From Blue to Green: The Development and Implementation of a Therapeutic Horticulture Program for Residents of a Battered Women’s Shelter

Abstract

The delivery of therapeutic services to clients is influenced by service providers' understanding of the "fit" of a specific program with their service mandate as well as their perceptions of the potential benefits of the program. This article discusses the development and implementation of a therapeutic horticulture (TH) program at a battered women's shelter that serves 17 counties in Central Kentucky. Through semistructured interviews, we gauge the shelter staff's perceptions of the relationship of the TH program to the shelter's overall mission; their sense of the program's benefits for residents, for the shelter as a community organization, and for themselves; and their concerns about the TH program. We consider how these findings may impact future programming at the shelter, and we discuss plans for further evaluation of the TH program in terms of its impact on shelter residents' long-term outcomes.

A systematic review of community-based research interventions for domestic violence survivors.

“…One intervention emphasized survivor-centered legal advocacy through collaboration among advocates, lawyers, and prosecutors (Cattaneo, Goodman, Epstein, Kohn, & Zanville, 2009). Two interventions emphasized integrative or complementary medicine, including adding trauma-informed yoga to therapy sessions and having women participate in therapeutic horticulture through working on a farm (Clark et al, 2014; Renzetti & Follingstad, 2015). One article described a one-session workshop providing DV education, referrals, and safety planning for substance-using women (Gilbert et al, 2015).…”

“…Sixteen interventions provided in-person workshops or services; 10 occurred in small groups, and six were individualized (Blodgett et al, 2008; Cattaneo et al, 2009; Chronister et al, 2012; Clark et al, 2014; Galano et al, 2017; Kelly & Pich, 2014; Kramer et al, 2012; Levin, 2001; Macy et al, 2012; McWhirter, 2011; Nicolaidis, Mejia, et al, 2013; Nicolaidis, Wahab, et al, 2013; Ragavan et al, 2017; Serrata et al, 2016; Sullivan, 2003; Wahab et al, 2014). Additional approaches to interventions included funding for survivors, ongoing opportunities to work on a farm at a DV agency, and computer/technology-based services (Bloom et al, 2014; Gilbert et al, 2015; Renzetti & Follingstad, 2015; Sullivan et al, 2017).…”

“…Community team members in 17 articles included DV advocates or staff (Bloom et al, 2014; Cattaneo et al, 2009; Chronister et al, 2012; Clark et al, 2014; Gilbert et al, 2015; Kelly & Pich, 2014; Kramer et al, 2012; Levin, 2001; Macy et al, 2012; Nicolaidis, Mejia, et al, 2013; Nicolaidis, Wahab, et al, 2013; Ragavan et al, 2017; Renzetti & Follingstad, 2015; Serrata et al, 2016; Sullivan, 2003; Sullivan et al, 2016; Wahab et al, 2014). DV survivors were included in different capacities such as participants in needs assessments that guided project design, reviewers of project materials, members of community advisory boards or teams, and program implementers (Bloom et al, 2014; Gilbert et al, 2015; Kelly & Pich, 2014; McWhirter, 2011; Nicolaidis, Mejia, et al, 2013; Nicolaidis, Wahab, et al, 2013; Ragavan et al, 2017; Renzetti & Follingstad, 2015; Sullivan, 2003; Sullivan et al, 2016; Wahab et al, 2014). Other community partners included staff at other community-based agencies, public health or governmental organizations, and general community members (Blodgett et al, 2008; Cattaneo et al, 2009; Chronister et al, 2012; Galano et al, 2017; Gilbert et al, 2015; Levin, 2001; Macy et al, 2012; McWhirter, 2011; Nicolaidis, Mejia, et al, 2013; Ragavan et al, 2017; Renzetti & Follingstad, 2015; Sullivan et al, 2016).…”

“…Articles that did not use those terms instead described a collaborative process in the methods section. For example, Renzetti and Follingstad (2015) wrote how community members and academics formed a committee to collaboratively decide how to best cultivate land near a DV agency.…”

Experiencing Nature to Satisfy Basic Psychological Needs in Parenting: A Quasi-Experiment in Family Shelters

“…Shelters provide a safe place to live for parents and their children [ 16 ], temporarily support them with practical hassles and stressors [ 17 , 18 ], provide social work to find balance and transition to an independent life [ 19 ] and offer specific interventions with regard to, e.g., parent–child relatedness and parental competence [ 20 ]. On top of that, shelters may try to enhance the wellbeing of parents and children by introducing nature [ 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 ].…”