Sunteți pe pagina 1din 12

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274867069

What Is Empowerment Anyway? A Model for


Domestic Violence Practice, Research, and
Evaluation

Article · January 2015


DOI: 10.1037/a0035137

CITATIONS READS

13 921

2 authors:

Lauren Bennett Cattaneo Lisa A. Goodman


George Mason University Boston College, USA
37 PUBLICATIONS 873 CITATIONS 106 PUBLICATIONS 6,464 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Lauren Bennett Cattaneo
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 19 October 2016
Psychology of Violence © 2014 American Psychological Association
2015, Vol. 5, No. 1, 84 –94 2152-0828/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035137

What Is Empowerment Anyway? A Model for Domestic Violence Practice,


Research, and Evaluation

Lauren Bennett Cattaneo Lisa A. Goodman


George Mason University Boston College

Although the idea of empowerment lies at the heart of the anti– domestic violence movement, consensus
on the defining characteristics of this construct have remained elusive. A clear and consistent definition
of empowerment would promote the development of common metrics for research and evaluation, and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

guide the development of best practices. In this article, we describe specific challenges that have made
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

the conceptualization of empowerment difficult. We then overview the Empowerment Process Model,
and describe the ways in which it addresses those challenges. This model articulates empowerment as a
meaningful shift in the experience of power attained through interaction in the social world, and describes
the process of building empowerment as an iterative one, in which a person takes action toward
personally meaningful goals; draws on community supports, skill, knowledge, and self-efficacy to move
toward those goals; and observes the extent to which those actions result in progress. By incorporating
both process and outcome dimensions, bridging the psychological and contextual realms, and allowing
for domain specificity, the model addresses challenges to a clear conceptualization; and provides a
common framework that may be used as a reference point for practitioners and researchers wishing to
apply the construct. We conclude with suggestions for and examples of its application in research and
practice.

Keywords: best practice, domestic violence services, empowerment, evaluation, intimate partner violence

The goal of empowering survivors lies at the heart of the his or her actions (see Figure 1). This conceptualization of em-
anti– domestic violence1 movement (Goodman & Epstein, 2008). powerment sets it apart from related concepts such as mastery,
The defining characteristics of empowerment, however, have re- locus of control, and self-determination in two primary ways. First,
mained vague and inconsistent (Kasturirangan, 2008; Masterson & it is a process focused on specific goals. Second, it extends beyond
Owen, 2006). As a result, researchers have understood and mea- the intrapsychic realm (Cattaneo & Chapman, 2010). After de-
sured the concept in a wide variety of ways, thereby hindering the scribing the model and the definition of power on which it rests,
accumulation of a knowledge base that could deepen our under- the article details the ways in which the model addresses chal-
standing of survivors’ experiences and build and evaluate best lenges to the conceptualization of empowerment within IPV. We
practices in anti– domestic violence work. After highlighting the conclude with examples of the model’s applications to practice and
centrality of the idea of empowerment in the field of intimate partner research, and suggestions for future work.
violence (IPV) and outlining obstacles to its conceptualization, this
article describes the Empowerment Process Model (Cattaneo & Empowerment as a Key Construct in IPV
Chapman, 2010), a model that clarifies the characteristics of em-
powerment. We define empowerment as a meaningful shift in the From its earliest days, the anti– domestic violence movement
experience of power attained through interaction in the social has worked toward the empowerment of survivors as a central
world. The model describes the process of building empowerment goal. Early recognition of intimate partner abuse arose from the
as an iterative one, in which a person who lacks power sets a stories of women who came together and found common ground in
personally meaningful goal oriented toward increasing power, their descriptions of being controlled by their partners, who ex-
takes action, and makes progress toward that goal, drawing on his erted their power through psychological, sexual, economic, and
or her evolving self-efficacy, knowledge, skills, and community physical abuse (Stark, 2007). If abusers were taking power from
resources and supports, and observes and reflects on the impact of survivors, healing entailed restoring it. Early activists also identi-
fied an overarching structure of patriarchy and the systematic
oppression of women as a root cause of violence against women,
and aimed for structural changes to gain power for women as a
This article was published Online First January 13, 2014. group. Indeed, one can find evidence of the importance of em-
Lauren Bennett Cattaneo, Department of Psychology, George Mason powerment in the scholarship of that time (e.g., Brownmiller,
University; Lisa A. Goodman, Department of Counseling, Developmental,
and Educational Psychology, Boston College.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lauren 1
In this article, we use the terms domestic violence, intimate partner
Bennett Cattaneo, Department of Psychology, George Mason University, violence, and partner abuse interchangeably to describe the abuse of a
Fairfax, VA 22030. E-mail: lcattane@gmu.edu current or former intimate partner.

84
WHAT IS EMPOWERMENT 85

The Empowerment Process Model

Define or redefine meaningful, power-


oriented GOALS and objecves

community resources
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Observe and knowledge


This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

reflect on
IMPACT of skills
acons in Carry out
relaon to goal self-efficacy ACTIONS toward
achievement goal achievement

Figure 1. The Empowerment Process Model.

1975; Martin, 1976), narratives of the history of the movement (Cattaneo, 2010; Cattaneo & Goodman, 2010; Zweig & Burt,
(e.g., Schechter, 1982), and early program descriptions (e.g., Ro- 2007). Moving beyond satisfaction to behavior, Hotaling and
driguez, 1988). Buzawa (2003) showed that survivors who reported that they had
Although much has shifted over time, as that early grassroots had more voice in the prosecution of their cases were more likely
movement has evolved into a sprawling social services system, to report repeat incidents of abuse when they occurred in the next
empowerment remains central to the work of those seeking to year. In addition to survivors’ perceptions and behavior related to
support IPV survivors. For example, on its website, the National the source of help itself, several studies have now linked empow-
Coalition against Domestic Violence lists as one of its five aims to erment with more general mental health outcomes. In a longitudi-
“empower battered women and children” (National Coalition nal study in the context of the court system, victims who experi-
Against Domestic Violence, 2011). The websites of state associ- enced greater voice and who felt they had gotten what they wanted
ations and myriad programs use similar language (Kasturirangan, by pursuing the court case reported less depression and greater
2008; Macy, Giattina, Sangster, Crosby, & Montijo, 2009; Mc- quality of life six months later, over and above experiences of
Dermott & Garofalo, 2004). There are several reasons why do- repeat abuse (Cattaneo & Goodman, 2010). Among survivors
mestic violence organizations have embraced empowerment as a receiving services from a shelter, empowerment moderated the
core goal in their work. Most simply, both inside and outside the relationship between IPV severity and PTSD symptoms, above and
IPV context, the use of the term empowerment invokes ideals that beyond access to resources (Perez, Johnson, & Wright, 2012).
resonate with feminist and social justice values: personal choice; Further, in a randomized trial, an empowerment-oriented interven-
finding voice; a focus on strength versus deficit; and transcending tion was related to less severe PTSD symptomatology over time
oppression (Cattaneo, Calton, & Brodsky, in press). But the fre- and to less repeat abuse (Johnson, Zlotnick, & Perez, 2011).
quent use of the term in the social response to IPV is supported by Finally, in a study randomizing prosecution tracks among victims
more than abstract principles. Empirical work that focuses on of IPV, participants experienced least repeat abuse when they had
empowerment, or overlapping constructs such as voice and con- a choice about pressing charges, and then decided to move forward
trol, indicate a connection with key outcomes related to survivor with them (Ford & Regoli, 1992).
wellbeing. These studies suggest that helpseekers vary in the amount of
For example, research has demonstrated that when survivors empowerment (and related constructs) they experience in their
feel in greater control during the process of helpseeking, they report interactions with help providers. Some survivors, for example,
greater satisfaction with police, the court system, and victim services perceive greater choice or control than others. This variance is not
86 CATTANEO AND GOODMAN

