provide “proof” of their whereabouts or call ahead if they did not make curfew. Rose describes the shelter needing verification to confirm that she was working: “Yeah, so I ended up providing copies of my schedules and stuff like that, and I thought to myself, ‘Why would I lie about going to work? I need the money.’”

Survivors also discussed the ways curfew limited their access to social support, infringing on their ability to maintain relationships with friends and family. Traveling to another city or town to visit loved ones was an important part of some survivors’ healing. Having a curfew meant that they had to cut a visit short, had to call and ask permission of the shelter to be late with the fear of not having a place to stay, or had to forego visiting family altogether. Some women also described how being dependent on unreliable public transportation added stress to their lives, such as when a bus broke down or was running late when they were trying to get back in time for curfew.

Some survivors reported that shelter staff threatened or engaged in punitive or disempowering practices if a survivor missed curfew, stayed overnight elsewhere, or found an alternative place for their children to stay for a night. Some staff questioned their need for shelter; others threatened to kick survivors out. For example, Diane talked about having asked for permission to take her son to a family members’ house, and the staff responded, “you have to be here before nine or else you’re going to lose your bed space.” Another survivor, Sam, talked about the scheduling conflicts she faced while arranging for her son to stay with her mother overnight, and how it left her without a place to stay:

During the week my mom works nights and she takes care of my son. She doesn’t get out of work until 10:30 p.m. There were days that the day care lady couldn’t watch him, and I needed to watch him. [I had] to go out to a town 20 minutes away and stay out there. Well, curfew during the week is 9:00 p.m. My mom didn’t get out of work until 10:30, almost 11:00. So by the time I would get back to the shelter it’d be almost 11:30, 12:00 and they weren’t able to let me in. I mean, on one occasion they did, but there were a couple other times they wouldn’t let me back in. And I was without a place to stay for the night.

Rules around parenting were also mentioned as especially problematic. Rules were often disruptive to the family, including requiring survivors to change their children’s bedtimes or “quiet times” to better align with shelter child discipline and monitoring requirements. Rules about child care also restricted survivors’ ability to rely on other shelter residents to help watch children. Overall, the rules about child discipline and monitoring often did not align with the realities of parenting within the shelter culture or with mothers’ own parenting choices. Women were also acutely aware of the real possibility of shelter staff contacting Child Protective Services (CPS), which created additional stress for them.

Theme 2: Inconsistent Application of the Rules

The ways staff enforced the rules also affected survivors’ sense of empowerment. Inconsistent enforcement was a major theme. Survivors identified that when staff were unclear about the rules and that they were both flexible and inflexible when applying those rules. Survivors were aware of the existing rules, yet unpredictable application led to confusion and frustration. This lack of clarity and pointed flexibility implemented by staff created an environment ripe for resource competition and policing among survivors. In turn, survivors identified staff favorites, and both actively and passively policed each other.

Lack of clarity about shelter rules

When survivors identified the ways in which rules were unclear, it was mainly focused on rules around chores and the time limits. Regarding chores, some survivors said the procedures for signing up, completing, and reporting the chores were unclear and unfair. This led to confusion and possible ramifications including write-ups and disagreements with other survivors staying in the shelter. Sandra states,

You would clean your laundry room and go to bed, or it’s the end of the day, someone comes in after you’ve cleaned and used it over again. And then the staff wants to write you up for not doing your chore.

When survivors discussed how staff were unclear about the time limits, it was related to the decisions giving survivors extensions past the 30-day limit. Survivors did not always understand the process, and some identified that it ultimately came down to the shelter director’s discretion. In some cases, the decision was made at the last minute, giving them little to no time to prepare to leave. Others talked about feeling that they needed to prove they were accomplishing things and getting things done, with the understanding that they might receive an extension. Some believed that they did engage in the tasks they were supposed to, but were still denied longer time limits. This lack of clarity about rules leads to confusion and frustration for survivors, and feelings of a lack of power over their lives.

Unpredictable application of rules

Staff varied in how they applied the rules; some survivors spoke of how staff were flexible, bending the rules for certain circumstances. Others identified how rigidly the rules were applied. Although this occurred across all types of rules, survivors discussed flexibility/inflexibility most often in relation to the rules around chores, curfew, food, and time limits. Some women expressed that staff were lenient about chores when they had work conflicts or a physical disability that impeded their ability to complete specific chores. Others described ways that staff accommodated rules about curfew. As Deanna noted,

I let them know I was going be late and why, and they were very accommodating. If you missed something that was foreseeable they would just asked if you made arrangements to get permission from your case manager ahead of time.

