Domestic Violence Advocacy: Complex Lives/Difficult Choices

Davies, Julia; Lyon, Eleanor

doi:10.4135/9781483352916

Cited by 97 publications

(166 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

158

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In regard to IPV services, providers' victim-blaming attitudes can subtly or overtly undermine service providers' ability to support clients' independent decision making. Similarly, when service providers do not value larger systems change efforts, they hamper efforts to influence these systems in ways that benefit survivors (Davies and Lyon 2013). The impact of IPV service providers' attitudes on service delivery has not received adequate attention in the literature.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…These critics offer prescriptive models with related themes meant to realign services in a more survivor-defined direction. These include survivor/victimcentered models (Bennett-Cattaneo and Goodman 2007;Carlson et al 2002;Goodman and Epstein 2008;Macy et al 2009;Tax et al 2008), survivor/woman-defined advocacy (Davies and Lyon 2013), feminist relational model (Goodman et al 2009), and trauma informed care (Elliott et al 2005). While there are important variations among the models, overall they share the following key service provider strategies: 1) increasing opportunities for survivors to exercise meaningful choices; 2) listening deeply and amplifying survivors' voices; 3) engaging in collaborative partnerships which seek to minimize power differentials; 4) crafting individualized solutions that build on survivors' strengths; 5) providing validation and support of survivors' experiences; and 6) addressing systemic elements that limit survivors' opportunities and access to resources and justice.…”

Section: Survivor-defined Vs Service-defined Advocacymentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Unfortunately, IPV advocacy efforts are typically more influenced by the nature of existing services than by individual survivor needs (Davies and Lyon 2013). For example, because IPV services were traditionally designed to help women leave abusive relationships or press criminal charges against their abusers, they have little to offer women who want to remain in their relationships but also want their partners to stop abusing them.…”

Section: Survivor-defined Vs Service-defined Advocacymentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Although IPV survivor empowerment has long been espoused as a key goal and guiding principle, Davies and Lyon (2013) are among a growing chorus of advocates and scholars challenging the IPV field to examine the degree to which services are truly survivor-defined. These critics offer prescriptive models with related themes meant to realign services in a more survivor-defined direction.…”

Section: Survivor-defined Vs Service-defined Advocacymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, providing IPV services is difficult and service providers must frequently contend with numerous and complex survivor needs amidst scarce community resources (Kulkarni et al 2010;Macy et al 2010). IPV survivors who are simultaneously affected by trauma and poverty have additional challenges in accessing and benefiting from traditional services (see Davies and Lyon 2013;Tolman and Raphael 2000).…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Measuring Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Service Providers’ Attitudes: The Development of the Survivor-Defined Advocacy Scale (SDAS)

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Survivor-defined advocacy, which emphasizes survivor empowerment and systemic change, is an emerging preferred practice for intimate partner violence (IPV) service delivery. IPV service providers' attitudes can facilitate or impede the implementation of this practice model. This article reports on the development and revision of the Survivor-Defined Advocacy Scale (SDAS), which assesses IPV service providers' attitudes about their work and clients. Results for the SDAS yielded a two-factor solution: Survivor Empathy and Systems Advocacy. This study also examined the SDAS relationship to provider demographics, perceptions of organizational values, and compassion satisfaction. Compassion satisfaction accounted for most of the variance in survivor-defined advocacy. The implications of these findings and the potential uses of the SDAS with IPV providers are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Survivor-defined Vs Service-defined Advocacymentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Survivor-defined Vs Service-defined Advocacymentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Survivor-defined Vs Service-defined Advocacymentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Measuring Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Service Providers’ Attitudes: The Development of the Survivor-Defined Advocacy Scale (SDAS)

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Domestic Violence Housing First Model and Association With Survivors’ Housing Stability, Safety, and Well-being Over 2 Years

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ImportanceIntimate partner violence (IPV) is a leading cause of homelessness and a serious threat to public health and well-being.ObjectiveTo determine whether the Domestic Violence Housing First (DVHF) model improves safety, housing stability, and mental health over 2 years.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis longitudinal comparative effectiveness study interviewed IPV survivors and reviewed their agency records. All unstably housed or homeless IPV survivors entering domestic violence (DV) services were eligible to participate in the study, ensuring capture of typical variability in service delivery (eg, some survivors would enter services when agencies had the capacity to provide DVHF and others would receive services as usual [SAU]). Clients from 5 DV agencies (3 rural and 2 urban) referred by agency staff in a Pacific Northwest state of the United States were assessed between July 17, 2017, and July 16, 2021. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish at entry into services (baseline) and at 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month follow-up visits. The DVHF model was compared with SAU. The baseline sample included 406 survivors (92.7% of 438 eligible). Of the 375 participants retained at the 6-month follow-up (92.4% retention), 344 had received services and had complete data across all outcomes. Three hundred sixty-three participants (89.4%) were retained at the 24-month follow-up.InterventionThe DVHF model has 2 components: housing-inclusive advocacy and flexible funding.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes included housing stability, safety, and mental health, which were assessed using standardized measures.ResultsOf the 344 participants (mean [SD] age, 34.6 [9.0] years) included in the analyses, 219 (63.7%) received DVHF and 125 (36.3%) received SAU. Most participants identified as female (334 [97.1%]) and heterosexual (299 [86.9%]). Two hundred twenty-one participants (64.2%) were from a racial and ethnic minority group. Longitudinal linear mixed-effects models showed that receiving SAU was associated with greater housing instability (mean difference, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.42-1.14]), DV exposure (mean difference, 0.15 [95% CI, 0.05-0.26]), depression (mean difference, 1.35 [95% CI, 0.27-2.43]), anxiety (mean difference, 1.15 [95% CI, 0.11-2.19]), and posttraumatic stress disorder (mean difference, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.04-1.04]) compared with receiving the DVHF model.Conclusions and RelevanceEvidence in this comparative effectiveness study suggests that the DVHF model was more effective than SAU in improving the housing stability, safety, and mental health of survivors of IPV. The DVHF’s amelioration of all of these interconnected public health issues—relatively quickly and with long-term continuance—will be of substantial interest to DV agencies and others working to support unstably housed IPV survivors.

show abstract

Battered Women

Ake

2016

The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Gender and Sexuality Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“Battered women” became a recognizable identity and platform for activism as the Battered Women's Movement emerged during the second wave of feminism in the 1970s and 1980s. Theoretical understandings of battered women have evolved from psychological assessments of learned helplessness to models that view battered women as survivors operating within larger systems of oppression. Legal changes since the 1970s have defined battering as a crime and battered women as victims eligible for criminal and civil justice remedies. Most recently, the term “battered women” has become limited in its ability to account for an expanded, intersectional understanding of those who have suffered from intimate partner violence, including transgender people and men.

show abstract

Domestic Violence Advocacy: Complex Lives/Difficult Choices

Cited by 97 publications

References 0 publications

Measuring Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Service Providers’ Attitudes: The Development of the Survivor-Defined Advocacy Scale (SDAS)

Measuring Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Service Providers’ Attitudes: The Development of the Survivor-Defined Advocacy Scale (SDAS)

Domestic Violence Housing First Model and Association With Survivors’ Housing Stability, Safety, and Well-being Over 2 Years

Battered Women

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About