a surprise given documentation of the range of survivors’ experi- variance in conceptualization and measurement makes it difficult
ences when they reach out to formal systems (e.g., Bennett, Good- to synthesize and identify implications of this body of work.
man, & Dutton, 1999; Erez & Belknap, 1998). Of greater import, A search of organizations whose Web sites invoke empower-
research also suggests that those who experience a greater degree ment underscores this issue in the practice realm. For example, at
of empowerment appear more likely to reach positive longer-term the time of this writing, a Google search using the key words
outcomes. In other words, empowerment may be a key mechanism “domestic violence” and “empowerment” yielded more than 4
for the achievement of outcomes any organization working with million hits. The first few websites listed include the following: a
IPV survivors would target: mental health, satisfaction with ser- program geared toward “financial empowerment” through the pro-
vices, and safety. vision of “financial skills, knowledge, and resources,” (Allstate
In fact, the identification of empowerment as a short-term or Foundation, 2011); the Survivor Empowerment Fund, which ac-
proximal outcome that may lead to longer-term or distal outcomes cepts donations that are then provided to survivors in the form of
holds promise for addressing a major challenge to evaluation of gift cards to support them in whatever they need (Domestic Vio-
IPV services: that long-term goal of safety—the core desired lence Resource Center, 2012); the Healing Club, a Facebook page
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

outcome and reason for existence of such services—is not under designed to share resources and support through connecting with
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

the direct control of survivors or practitioners (Sullivan, 2011). others (Healing Club Inc., 2010); and the Survivor’s Empower-
The person with ultimate control over the victim’s potential safety ment Zone, which provides information and resources, such as a
is the potential offender. Empowerment, on the other hand, is a list of state coalitions and the criteria for PTSD (Survivor’s Em-
process that can be influenced by supporters and shaped by sur- powerment Zone, 2001).
vivors, and it has the potential to lead to outcomes such as safety These Web sites may all be excellent resources. However, the
that may be attainable in the longer term. In other words, the looseness with which empowerment is applied creates a vicious
construct of empowerment has the potential to be useful as a cycle, whereby diffuse applications muddy the definition of the
measure of the immediate impact of domestic violence services, as concept, facilitating further diffusion in application. To serve as a
well as the longer-term impact. guiding framework for work in IPV, empowerment needs a clear
In sum, empowerment is a powerful idea, a worthy goal, and a definition. Although DV researchers have identified key elements
useful orienting concept in IPV work, including intervention, of the empowerment construct, outcomes associated with it, and
research, and evaluation. However, despite the consensus about its practices consistent with it (for several excellent examples see,
core importance, the way that empowerment is defined, measured, e.g., Johnson, Worell, & Chandler, 2005; Kasturirangan, 2008;
and applied both within and outside the arena of IPV remains Song, 2012; Sullivan et al., 2013), these studies themselves reflect
problematic on a number of dimensions which prevents its effec- tensions in its conceptualization; and these tensions in turn prevent
tive use as a guiding framework. We describe these problems next. clarity and consistency across applications. We describe these
challenges next.
Problems in the Conceptualization of Empowerment
Empowerment Is Both Process and Outcome
Empowerment Has Become a Buzzword
In scholarship both inside and outside of IPV, it is often unclear
Despite the centrality of the idea of empowerment within both whether researchers are considering empowerment as a process, an
IPV practice and research arenas, when it is applied, there is little outcome, or both. In a general review of the construct, the first
clarity about the nature of the construct and therefore wide variety author noted that much of the scholarship on empowerment de-
in how it is measured. The research just reviewed provides an scribes it as iterative, involving a rich give and take between action
example. Three of the studies included did not explicitly focus on and observation of the impact of that action (Cattaneo & Chapman,
empowerment, but used a single question to ask participants about 2010). In the context of IPV, for example, a survivor might take
how much control they believed they had in their interactions with steps toward increasing her safety, take notice of the effects of
help providers (Cattaneo, 2010; Hotaling & Buzawa, 2003; Zweig those steps, and perhaps realize that she needs to gather more
& Burt, 2007); they are included in reviews on the subject, such as resources to be successful. She might attempt to gather such
this one, because the construct of control is viewed as falling under resources, observe her progress toward her goals again, and then
the empowerment umbrella (e.g., Bell, 2007; Zimmerman, Israel, revise her plans further. Empowerment, in this scenario, is a
Schulz, & Checkoway, 1992). Two of the studies that did explic- process involving multiple steps and an evolving sense of what is
itly focus on empowerment measured it using the Personal Prog- needed and what is possible, depending on the impact of one’s
ress Scale—Revised, which assesses “10 broad outcomes of fem- actions. Yet, at any point in this process, it would be possible to
inist therapies including positive self-evaluation and self-esteem, a ask about the outcome of her efforts; that is, how empowered is the
favorable comfort— distress ratio, gender role and cultural identity survivor is at that time? The fact that it is possible to consider
awareness, a sense of personal control/self-efficacy, self- empowerment as both process and outcome is a significant chal-
nurturance and self-care, effective problem solving skills, compe- lenge to a clear definition.
tent use of assertiveness skills, effective access to multiple eco- To date, although scholarship inside and outside IPV might
nomic, social, and community resources, gender and cultural acknowledge that empowerment is a process, it is usually mea-
flexibility, and socially constructive activism” (Johnson et al., sured as an outcome, or as one of a number of outcomes (Song,
2011, p.545). Finally, Cattaneo and Goodman (2010) measured 2006, 2012; Wright, Perez, & Johnson, 2010). For example, Wor-
empowerment with a scale focusing on the extent to which par- rell and Chandler’s Personal Progress Scale (revised by Johnson,
ticipants felt respected and got what they wanted in the court. The Worell, & Chandler, 2005; Wright et al., 2010), as just mentioned,
WHAT IS EMPOWERMENT 87