Staff were also lenient regarding food with some survivors. They were allowed to bring food into shelter because of dietary restrictions associated with religious and medical reasons. Alternatively, when other survivors wanted to bring their own food into the shelter, there were mixed and conflicting responses from staff members. Survivors from one shelter mentioned the expectation that if they wanted to cook their own food or bring anything in, there must be enough available for everyone staying at the shelter. Others identified specific staff members who would allow them to bring in food for themselves, versus those who would make them throw it away if they did not have enough to share with the other shelter residents.

When flexibility leads to favoritism and policing

When survivors spoke of how rules were met with staff members’ flexibility or rigidity, this was often coupled with identifying who needed or deserved resources the most, regardless of the availability or scarcity of those resources. Some women spoke specifically of having experienced or seeing others experience favoritism in terms of how the rules were applied. When survivors identified others experiencing favoritism, it was because they were not receiving the same accommodations from staff. Among those who spoke of having experienced favoritism, some spoke of it being related to accomplishing what needed to be done according to the shelter policies.

Theme 3: The Negative Impact of Rules on Women’s Psychological Well-Being

Some survivors talked about the negative impact of rules on their psychological well-being. As a result, some chose to circumvent the rules when they recognized that they had become barriers to meeting their self-identified needs or goals. For example, although some survivors indicated their relief in having a place to stay, living under rules that conflicted with their lifestyles complicated and sometimes superseded that relief. In general, survivors reported feeling patronized, disconnected, anxious, overwhelmed, pressured, fearful of losing their children and safe housing, and responsible for the abuse they had experienced because of shelter rules. Survivors also identified that shelter rules placed additional stress on an already stressful experience of communal living.

For some survivors, coming into the shelter was their first opportunity to process the abuse they had been experiencing while simultaneously having to uproot their lives and potentially being separated from their children. Processing what they had been through was debilitating and created difficulty in accomplishing the things that were expected of them in the short time they had at the shelter. As one survivor stated, “By the time you’re there, two weeks into a 30-day limit, you just realize the [abuse] you’ve gone through and that maybe then, and sometimes later, you’re still not mentally able to get things in perspective.” Survivors also recounted shelter rules as being patronizing and some described it as being “in jail,” noting that having so many rules communicated they could not be trusted to make good judgments or decisions. Sharon stated,

You have a lot of like your freedom taken away from you. And so, someone like me, who’s been really independent and stuff, I feel like they’re my parent protecting me almost. I get that. I know that’s their whole purpose [is] to protect you and keep you safe, but my judgment would’ve been the best one if I felt super unsafe and not go out.

Survivors reported that shelter time limits created an immense amount of pressure to be considered productive, or “doing what they are suppose to be doing” to maintain safe housing. For some, accomplishing arbitrarily identified goals (e.g., finding a job, securing housing that may not be ready immediately) meant that they were able to receive week-by-week extensions past the 30-day time limit.

I always kept a log of everything that I did during the day. Like, how many [and] where I put job applications and the places, apartments and stuff that I went to look at and the people that I contacted for other services. As long as you could show them that you were doing something to improve yourself and your situation, they didn’t have a problem with granting you like another week or whatever. (Kate)

As the following survivor noted, having a weekly review on her accomplishments after passing the 30-day time limit made her meetings with her caseworker overwhelming:

Being on that weekly probation to show what I’ve accomplished, when I don’t know what more I could’ve done was very stressful. It was like not knowing if you’re going to have a place the next week or not. I [had] horrid, horrid anxiety, and my meetings with [case worker] were never about “what can we do in the mean time,” it was “when you going to get some money.” I mean honestly that’s what it is. (Veronica)

Theme 4: Regaining Power by Subverting Rules

Some survivors described specific tactics that they or other survivors did to circumvent the rules. These subversive acts were not necessarily done to change the overall system but were in response to rules that were incompatible for themselves and their families. Although these tactics seemed relatively minor, survivors used them to keep a sense of normalcy, engender a sense of agency, and resist staff surveillance.

Most survivor tactics were focused on sneaking food into shelter and holding onto their own medicine. In the case of one survivor, Rebecca, not turning over her medicine to the shelter staff was related to her personal privacy. She said she did not feel that it was “any of [the staff’s] business what kind of medicine I was on . . . I’m grown. I can control my own medicine.” Some survivors found private spots to smoke a cigarette outside a window. Other survivors described how they navigated their shelter stays by documenting all of their activities to “prove” to staff they were active in their housing and employment searches. A few survivors kept logs of the work they accomplished and/or took photos of completed work. For example, Alicia described how she took a picture of every application she filled out to prove to the shelter staff that she was actively seeking a job and “not lazy.” Another survivor, Shonda, took before and after photos when she completed her chores.

