Back to Basics

Abstract

Survivor voice is essential to effectively implement survivor-focused IPV (intimate partner violence) services. In this focus group study, domestic violence survivors (n = 30) shared detailed perspectives as service seekers and recipients, whereas national hotline advocates (n = 24) explored relationships between service providers and survivors based on their interactions with both. Four thematic categories related to enhancing IPV services emerged: providing empathy, supporting empowerment, individualizing care, and maintaining ethical boundaries. Advocates identified additional factors that interfered with quality services, including the following: inadequate organizational resources, staff burnout, lack of training, and poor integration with other community resources. Respectful, empowering relationships are the centerpiece for quality IPV services.

Exploring Individual and Organizational Factors Contributing to Compassion Satisfaction, Secondary Traumatic Stress, and Burnout in Domestic Violence Service Providers

“…In fulfilling these goals, service providers provide empathy though nonjudgmental listening and taking seriously survivors' needs and goals; support empowerment by reinforcing survivors' rights and abilities to make choices; tailor services to meet individual survivor's needs; and maintain ethical boundaries, particularly confidentiality (Kulkarni, Bell, & Rhodes, 2012).…”

“…Moreover, service providers who work with survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault carry out their work within a societal context that not only minimizes or denies gender-based violence but also stereotypes the victims, which can retraumatize survivors and create barriers to their helpseeking efforts. Further, service providers face multiple challenges posed by inadequate organizational resources, minimal training, and poor coordination with other community resources-all of which can undermine the provider's work environment, pose barriers to the provider's ability to provide highquality care, and lead the provider to experience symptoms of burnout (Kulkarni et al, 2012;Ullman & Townsend, 2007).…”

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

“…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. Research with IPV survivors and advocates confirms that both groups value service qualities, such as providing empathy, supporting empowerment, individualizing care, and maintaining ethical boundaries (Kulkarni et al 2012). Further this same research identifies potential barriers within the IPV service delivery that directly interferes with the provision of quality services, such as inadequate organizational resources, staff burnout, lack of training, and poor integration with other community resources.…”

“…Building upon our previous research with domestic violence advocates and survivors (Kulkarni et al 2012) which highlighted survivor-preferred service qualities, this research had two primary aims. The first was to create a measure that captured variation in service provider attitudes towards survivor-defined care.…”

Implementation of Trauma-Informed Care in a Housing First Program for Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence: A Case Study

“…Similar to previous research (Slattery & Goodman, 2009;Strand et al, 2013), practitioners highlighted the positive impact of the agency's supportive culture and prioritization of self-care for practitioners individually and as a team. Using a trauma-informed care model in services not only benefits clients but can also increase worker satisfaction (Kulkarni, Bell, & Rhodes, 2012). A Housing First model combined with a trauma-informed care approach has the potential to increase worker satisfaction by providing workers with flexibility and mobility to meet with survivors in their community (Mbilinyi, 2015).…”