includes “ten broad outcomes theorized to be associated with which are beyond the scope of this paper. However, in synthesiz-
empowerment” (Johnson, Worell & Chandler, 2005, p.113). Both ing the literature, scholars have arrived at three key aspects of
aspects of the construct need to be included in any clear and power that undergird our conceptualization of empowerment.
comprehensive conceptualization. First, “the idea of power as a relationship and not a property of an
individual or a group has been a recurring feature of theorizing
Empowerment Is Domain Specific about power for over 60 years” (Neal & Neal, 2011, p. 163). In
other words, power is a dynamic between social entities—ranging
In terms of both theory and measurement, there is a tension from individuals to institutions. A shift in power, therefore, could
between the need to develop a standard understanding of empow- include a change in a relationship between two people (e.g., an
erment, so that it might be compared across people and programs, interaction where a person feels truly heard or the promotion of
and recognizing that people may be empowered in some parts of one person over another), or a change in the relationship between
their lives but not in others. Within the context of IPV, this point people and institutions (e.g., the deposing of a dictator, or the
is intuitive: being empowered with respect to one’s abusive partner implementation of legislation).
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

is different from being empowered with respect to one’s parenting Second, Masterson and Owen (2006) review the tension be-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

or one’s work life, though they may influence each other. On the tween empowerment at the individual and social levels. This
basis of this understanding, Zimmerman and Warschausky (1998) tension results from the perception that a focus on power at one
argue that the construct must be conceptualized to fit with specific level detracts from an understanding of power at the other level: a
populations and settings, and caution against the development of a focus on individual power diverts attention from structural in-
global measure. Going further, we argue that even within specific equality, and a focus on power at the macrolevel assumes away
populations and settings, the construct is best conceptualized in within-group differences. They conclude, as do we, that both the
relation to specific domains rather than as a broad concept that cuts individual and social conceptualizations are necessary, and in fact
across domains. Determining which domain to prioritize and mea- are inextricably linked: “Helping individuals to feel more person-
sure represents a formidable challenge to researchers attempting to ally powerful will have a limited effect without social change to
develop tools that are survivor-centered; that is, tools that reflect allow that power to be exercised. Likewise, social change will not
the priorities of the community of interest. be empowering if individuals perceive themselves as unable to
make use of those changes” (p.26). Further, power dynamics at the
Empowerment Is Both Psychological social level may be internalized at the individual level, with
and Contextual profound impact on how people understand their situation and the
possibility of changing it (Tew, 2006). This conceptualization of
As we describe below, power is not solely a psychological power supports our articulation of empowerment as a bridge
phenomenon, but involves interaction between individuals (or concept, spanning the boundary between the intrapsychic and
groups) and their social context (Christens, 2012; Neal & Neal, social worlds.
2011). Similarly, conceptualizing empowerment—an increase in Finally, scholarship on types of power reveals its enormous
power—requires more than a psychological focus, though most breadth, viewing a wide range of behaviors as the enactment of
conceptualizations tend to stop there (Cattaneo, Calton & Brodsky, power dynamics. For example, Riger (1993) summarizes the lit-
in press; Cattaneo & Chapman, 2010). As Riger (1993) argued in erature to identify power over (dominance), power to (ability to
a widely cited critique of the use of the term empowerment, take action), and power from (freedom from the influence of
focusing only on the psychological, or “individuals’ sense of others); Tew (2006) has also indentified power together (wielding
empowerment rather than actual increases in power [risks] making influence cooperatively), and proposes that power dynamics can be
the political personal” (1993, p. 279). productive (opening up opportunities) or limiting (closing them
In the context of IPV it is particularly clear that empowerment off).
involves interplay between the psychological and social realms: Building upon this literature, the Empowerment Process Model
IPV occurs within a relationship, and considerations of empower- relies on the following definition of power: “an increase in power
ment often include efforts of survivors to reach out to informal and is an increase in one’s influence in social relations at any level of
formal social systems who may respond in a variety of ways. human interaction, from dyadic interactions to the interaction
These social experiences have psychological consequences, which between a person and a system” (Cattaneo & Chapman, 2010,
in turn shape social interactions. In essence, empowerment is a p.647). Influence in turn is defined broadly, including connection,
bridge concept; it crosses the boundary between self and the social withdrawal, or effecting broad social change.
world. Defining and measuring a construct that crosses these
realms is a formidable challenge as well.
Model Overview
The Empowerment Process Model The Empowerment Process Model (Cattaneo & Chapman, 2010;
see Figure 1) builds on a thorough review of several decades of
Conceptualizing Power empowerment scholarship (e.g., Fitzsimons & Fuller, 2002; Freire,
2000; Gutiérrez, 1990; McWhirter, 1991; Rappaport, 1987; Zim-
Any conceptualization of empowerment rests implicitly on a merman, 1995) to articulate the concept of empowerment in a way
definition of power. There is a rich and contentious literature on that addresses the challenges just outlined. In the model, as men-
the definition of and dynamics of power (for reviews see Master- tioned above, empowerment is defined as a meaningful shift in the
son & Owen, 2006; Neal & Neal, 2011; Tew, 2006), the details of experience of power attained through interaction in the social
88 CATTANEO AND GOODMAN

world. It is an iterative process, in which a person who lacks power include the belief that one needs to collaborate with others in order
sets a personally meaningful goal oriented toward increasing to prevail. In sum, in developing the Empowerment Process
power, takes action, and makes progress toward that goal, drawing Model, we chose the concept of self-efficacy above related con-
on his or her evolving self-efficacy, knowledge, skills, and com- cepts because of this connection to the pursuit of valued goals, and
munity resources and supports, and observes and reflects on the because of the large amount of evidence linking it to outcomes
impact of his or her actions. Here we elaborate each component of across situations and cultures (Cattaneo & Chapman, 2010).
this process in the context of IPV, and then describe the ways that Self-efficacy is strongly related to, but not the same as the actual
the model addresses each challenge in turn. skills a survivor possesses relative to her goal. Skills are the
Goals in the context of IPV. It has been well-established that concrete capabilities needed to move toward particular goals, and
survivors of IPV may have a wide range of goals (e.g., Davies, can range from relatively straightforward competencies like know-
Lyon, & Monti-Catania, 1998). For example, a survivor may want ing how to use a computer, to more complex sets of abilities like
to find ways to ensure her own safety within the relationship; to being able to job-seek or parent children who are suffering from
leave the relationship and find a new place to live; to gain financial the sequelae of trauma. The survivor interested in financial inde-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

independence so as to increase her range of options; to get mental pendence, for example, may not have the skills to write a resume
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