I felt so threatened by the chores you know, because people were just not doing it, that I covered myself by taking before and after pictures of the chore that I did. That way nobody could accuse me of not doing my job or doing a crappy job. That’s just how on edge I felt about the chores. (Meredith)

Discussion

The goal of this study was to understand the underlying reasons of why DV shelter residents negatively perceive rules, and how those rules may have supported or impeded their empowerment. Overall, results revealed that shelter rules inhibited the empowerment process by restricting survivors’ abilities to make their own choices about their lives and limiting their access to social networks. Survivors viewed rules as disempowering, unnecessarily stressful, and having negatively contributed to their psychological well-being. The inflexibility and strict enforcement of rules contributed to a restrictive culture that negatively influenced survivors’ self-efficacy and access to social networks. Survivors used creative coping strategies in response to the rules, including documenting their work efforts and circumventing the rules, to maintain safe housing and reestablish a sense of power.

The first theme of the results revealed that survivors wanted to have more control over when and where they could sleep (e.g., curfew, taking naps), watch television, visit family and friends, what foods they could eat and at what times, and how they parented. This can be interpreted more broadly as participants explicated a desire to have control over their basic life choices. A sense of control over their own lives is vital given the controlling, abusive relationships that they sought out shelter to escape. Staff surveillance of survivors could potentially be justified as supporting women’s safety, but results suggest that they might also be too controlling.

Many survivors described how the rules limited their access to their natural support systems which contributed to experiences of disempowerment. Although an objective of empowering practice is to enhance people’s access to social support and supportive communities (Bennett & Chapman, 2010; Sullivan, 2012b), some of the shelter rules made such connections more difficult. Curfews, limits on visitors, and prohibitions against watching other shelter residents’ children all served to further isolate survivors rather than expanding their access to those who might increase their resources or opportunities (Hobfoll, 2001).

The extent to which the rules were capricious or arbitrarily enforced also served to countermand women’s sense of power within shelter. Survivors believed that if they were “doing what you are supposed to be doing,” they would be rewarded with greater flexibility on the part of staff. In other words, by behaving consistently with the shelter rules and becoming model residents, they would later be given special privileges or exceptions informally, such as extended shelter stays, greater chances for overnight stays outside of shelter, or a later curfew. Although some benefited from this, it also created a contentious, competitive, and uncertain shelter climate. Survivors were not ever sure how rules would be enforced, who would be given exceptions, how someone could get those exceptions, and what the punishment was when the rule was broken. Privileges that were granted to some and not others, generally in the form of flexibility with shelter rules, caused survivors to experience frustration and stress. Flexibility is a major component of survivor-centered, empowering, and trauma-informed spaces (Wilson, Fauci, & Goodman, 2015), and is a part of basic service provision within all community-based organizations. Restrictive shelter rules impede practitioner’s ability to practice flexibility with survivors in consistent and clear ways. Future research is needed that focuses on the contextual variables necessary to support flexibility with survivors, especially those who are seen as not always following shelter policies and seen as “difficult” residents.

Although the rules served to limit survivors’ sense of agency and power within the shelter, many women resorted to creative and sometimes subversive means to reassert their power. Similar to Glenn and Goodman (2015), we found that survivors coped with the rules by rejecting some and circumventing others. These practices of resistance in a surveillance climate can preserve survivor dignity and increase their sense of power, but come at the cost of feeling like one is in an unsupportive and disempowering environment. Overall, the effectiveness of shelter services is dependent not only on the services survivors receive but also the shelter context where they are receiving them, and whether this context introduces or alleviates additional barriers to accomplish goals.

Findings need to be interpreted within study methodological limitations. Each shelter created rules around similar categories (curfew, food, children, etc.), but there was some variation between the two shelters about how they implemented these rules. This variation in implementation could contribute to differences in findings. In addition, there might be some bias in the sample as we only interviewed 70% of the original sample. It is possible that the other 30% would have different experiences that could influence these findings. Third, findings were based on cross-sectional, self-report data. Although the sample is large for a qualitative study, the generalizability of the findings is unknown. More research is needed with shelters in different areas of the country and with a diverse set of survivors. Fourth, the findings are based only on residents’ perspectives; staff may have disagreed with some of the specific incidents presented here or may have had additional information to contribute about why they behaved the way they did. Finally, the study findings often revealed the negative perceptions of the residents, and focused on their frustrations and the difficulties the rules imposed on their ability to access what they needed. Different survivors may make meaning of the shelter rules with a more positive perspective, suggesting that the rules benefited their lives, were there to keep them safe, and maintain order in a space for communal living.

