The purpose of community-based domestic violence crisis housing programs (e.g., shelters) is to provide a safe setting that promotes empowerment for survivors of intimate partner violence. For staff to reach this aim, the program must have formal structures and processes in place to support such efforts. This study explored how low-barrier and voluntary service policies influenced staff practices and survivor empowerment. Low-barrier policies require that programs remove barriers that prevent survivors, particularly those who have mental health concerns and/or addictions, from being able to access services. A voluntary service policy states that survivors have the right to choose which services, if any, they would like to engage in during their stay at the program. Survivors' ability to stay at the housing program is not contingent on their participation in program services. This exploratory-sequential (QUAL→ quan) mixed-method study examined how low-barrier and voluntary service policies influenced staff behavior and how these behaviors then related to survivor empowerment. Qualitative results revealed that low-barrier and voluntary service were guided by cultural values of justice and access, encouraged survivor-centered practices among staff, and were believed to promote survivor autonomy. Quantitative results suggested that when survivors perceived they had a choice to engage in program services or meet with an advocate, their empowerment increased. This study has implications for domestic violence organizational practice and provides evidence about the contextual factors that support individual empowerment. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

The choice of research design affects not only internal and external validity but ecological validity as well. Ecological validity refers to the extent to which data are based in and relevant to real-world settings. One way for researchers to maximize the likelihood of achieving ecological validity is to design studies with community partners that use participatory approaches. Engaging deeply with community partners in determining what to study, how to measure constructs of interest, interpreting results, and using findings to create change is one means of conducting research that is likely to produce findings that are meaningful to communities. Conducting in-depth, participatory research within agencies providing crisis supports to individuals who have experienced trauma creates an additional level of complexity in the research process. This article presents a case example of how academic researchers and staff members of a nonprofit organization working with survivors of intimate partner violence collaborated on an evaluation of the community partner agency. As part of this process, the team members had to be continually aware of and responsive to the nature of crisis-focused work. We provide a reflexive account of the lessons learned and recommendations for future research.

Domestic violence (DV) survivors often encounter serious barriers navigating between housing and homelessness (H/H), coordinated entry (CE), and DV service systems to access safe housing. This study examined an innovative program that deployed DV coordinators as systems change agents liaising between H/H services, DV programs, and CES to increase survivors' safe housing access. Five listening sessions were conducted using a semistructured interview guide to explore key stakeholders' perspectives about the potential impact of he DV coordinator program. Transcripts were thematically coded and then member checked. Primary themes included: (a) training, consultation, and brokering relationships to advance systems reforms; (b) adapting to community contexts; and (c) bringing survivors' voices to funders and policymakers. Cross-sector training was an important program outcome. However, meaningful systems changes were not likely to occur through training activities alone. Community partners benefited from responsive real-time consultation, as well as coaching and support to address survivors' needs in a trauma-informed manner. Relationship building and networking encouraged cross-sector collaborations and creative pragmatic solutions to complicated survivor needs. Findings underscored the complementary nature of direct service and systems advocacy and the importance of having service providers, like DV housing navigators working parallel with DV systems change advocates.