health treatment for her children who have witnessed violence; or that will help her find a job. The survivor who wants to improve
to reduce her isolation. Within the context of the broad goals such her relationship with her child may not have the skills to respond
as these, there is further variety. For example, the survivor seeking effectively to the child’s tantrums.
financial independence might wish to find a job, to advance herself Knowledge is the understanding of what must be done in order
in a current job, to seek public benefits to help with expenses such to reach goals. It is distinct from the ability to actually take those
as childcare, or to decrease expenses by moving in with a family steps, which is determined by skills. Within the context of IPV,
member. Any one goal might be considered superordinate to a set knowledge often requires an understanding of how systems work,
of subgoals. For example, the survivor who wants to find a job and can be built through informal networks or official information
may have subgoals to identify jobs she wants, to pursue job sources like Web sites or brochures. To take steps toward gaining
training to increase her qualifications, to apply for jobs that are a financial independence, for example, a survivor must be aware of the
good fit, and to learn how to speak up for herself in a job interview. resources available, such as job listings or training, and how to
The process of empowerment involves thinking through possibil- access them. A key component of knowledge is critical conscious-
ities and selecting the best option based on the unique circum- ness—a broader understanding of belief systems and institutions
stances each survivor faces at any given time. It also often involves that influence the survivor’s situation. For example, a survivor
revisiting goals and subgoals, as context and other components of who is in a same-sex relationship may learn that resources, such as
the process shift. shelters, are not as available to him, and may come to understand
Self-efficacy, skills, knowledge, and community resources in this lack of availability as part of a larger pattern of bias in the
the context of IPV. Once a person has defined a single or set of community. This knowledge may lead him to redefine his goals in
goals, her ability to act and the effectiveness of the action depends any number of ways—from seeking refuge from informal supports
on her self-efficacy, skills, knowledge, and community resources. rather than formal, to seeking services at a GLBT-friendly com-
Self-efficacy is one’s perceived ability to accomplish particular munity organization instead of a DV program, to working toward
tasks (Bandura, 1977). Because self-efficacy is related to other changing cultural biases.
commonly used constructs such as agency, perceived-control, and As the above example suggests, as important as knowledge
mastery, and because it has been critiqued for an individualistic about resources and systems, skills to use them, and beliefs in
focus, its selection in the model requires explanation. First, self- one’s abilities to do what is needed is the question of what
efficacy has a strong grounding in theory and research. Goal- resources exist: Building and/or accessing community resources,
setting theory specifies self-efficacy as the moderator between including both formal systems and informal supports such as
goals and performance, with the combination of highly valued friends, neighbors, coworkers, or family, is also part of the process
goals and high self-efficacy deemed the “motivation hub” (Locke of empowerment. A social interaction may translate into an expe-
& Latham, 2002, p.709). Second, self-efficacy has been shown to rience of increased power much more readily for some than others,
be a key factor in performance across cultures. In particular, depending on available resources, which in turn depend on mac-
Bandura (1997) has argued that it is not at all incompatible with a rolevel structures. Returning to the survivor in the same sex
collectivist orientation: relationship, if there is no shelter bed available, no job training to
be had, or no friend to reach out to, either the survivor will need
There is no reason to believe that individuals from collectivist cultures to revisit his or her goals or work with an advocate to find or create
do not form personal goals. . . . [but] it is the content of the goals that new resources.
is different between individualistic and collectivist cultures. Whereas Impact in the context of IPV. Finally, the question of the
individualist persons . . . prefer to set goals for themselves that relate impact of the survivor’s actions is key; the process of empower-
to self-actualization, collectivist individuals . . . prefer to set goals for
ment involves reflecting on one’s progress, both in terms of
themselves that relate to promoting the welfare of their in-group. For
internal experience and external change, and on any other ramifi-
both types of goals, it should be the self-efficacious individuals who
make good progress toward realizing their goals, whereas the indi- cations—whether collateral damage or unexpected benefits. Social
viduals plagued by self-doubt should be less effective (p. 170). context again plays an important role here, in that the same action
may result in different levels of progress depending on the social
Nor is self-efficacy born of the belief that one must go it alone; location of the actor. For example, a survivor who is poor may
instead, a belief in one’s own ability to reach a goal could easily have a more difficult time being hired because she does not have
WHAT IS EMPOWERMENT 89

professional clothing or has been unable to afford dental care in their cross-sectional study of women who had exited a shelter.
(Smith, 2010). An African American survivor who submits the They found that above and beyond practical assistance, the use of
same resume as a white survivor may get a less favorable response “empowering practices” in the shelter led to greater survivor
simply because her name suggests her racial identity (Bertrand & empowerment, which they defined as confidence, connections, and
Mullainathan, 2004). Though certainly desirable, attainment of consciousness. What the model adds to this picture is a conceptu-
one’s ultimate goals is not required to meet the definition of alization of empowerment that is embedded within an iterative
“progress.” Indeed, the idea of subgoals serving superordinate process.
ones opens the door to incremental progress; movement toward Empowerment is domain specific. The Empowerment Pro-
changing the world may begin with one’s story being told and cess Model is also customizable for different contexts or domains.
heard. Perhaps the only broad goal domain shared across survivors is that
Within the context of IPV, this model addresses the challenges of safety, though it may be conceptualized and achieved in many
described earlier in specific ways. We highlight these aspects of different ways, depending on the individual circumstances of each
the model next. survivor. Given different subgoals within this broad domain, dif-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

ferent resources might come into play. For example, the resources
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

How the Model Responds to Critiques required to be successful in a court case against one’s abuser will
be different from those required to achieve financial independence,
of Empowerment
and both will be different than those required to reduce the vio-
Empowerment is both process and outcome. The Empow- lence without leaving the relationship. In each case, though, the
erment Process Model provides a framework for considering em- process of empowerment requires developing a set of goals and
powerment as both a process and an outcome. As we have de- subgoals, learning about available resources that may help achieve
scribed, the process dimension includes the iterative interaction among them, developing or strengthening whatever skills are needed,
components: defining goals, taking action, drawing on self- building a sense of self-efficacy about one’s capacity to employ
efficacy, skill, knowledge, and community resources, observing those skills and achieve the goals, feeling supported to move
the impact of the action internally and externally, and then poten- forward; and then having influence in social world as a result of
tially doubling back to redefine goals or build resources. that movement. It is likely that this same process might evolve
Conceptualizing empowerment as a process in this way ad- differently in various domains for an individual survivor—she
dresses Kasturiranagan’s (2008) critique of the term, in which she might be empowered in the domain of parenting but disempowered
makes clear that empowerment is a long process that programs in the domain of job security. Viewing the overall process as the
intersect with but don’t hand over: “Programs designed to address same but the support needed as different, depending on domain, is
domestic violence do not, in and of themselves, empower women. helpful in considering where and how service providers should
Rather, women may turn to programs as a resource at various facilitate.
stages of the empowerment process” (p. 1473). This understanding Empowerment is both psychological and contextual.
of survivors as involved in a longer process of change, and of Finally, the Empowerment Process Model explicitly bridges the
service providers as potential facilitators of that process, is also a psychological and social realms by including both intrapersonal
feature of survivor-centered or client-centered practice in general and social components, and the links between the two. From a
(Goodman & Epstein, 2008). In that framework, providers assume philosophical standpoint, it answers Riger’s (1993) call to avoid
that each survivor is unique and expert on the contours of her own making the political personal, as described earlier—not finding a
situation. The provider’s role is to collaborate, understanding the job may have nothing to do with the survivor’s efforts, and her
survivor’s frame of reference and bringing her own expertise to disempowerment in attempting to find one may draw the evaluator,
bear when needed. researcher, or program developer’s attention to more macrolevel
The Empowerment Process Model locates the work of programs problems.
within the evolving process of empowerment that victims engage Thus the Empowerment Process Model is designed to standard-
in over time. Service providers might facilitate (or hinder) any part ize our understanding of the construct of empowerment so that we
of the process, from helping a person or group to define personally might grab hold of it to greater effect, but to do so in a way that
meaningful goals to contributing to knowledge and supporting is also enormously flexible, and that avoids pathologizing survi-
self-efficacy, to identifying and helping with access to community vors for social problems. In the sections that follow we describe
resources, to helping evaluate the impact of actions and consequent specific applications of the model within the context of IPV.
need to retool goals or actions. In essence, one might add an arrow
to any part of the process depicted in Figure 1, describe how the
Applications of the Empowerment Process Model
work of an organization influences that component, and then
consider how that influence might then shape the other compo- The Empowerment Process Model can be used as a guiding
nents of the survivor’s empowerment. framework for work with IPV survivors, and for evaluation and
The model is also useful in considering empowerment as an research related to that work. The model does not necessarily
outcome. Although individuals can always become more or less recommend a shift in practices; we believe that advocates are
empowered (or disempowered) within a specific domain, at any already facilitating many of the processes the model names. In-
given point in time it is possible to evaluate one’s level of em- stead, the model offers a framework for describing and commu-
powerment relative to an earlier level, or one group’s level of nicating about those practices. In terms of research and evaluation,
empowerment relative to another group’s. Sullivan and colleagues the model offers specific pathways for evaluating program and
(2013), for example, evaluated empowerment as a set of outcomes practice impact in terms of their influence on empowerment; and
90 CATTANEO AND GOODMAN