These findings can be directly applied to the practice of DV organizations. Shelter policies are intended to maintain an environment that supports the safety of communal living while also supporting the well-being of survivors who access services. It is counter to DV organizations, or any organizations that serve oppressed groups, to have shelter policies that restrict, condemn, and negatively affect the clients who serve them. These experiences impede on the quality of services that are being provided, the ability for employees to build trusting relationships with survivors, and the ability to keep survivors in safe housing.

Although women from across all social identities access shelter, many shelters disproportionately serve low-income women and women of color who experience severe violence. Some women also have physical or mental health disabilities caused or exacerbated by the abuse that they experienced in their relationships (Bonomi, Anderson, Rivara, & Thompson, 2007; Lyon et al., 2008). In this study, a majority of participants were women of color and unemployed. Given the intersections of these social identities, it is possible they could also be experiencing discrimination and/or high levels of surveillance in other settings that contribute to disempowerment. Shelter policies that remove or lesson connections to family and friends also impede on the ability for women to access vital social support networks that help them cope with the discrimination or disempowerment that they experience in other settings. Social connections are a vital part of surviving and coping with living in oppressive contexts. Therefore, shelter rules that minimize those connections are culturally insensitive. Shelters are an important site to promote empowerment among survivors who occupy a diverse set of social identities and have been historically marginalized and systematically disempowered. Empowerment might look different based on survivors’ social identities and the sociocultural contexts in which they are embedded.

Broadly, we first recommend that employees critically examine each of the shelter rules using their organizational philosophy as a guide. In this examination, employees can ask themselves the following questions: What was the original intention of the rule? Is it accomplishing what you hope to accomplish? Do these goals and intentions align with the organizational philosophy? By making this a rule, what do we hope to convey to survivors? When the purpose and intention of the rule is clearly identified and its link to the organizational mission is clearly understood, employees should then describe whether it is being implemented as originally intended. One of the ways to identify this is to ask survivors what they think the purpose of the rule is, how the rule is being enforced, and the impact of the rule on their experiences at the shelter. Rules that are not aligned with the organizational philosophy, not being enforced as intended, or negatively affecting survivors should be reevaluated for their relevancy in the context. Although the rules that will be set in place will vary from shelter to shelter, the implications from this study suggest that survivors prefer rules that take into account as to who they are as individuals and what their personal needs are, as opposed to trying to acquiesce to rules that are more broadly applied to everyone. All of the survivors’ suggestions related to wanting to be seen as full and autonomous beings who are able to make decisions for themselves. To attend to this call, a number of shelters have either greatly reduced or eliminated their rules, and guidelines have been developed to assist others in this process (see, for example, Hobart, 2007; Missouri Coalition Against Domestic & Sexual Violence, 2012)

The DV shelter context is not particularly unique; residents from homeless shelters and human trafficking organizations also have similar experiences with a surveillance climate, and experiencing restrictions under the rhetoric of ensuring safety and empowerment (Brunovskis & Surtees, 2008; Krüsi et al., 2010). This climate requires that employees police shelter residents rather than working in partnership with them to achieve their goals. This is antithetical to the original goal of providing empowering care, and can undermine the important relationship between staff and survivor (Melbin et al., 2003; Sokoloff & Dupont, 2005). DV shelters were constructed to be alternatives to the standard formal helping systems by integrating a feminist approach to service delivery and advocacy that centered on empowerment. The implementation of specific shelter rules counters the empowerment philosophy by replicating the same systems of control survivors experience with other governmental and community-based organizations.

DV shelters are valuable community assets and serve as an important safe haven for survivors of IPV (Lyon et al., 2008; Sullivan, 2012a; Sullivan & Virden, 2017). The supports and advocacy provided to shelter residents and their children are specifically designed to enhance their safety, well-being, and power over their lives (Sullivan, 2016). It is important that the context in which services are provided matches the philosophy driving organizational practice if the ultimate goal of empowerment is to be achieved.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the women who participated in the study, without whom the research would not have been possible.