exploring the empowerment process and its connection to other survivor-centered practice, the Empowerment Process Model ex-
long-term outcomes. In this section and in Table 1, we offer plicitly roots practice in survivor priorities rather than in service
examples and specific suggestions for applications of the model to options (Kulkarni, Bell, & Rhodes, 2012).
both practice and research. Helping a survivor to identify her priorities can range from a
straightforward process to an enormously complex and time-
Applications to Practice consuming effort. Survivors may have a number of goals that fall
within different domains such as safety, work, and children. Some
Applying the goals component to practice. Applying the
may be more high priority than others, though harder to achieve. In
Empowerment Process Model means that the work of understand-
assisting the survivor to articulate and map out subgoals toward
ing a survivor’s goals, and of helping the survivor articulate those
aims, is part of the process of empowerment, as opposed to being superordinate goals, it is important to be domain-specific, because
ancillary or a footnote to other more important work. Here we are each goal may require different kinds of knowledge and services,
almost certainly describing practice that is already standard in and may generate different risks (Davies et al., 1998). At the same
time, it is critical to explore when progress in one domain might
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

many programs—the work of helping a survivor get clear about


cause unintentional negative consequences in another (Good-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

what she wants. However, many scholars have commented that the
web of systems that have been developed to address IPV have man, Smyth, Borges, & Singer, 2009). If a low-income woman
unintentionally led to a menu-based or service-defined approach in gains access to subsidized housing, she may find herself unable
which a survivor is offered a set of options for assistance based to continue to house her aging relatives given rules about
primarily on the availability of services or the mission of the overcrowding; if an African American woman turns to the
organization rather than on the survivor’s unique circumstances criminal justice system for help with safety, she might find
and hopes for her future (Davies et al., 1998; Goodman & Epstein, herself criticized by a community that does not want to see
2008; Stark, 2007). Consistent with the movement toward another black man enter the justice system; or if a lesbian

Table 1
Recommendations for Applying the Empowerment Process Model to Research/Evaluation and Practice in IPV

Recommendations for questions to guide research/


Model component Recommendations to guide practice evaluation

Goals Ensure that goal identification is an ongoing What is the fit between survivor-defined and
process that cuts across domains and is rooted system-defined goals and subgoals?
in survivor priorities rather than service options. To what extent do evaluation plans address
Pay attention to broad goals as well as subgoals or survivor-defined versus system-defined goals
steps required to attain goals. and subgoals?
Assess the potential for unintended negative What kind of formal and informal supports
consequences of specific goal achievement. facilitate progress toward which kinds of goals
and subgoals?
How do individual and contextual factors shape
goal formation and goal achievement?
Knowledge, skills, self-efficacy, Assess what knowledge, skills, self-efficacy, and To what extent do programs facilitate attainment of
and community resources community resources the survivor has and what resources in each of these areas?
s/he needs relevant to each goal and subgoal To what extent do specific strategies work to
Collaborate on identifying best route to facilitating enhance these components?
acquisition of these components. Consider What is the relationship between changes in one
innovative strategies including counseling, component and changes in another?
accompaniment, critical consciousness raising, How does trauma history influence the process of
and relationship building (network oriented change in each of these areas? What obstacles
practice). do survivors commonly face in growing or
Consider role of trauma in clients’ experience accessing resources in each of these areas?
accessing these resources. How does culture and other contextual factors
Consider the role of biased or ineffective social influence change in these areas?
systems as obstacles to accessing these
resources.
Collaborate with other community agencies to
develop resources when relevant supports don’t
exist
Impact Assess where the survivor is on his/her path to Beyond system-defined outcomes, how do various
goals, including what obstacles have prevented services affect outcomes most important to
success in the past, and whether success in one survivors?
domain has interfered with success in another. What kinds of outcome measures are most relevant
Allow for the possibility that impact assessment to survivors’ goals, account for unintended
may trigger a re-assessment of other negative consequences, and incorporate elements
components such as goals or resources. of the entire empowerment process, including
both psychological and social components?
WHAT IS EMPOWERMENT 91

reports the abuse to an authority, she risks outing herself at a need the support of an ongoing group or a therapist to begin to
time that is not right for her. rebuild a shattered sense of self-efficacy (Goodman, Glenn,
Further, for many survivors, because of the devastating effects Bohlig, Banyard, & Borges, 2009). The limited resources an
of trauma on sense of self and agency, identifying goals might be agency has to provide such intensive support might be allocated
a significant piece of work in and of itself. In fact, in their article based in part on this understanding, in addition to more typical
on best practices in trauma-informed services, Elliott and col- considerations related to risk.
leagues (2005) identify the prioritizing of women’s choice and Applying the community resources component to practice.
control over their recovery as a key principle. Applying the Em- The support provided by community agencies as well as informal
powerment Process Model to practice in IPV locates this important networks of friends, neighbors, and family is critical to empower-
piece of work with survivors within their process of empowerment. ment as a process and an outcome. Assessing and facilitating the
Applying the knowledge and skill components to practice. accrual of such resources may require considerable creativity from
Some survivors, when they seek services, already possess a service providers. When there are obvious community resources
wealth of knowledge born of experience in similar systems, and that facilitate goal achievement, the process is straightforward
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

only need practical information about which office to go to (though not necessarily easy). But where no such resources exist,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

when. These survivors may also possess the skills they need to advocates may need to come together to advocate for their creation
navigate the system. In these cases, organizations do not need to or find alternatives. Advocates can also play a critical role in
facilitate these components of the process to facilitate the helping isolated survivors reengage with informal networks
survivors’ empowerment—they can focus their resources else- (Goodman & Smyth, 2011). Such networks often play a key role
where. Other survivors may be utterly overwhelmed by the in supporting survivors’ goals. Indeed, extensive research demon-
complexities of systems, and need a great deal of support over strates the critical contribution of informal networks to improving
time. For example, the court system is enormously confusing, survivors’ mental health, safety, and ability to access formal ser-
and for a novice, receiving information only on the day of entry vices (Adkins & Kamp Dush, 2010; Bybee & Sullivan, 2005;
is not particularly helpful as the case unfolds (Bennett et al., Goodman, Dutton, Vankos, & Weinfurt, 2005). For some survi-
1999). In addition to information, such survivors may need help vors, there are clear informal resources to draw from—a support-
building skills, for example, role-playing how to speak to a ive friend or family, a church community, or a workplace. In other
judge. Both skill building and providing knowledge are com- cases, advocates may need to turn to what the second author has
mon foci of IPV programs (Sullivan, 2011). For example, most termed network-oriented practices; that is, practices that help
programs are well-equipped to educate survivors about IPV, to isolated survivors reengage and get support from people in their
explain the court system to survivors who wish to use it, or to community (Goodman, Banyard, Woulfe, Ash, & Mattern, in
make referrals to agencies that might provide job training. What press; Goodman & Smyth, 2011). This too may require creativity
the model brings to these efforts is a framework linking them to and innovation. Across these possibilities, advocates are facilitat-
the rest of the empowerment process, such as the survivor’s
ing the survivor’s empowerment by helping her to assess and then
personally meaningful goals, her evolving sense of self-
develop the community resources needed to reach her goals.
efficacy, and the community support she has or needs to take
Applying the impact component to practice. Attending to
follow-up steps.
the impact component of the empowerment process encourages
Applying the self-efficacy component to practice. Building
service providers to learn from the survivor as she reflects on her
self-efficacy, like clarifying goals, may range from a relatively
internal and external progress or lack thereof. If a particular step,
straightforward task to one requiring longer-term support; it may
such as a safety plan, is not increasing this survivor’s safety at this
mean building up a survivor’s personal sense of confidence, or cre-
time, there are likely obstacles to progress that need to be under-
ating a sense of community such that survivors feel they can accom-
stood and addressed. These obstacles might be in the domain of
plish goals together. In their study of empowering practices in shel-
community resources, self-efficacy, or the response (or lack
ters, Sullivan and colleagues (2013) found that building
thereof) of others in the survivor’s life. Research has been clear
concrete skills was the strongest predictor of self-efficacy. For
that there are no one-size-fits-all solutions for all survivors or even
many survivors, then, what is needed to build self-efficacy is
for one survivor over time (Cattaneo, Cho, & Botuck, 2011;
the development of skills relevant to their goals. For other
Davies et al., 1998; Goodman & Epstein, 2008). Thus the assess-
survivors, however, self-efficacy across many areas of their life
has been a casualty of their experience with trauma, and re- ment of impact must be ongoing, with the expectation that the
building a sense of self-efficacy may require more than skill- effectiveness of actions will shift as other parts of the process and
building. Survivors who struggle with self-efficacy may require the context of the survivor’s life evolves. Relatedly, as already
more accompaniment or emotional support as they move toward noted, it is often the case that success in one domain might
their goals. For example, many survivors’ fragile sense of interfere with success in another domain; the assessment of impact
self-efficacy may gain in strength when they are accompanied must be attuned to this possibility and facilitate a weighing of costs
by advocates as they seek services from a court or a government and benefits.
agency; some may simply need to be actively reminded of their
successes by an advocate who has built a relationship with
Applications to Research/Evaluation
them; some may need help building critical consciousness to
understand past failures as the result of biased or ineffective The model is useful for understanding the experience of survi-
systems as opposed to their own incompetence; still others may vors over time as well as evaluating the work of IPV programs.
feel little ability to make any kind of change in their lives and Rather than taking a comprehensive approach, here we present
92 CATTANEO AND GOODMAN

examples of ways in which we believe the model is particularly they relate to what is important to the survivor. For example,
useful in these contexts. the first author and colleagues (Cattaneo, Dunn, & Chapman,
Applying the goals component to research/evaluation. If 2013) developed a measure to evaluate the experience IPV
the identification of goals is the cornerstone of the empowerment victims have in court during the process of petitioning for a
process, it must also be a focus of research and evaluation. For an protection order. The measure goes beyond the traditional focus
organization struggling with the question of what matters most to on case disposition to incorporate experiences such as valida-
its clients in an era of decreasing resources, evaluation might tion, fear, and influence on work and family. Including a broad
explore what goals or definitions of success their clientele tend to measure of impact allows researchers and evaluators to develop
have, and to what extent their services match those goals and a holistic picture of the effect of engaging with a system,
definitions. For example, the first author recently completed a beyond system-defined outcomes such as obtaining a protection
project that focused on goals within the civil protection order order or not.
process (Cattaneo & Dunn, 2013). Absent the empowerment Creating an evaluation tool. If empowerment is a core goal
framework, one might evaluate the effectiveness of protection of DV programs, it must be measurable as an outcome. The
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