Authors’ Note

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by a grant from NIMH (R24MH75941).

Notes

Author Biographies

Katie Gregory, PhD, is an assistant professor of ecological/community psychology and associate director of the Research Consortium on Gender-Based Violence at Michigan State University. Her research is focused on supporting agencies’ and systems’ improvement of services for survivors of intimate partner violence and their children.

Nkiru Nnawulezi is an assistant professor of community psychology at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. Her research aims to improve domestic violence shelter practice by using ecological theory to identify the multilevel, contextual factors that facilitate survivors’ empowerment.

Cris M. Sullivan is a professor of ecological/community psychology and director of the Research Consortium on Gender-Based Violence at Michigan State University. She has been an advocate and researcher in the movement to end gender-based violence since 1982. Her areas of expertise include developing and rigorously evaluating community interventions for domestic violence survivors and their children, and evaluating victim services.

References

Adams

Bennett

(2008). Rethinking punitive approaches to shelter. Seattle: Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

Anderson

K. M.

Renner

L. M.

Danis

F. S.

(2012). Recovery resilience and growth in the aftermath of domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 18, 1279-1299.

Bennett

L. B.

Chapman

A. R.

(2010). The process of empowerment: A model for use in research and practice. American Psychologist, 65(7), 646.

Bonomi

A. E.

Anderson

Rivara

F. P.

Thompson

R. S.

(2007). Health outcomes in women with physical and sexual intimate partner violence exposure. Journal of Women’s Health, 16, 987-997.

Brunovskis

Surtees

(2008). Agency or illness—The conceptualization of trafficking victims’ choices and behaviors in the assistance system. Gender, Technology and Development, 12, 53-76.

Cattaneo

L. B.

Chapman

A. R.

(2010). The process of empowerment: A model for use in research and practice. American Psychologist, 65, 646-659.

Cattaneo

L. B.

Goodman

L. A.

(2015). What is empowerment anyway? A model for domestic violence practice, research, and evaluation. Psychology of Violence, 5, 84-94.

Creswell

J. W.

(2007). Qualitative enquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Curran

House

(2008). Moving from rules to rights and responsibilities. Seattle: Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

10.

D’Enbeau

Kunkel

(2013). (Mis)managed empowerment: Exploring paradoxes of practice in domestic violence prevention. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 41, 141-159.

11.

DeWard

S. L.

Moe

A. M.

(2010). Like a prison: Homeless women’s narratives of surviving shelter. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 37, 115-135.

12.

Donnelly

D. A.

Cook

K. J.

Van Ausdale

Foley

(2005). White privilege, color blindness, and services to battered women. Violence Against Women, 11, 6-37.

13.

Donnelly

D. A.

Cook

K. J.

Wilson

L. A.

(1999). Provision and exclusion the dual face of services to battered women in three deep south states. Violence Against Women, 5, 710-741.

14.

Ferraro

(1983). Negotiating trouble in a battered women’s shelter. Urban Life, 12, 287-306.

15.

Few

(2005). The voices of black and white rural battered women in domestic violence shelters. Family Relations, 54, 488-500.

16.

Gengler

A. M.

(2012). Defying (Dis) empowerment in a battered women’s shelter: Moral rhetorics, intersectionality, and processes of control and resistance. Social Problems, 59, 501-521.

17.

Gillum

T. L.

(2008). Community response and needs of African American female survivors of domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 39-57.

18.

Glenn

Goodman

(2015). Living with and within the rules of domestic violence shelters: A qualitative exploration of residents’ experiences. Violence Against Women, 21, 1481-1506.

19.

Goodkind

Sullivan

Bybee

(2004). A contextual analysis of battered women’s safety planning. Violence Against Women, 10, 514-533.

20.

Goodman

L. A.

Thomas

Cattaneo

L. B.

Heimel

Woulfe

Chong

S. K.

(2016). Survivor-defined practice in domestic violence work: Measure development and preliminary evidence of link to empowerment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 163-185.

21.

Ham-Rowbottom

K. A.

Gordon

E. E.

Jarvis

K. L.

Novaco

R. W.

(2005). Life constraints and psychological well-being of domestic violence shelter graduates. Journal of Family Violence, 20, 109-121.

22.

Hesse-Biber

S. N.

(2007). The practice of feminist in-depth interviewing. Feminist Research Practice: A Primer, 111148.

23.

Hobart

(2007). Assessing the impact of domestic violence on children’s safety. Seattle, WA: The Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

24.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology, 50, 337-421.

25.