orders by evaluating their impact on safety or arrest rates. The model enables the measurement of empowerment as a theoreti-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Empowerment Process Model broadens this perspective by orient- cally derived and clinically consistent construct. Indeed along with
ing the evaluator toward petitioners’ personal goals, which include several colleagues, we have just completed a study validating a
other priorities in addition to safety. In an urban court system, we measure of safety-related empowerment (MOVERS: Measure of Vic-
explored this question by first conducting qualitative interviews tim Empowerment Related to Safety; Goodman, Cattaneo, Thomas,
with survivors seeking protection orders to deepen our understand- Wolfe & Chong, 2013), a tool that we developed in collaboration with
ing of the kinds of goals survivors had in pursuing a protection order 17 DV programs across the northeast, that can be used to assess the
and how these goals matched up with the system’s goals for them. Based extent to which participants experience a sense of empowerment in
on these, we generated a checklist of 32 goals, which we used as the domain of safety at any given point in time. The measure includes
the basis of a survey of survivors at the end of the protection order items reflecting each component of the model: goal setting, or seeing
process; here, we were interested participants’ goal prioritization a path to keeping safe (i.e., “I know what my next steps are on the path
and their sense of their ability to reach each goal. In addition to to keeping safe.”); self efficacy, or the belief in one’s own capacity to
identifying the match between survivor and system-defined goals, keep safe (i.e., “I can cope with whatever challenges come at me as I
evaluation might also focus on the extent to which service provid- work to keep safe”); knowledge, or access to information about
ers facilitate the identification of goals with clients, or might keeping safe (i.e., “I have a good idea about what kinds of support for
explore which services facilitate progress toward which goals. safety I can get from community programs and services”.); context, or
Applying the knowledge/skill/self-efficacy/community resources community factors that facilitate safety (i.e., “Community programs
components to research/evaluation. There is a wide array of po- and services are able to provide the support and resources I need to
tential research and evaluation questions related to knowledge, keep safe”); and finally impact (i.e., “I have to give up too much to
skill, self-efficacy, and community resources. Perhaps the richest keep safe”). The structure of the instrument allows for an overall score
set of questions for researchers to explore relate to how these on safety-related empowerment, as well as subscale scores that cor-
components of the model interact with each other and other com- respond with factors that emerged from our study: internal resources,
ponents of the process, both in the short- and long-term. In other external support, and tradeoffs (an assessment of the cost of pursuing
words, program activities aimed at increasing knowledge or skills safety). This measure is standardized, in that it can be used across
should be evaluated not only in and of themselves— do clients settings and individuals, but also survivor-centered, in that it allows
actually have more skill in relevant areas, and have they absorbed for survivors to respond to questions in the context of their own
the psychoeducation or information about systems that has been specific safety-related goals.
taught— but do these increases relate to other aspects of the
process, particularly the bookends of the empowerment process:
goals and impact? Does the knowledge an organization facilitates Conclusion
or provides connect to the priorities of the survivors seeking Empowerment has deep roots in the movement to address IPV,
services? Do the skills an organization provides lead to meaningful and continues to be an orienting concept in the field. The general
impact in survivors’ lives? Such questions could also be framed to agreement about its importance creates potential for research and
explore empowerment outside of the context of formal helpseeking practice to coalesce around this theme. To actualize this potential,
as well. For example, does support from informal networks lead to we have suggested the Empowerment Process Model as a guiding
greater self-efficacy and, ultimately, progress toward one’s goals? framework. It is our hope that the model might pave the way for
Finally, the connection between these aspects of the empowerment accumulation of knowledge and refinement of our efforts toward
process and longer-term outcomes of interest, such as safety and providing meaningful and lasting help to survivors.
mental health, might be explored longitudinally. This last set of
questions would test the assumption that empowerment is a mech-
anism for longer-term positive change. References
Applying the impact component to research/evaluation. Adkins, K. S., & Kamp Dush, C. M. (2010). The mental health of mothers
Research on the effectiveness of services tends to focus nar- in and after violent and controlling unions. Social Science Research, 39,
rowly on the aim of the service being provided (e.g., housing, 925–937. Elsevier Inc. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.06.013
safety, conviction). The model calls on researchers to illuminate Allstate Foundation. (2011). Click to Empower-Home. Retrieved August
the broader set of impacts that any action might bring, and how 29, 2012, from http://www.clicktoempower.org/home.aspx
WHAT IS EMPOWERMENT 93

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral tation of trauma-informed services for women. Journal of Community
change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. Retrieved from http:// Psychology, 33, 461– 477. doi:10.1002/jcop.20063
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/847061. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2 Erez, E., & Belknap, J. (1998). In their own Words: Battered women’s
.191 assessment of the criminal processing system’s responses. Violence and
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Victims, 13, 251–268.
Freeman. Fitzsimons, S., & Fuller, R. (2002). Empowerment and its implications for
Bell, M. E. (2007). Empowerment and disempowerment for victims of clinical practice in mental health: A review. Journal of Mental Health,
intimate partner violence: An overview of the effects of criminal justice 11, 481– 499. doi:10.1080/09638230020023
system practices. In Kathleen A. Kendall-Tackett & Sarah M. Gia- Ford, D. A., & Regoli, M. (1992). The preventive impacts of policies for
comoni (Eds.), Intimate partner violence (pp. 2101–2115). Kingston, prosecuting wife batterers. In E. S. Buzawa & C. G. Buzawa (Ed.),
NJ: Civic Research Institute. Domestic violence: The changing criminal justice response (pp. 181–
Bennett, L., Goodman, L. A., & Dutton, M. A. (1999). Systemic obstacles 207). Westport, CT: Auburn House.
to the criminal prosecution of a battering partner: A victim perspective. Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 761–772. Retrieved from http:// Goodman, L. A., Banyard, V. L., Woulfe, J., Ash, S., & Mattern, G. (in
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/088626099014007006. doi:10.1177/ press). Bringing a network-oriented approach to domestic violence ser-


This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

088626099014007006 vices: A focus group exploration of promising practices. Violence


Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more Against Women.
employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment evidence on Goodman, L. A., Cattaneo, L. B., Thomas, K., Wolfe, J., & Chong, S. K.
labor market discrimination. The American Economic Review, 94, 991– (2013). Advancing domestic violence program evaluation with MOV-
1013. doi:10.1257/0002828042002561 ERS: Measure of Victim Empowerment Related to Safety. Manuscript in
Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against our will: Men, women and rape. New Preparation.
York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Goodman, L. A., Dutton, M. A., Vankos, N., & Weinfurt, K. (2005).
Bybee, D., & Sullivan, C. M. (2005). Predicting re-victimization of bat- Women’s resources and use of strategies as risk and protective factors
tered women 3 years after exiting a shelter program. American Journal for reabuse over time. Violence Against Women, 11, 311–336. doi:
of Community Psychology, 36, 85–96. doi:10.1007/s10464-005-6234-5 10.1177/1077801204273297
Cattaneo, L. B. (2010). The role of socioeconomic status in interactions
Goodman, L. A., & Epstein, D. (2008). Listening to battered women: A
with police among a national sample of women experiencing intimate
survivor-centered approach to advocacy, mental health, and justice. (1st
partner violence. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45, 247–
ed., p. 184). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
258. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20232246. doi:
doi:10.1037/11651-000
10.1007/s10464-010-9297-x
Goodman, L. A., Glenn, C., Bohlig, A., Banyard, V. L., & Borges, A.
Cattaneo, L. B., Calton, J., & Brodsky, A. E. (in press). Status quo versus
(2009). Feminist relational advocacy: Processes and outcomes from the
status quake: Putting the power back in empowerment. Journal of
perspective of low-income women with depression. The Counseling
Community Psychology.
Psychologist, 37, 848 – 876. doi:10.1177/0011000008326325
Cattaneo, L. B., & Chapman, A. R. (2010). The process of empowerment:
Goodman, L. A., & Smyth, K. F. (2011). A call for a social network-
A model for use in research and practice. American Psychologist, 65,
oriented approach to services for survivors of intimate partner violence.
646 – 659. doi:10.1037/a0018854
Psychology of Violence, 1, 79 –92. doi:10.1037/a0022977
Cattaneo, L. B., Cho, S., & Botuck, S. (2011). Describing intimate
Goodman, L. A., Smyth, K. F., Borges, A. M., & Singer, R. (2009). When
partner stalking over time: An effort to inform victim-centered ser-
crises collide: How intimate partner violence and poverty intersect to
vice provision. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 3428 –3454.
Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21810796. doi: shape women’s mental health and coping. Trauma, Violence & Abuse,
10.1177/0886260511403745 10, 306 –329. doi:10.1177/1524838009339754
Cattaneo, L. B., & Dunn, J. L. (2013). The experience of IPV victims Gutiérrez, L. M. (1990). Working with women of color: An empowerment
seeking orders of protection: An application of the Empowerment perspective. Social Work, 35, 149 –153.
Process Model. Manuscript in preparation. Healing Club Inc. (2010). Healing Club - Domestic Violence Empower-
Cattaneo, L. B., Dunn, J. L., & Chapman, A. R. (2013). The court impact ment Resource|Facebook. Retrieved August 29, 2012, from https://
scale: A tool for evaluating IPV victims’ experience in court. Journal www.facebook.com/healingclub
of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 1088 –1108. doi:10.1177/ Hotaling, G. T., & Buzawa, E. S. (2003). Forgoing criminal justice
0886260512459383 assistance: The non-reporting of new incidents of abuse in a court
Cattaneo, L. B., & Goodman, L. A. (2010). Through the lens of therapeutic sample of domestic violence victims. Lowell, MA: Department of Crim-
jurisprudence: The relationship between empowerment in the court inal Justice, University of Massachusetts.
system and well-being for intimate partner violence victims. Journal of Johnson, D. M., Worell, J., & Chandler, R. K. (2005). Assessing psycho-
Interpersonal Violence, 25, 481–502. doi:10.1177/0886260509334282 logical health and empowerment in women: The personal progress scale
Christens, B. D. (2012). Toward relational empowerment. American Jour- revised. Women & Health, 41, 109 –129. doi:10.1300/J013v41n01_07
nal of Community Psychology, 50(1–2):114 –28. doi:10.1007/s10464- Johnson, D. M., Zlotnick, C., & Perez, S. (2011). Cognitive behavioral
011-9483-5 treatment of PTSD in residents of battered women’s shelters: Results of
Davies, J., Lyon, E., & Monti-Catania, D. (1998). Safety planning with a randomized clinical trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol-
battered women: Complex lives/difficult choices (p. 202). Thousand ogy, 79, 542–551. doi:10.1037/a0023822
Oaks, CA: Sage. Kasturirangan, A. (2008). Empowerment and programs designed to address
Domestic Violence Resource Center. (2012). Domestic Violence Resource domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 14, 1465–1475. doi:
Center|Survivor Empowerment Fund. Retrieved August 29, 2012, from 10.1177/1077801208325188
http://www.dvrc-or.org/domestic/violence/resources/C133/ Kulkarni, S. J., Bell, H., & Rhodes, D. M. (2012). Back to basics: Essential
Elliott, D. E., Bjelajac, P., Fallot, R. D., Markoff, L. S., & Reed, B. G. qualities of services for survivors of intimate partner violence. Violence
(2005). Trauma-informed or trauma-denied: Principles and implemen- Against Women, 18, 85–101. doi:10.1177/1077801212437137
94 CATTANEO AND GOODMAN