Kasturirangan

(2008). Empowerment and programs designed to address domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 14, 1465-1475.

26.

Klitzing

S. W.

(2004). Women living in a homeless shelter: Stress, coping and leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 36, 483-512.

27.

Kolb

K. H.

(2011). Sympathy work: Identity and emotion management among victim-advocates and counselors. Qualitative Sociology, 34, 101-119.

28.

Krüsi

Wood

Montaner

Kerr

(2010). Social and structural determinants of HAART access and adherence among injection drug users. International Journal of Drug Policy, 21, 4-9.

29.

Lehrner

Allen

N. E.

(2009). Still a movement after all these years? Current tensions in the domestic violence movement. Violence Against Women, 15, 656-677.

30.

Lyon

Lane

Menard

(2008). Meeting survivors’ needs: A multi-state study of domestic violence shelter experiences, final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

31.

Macy

R. J.

Giattina

M. C.

Montijo

N. J.

Ermentrout

D. M.

(2010). Domestic violence and sexual assault agency directors’ perspectives on services that help survivors. Violence Against Women, 16, 1138-1161.

32.

McGirr

S. A.

Sullivan

C. M.

(2017). Critical consciousness raising as an element of empowering practice with survivors of domestic violence. Journal of Social Service Research, 43, 156-168.

33.

Melbin

Sullivan

Cain

(2003). Transitional supportive housing programs: Battered women’s perspectives and recommendations. Affilia, 1, 445-460.

34.

Missouri Coalition Against Domestic & Sexual Violence. (2012). How the earth didn’t fly into the sun: Missouri’s project to reduce rules in domestic violence shelters. Jefferson, MO: Author.

35.

Moe

A. M.

(2007). Silenced voices and structured survival battered women’s help seeking. Violence Against Women, 13, 676-699.

36.

Moustakas

(1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

37.

Nichols

A. J.

(2011). Gendered organizations: Challenges for domestic violence victim advocates and feminist advocacy. Feminist Criminology, 6, 111-131.

38.

Nnawulezi

N. A.

Sullivan

C. M.

(2014). Oppression within safe spaces: Exploring racial microaggressions within domestic violence shelters. Journal of Black Psychology, 40, 563-591.

39.

Panzer

Phillip

Haward

(2000). Trends in domestic violence service and leadership: Implications for an integrated shelter model. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 27, 339-352.

40.

Pence

(2001). Advocacy on behalf of battered women. In Renzetti

C. M.

Edleson

J. L.

Bergen

R. K.

(Eds.), Sourcebook on violence against women (pp. 329-343). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

41.

Pence

Paymar

(1993). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth model. New York, NY: Springer.

42.

Smyth

K. F.

Goodman

Glenn

(2006). The full-frame approach: A new response to marginalized women left behind by specialized services. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76, 489-502.

43.

Sokoloff

N. J.

Dupont

(2005). Domestic violence at the intersections of race, class, and gender challenges and contributions to understanding violence against marginalized women in diverse communities. Violence Against Women, 11, 38-64.

44.

Stark

(2007). Coercive control: The entrapment of women in personal life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

45.

Sullivan

C. M.

(2012a). Domestic violence shelter services: A review of the empirical evidence. Harrisburg, PA: National Resource Center on Domestic Violence.

46.

Sullivan

C. M.

(2012b, October). Domestic violence shelter services: A review of the empirical evidence. Paper presented at the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, Harrisburg, PA. Available from http://www.dvevidenceproject.org

47.

Sullivan

C. M.

(2016). Examining the work of local domestic violence programs within a “social and emotional well-being promotion” conceptual framework. Harrisburg, PA. Available from http://www.dvevidenceproject.org

48.

Sullivan

C. M.

Baptista

O’halloran

Okroj

Morton

Stewart

C. S.

(2008). Evaluating the effectiveness of women’s refuges: A multi-country approach to model development. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 32, 291-308.

49.

Sullivan

C. M.

Virden

(2017). Interrelationships among length of stay in a domestic violence shelter, help received, and outcomes achieved. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 87, 434-442.

50.

Tautfest

(2008). How we gave up curfew (and a lot of other rules, too). Seattle: Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

51.

VanNatta

(2010). Power and control: Changing structures of battered women’s shelters. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 5, 149-161.

52.

Vaughn

Stamp

G. H.

(2003). The empowerment dilemma: The dialectic of emancipation and control in staff/client interaction at shelters for battered women. Communication Studies, 54, 154-168.

53.

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.