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory Song, L.-Y. (2012). Service utilization, perceived changes of self, and life
of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American satisfaction among women who experienced intimate partner abuse: The
Psychologist, 57, 705–717. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705 mediation effect of empowerment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
Macy, R. J., Giattina, M., Sangster, T. H., Crosby, C., & Montijo, N. J. 27, 1112–1136. doi:10.1177/0886260511424495
(2009). Domestic violence and sexual assault services: Inside the black Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal
box. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14, 359 –373. doi:10.1016/j.avb life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
.2009.06.002 Sullivan, C. M. (2011). Evaluating domestic violence support service
Martin, D. (1976). Battered wives. San Francisco, CA: Glide. programs: Waste of time, necessary evil, or opportunity for growth?
Masterson, S., & Owen, S. (2006). Mental health service user’s social and Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 354 –360. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2011
individual empowerment: Using theories of power to elucidate far- .04.008
reaching strategies. Journal of Mental Health, 15, 19 –34. doi:10.1080/ Sullivan, C. M., Adams, A., Bybee, D. I., Nnawulezi, N. A., McPeek, D.,
09638230500512714 & Coats, S. (2013). Domestic violence shelters’ empowering practices:
McDermott, M. J., & Garofalo, J. (2004). When advocacy for domestic Do they lead to empowered survivors? Technical Report.
violence victims backfires: Types and sources of victim disempower- Survivor’s Empowerment Zone. (2001). Survivor’s Empowerment Zone.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

ment. Violence Against Women, 10, 1245–1266. doi:10.1177/ Retrieved August 29, 2012, from http://www.angelfire.com/in4/sez/
1077801204268999
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

hotline.html
McWhirter, E. H. (1991). Empowerment in counseling. Journal of Coun- Tew, J. (2006). Understanding power and powerlessness: Towards a frame-
seling & Development, 69, 222–227. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1991
work for emancipatory practice in social work. Journal of Social Work,
.tb01491.x
6, 33–51. doi:10.1177/1468017306062222
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. (2011). National Coalition
Wright, C. V., Perez, S., & Johnson, D. M. (2010). The mediating role of
Against Domestic Violence. Retrieved September 4, 2012, from http://
empowerment for African American women experiencing intimate part-
www.ncadv.org/aboutus.php
ner violence. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice and
Neal, J. W., & Neal, Z. P. (2011). Power as a structural phenomenon.
Policy, 2, 266 –272. doi:10.1037/a0017470
American Journal of Community Psychology, 48(3– 4):157– 67. doi:
Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Psychological empowerment: Issues and illus-
10.1007/s10464-010-9356-3
trations. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 581–599.
Perez, S., Johnson, D. M., & Wright, C. V. (2012). The attenuating effect
Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8851341. doi:
of empowerment on IPV-related PTSD symptoms in battered women
living in domestic violence shelters. Violence Against Women, 18, 10.1007/BF02506983
102–117. doi:10.1177/1077801212437348 Zimmerman, M. A., Israel, B. A., Schulz, A., & Checkoway, B. (1992).
Rappaport, J. (1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Further explorations in empowerment theory: An empirical analysis of
Toward a theory for community psychology. American Journal of Com- psychological empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychol-
munity Psychology, 15, 121–148. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm ogy, 20, 707–727.
.nih.gov/pubmed/3604997. doi:10.1007/BF00919275 Zimmerman, M. A., & Warschausky, S. (1998). Empowerment theory for
Riger, S. (1993). What’s wrong with empowerment. American Journal of rehabilitation research: Conceptual and methodological issues. Rehabil-
Community Psychology, 21, 279 –292. doi:10.1007/BF00941504 itation Psychology, 43, 3–16. doi:10.1037/0090-5550.43.1.3
Rodriguez, N. M. (1988). A successful feminist shelter: A case study of the Zweig, J. M., & Burt, M. R. (2007). Predicting women’s perceptions of
Family Crisis Shelter in Hawaii. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, domestic violence and sexual assault agency helpfulness: What matters
24, 235–250. doi:10.1177/0021886388243002 to program clients? Violence Against Women, 13, 1149 –1178. doi:
Schechter, S. (1982). Women and male violence: The visions and struggles 10.1177/1077801207307799
of the battered women’s movement. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
Smith, L. (2010). Psychology, poverty and the end of social exclusion. New
York, NY: Teacher’s College Press. Received February 4, 2013
Song, L.-Y. (2006). The development and validation of an empowerment Revision received September 24, 2013
scale. Social Policy & Social Work, 10, 49 – 86. Accepted October 10, 2013 䡲

S-ar putea să vă placă și