Bridging Disciplinary Boundaries (January 11 - 14, 2007)

Purpose: There is little consensus regarding the definition of empowerment. Authors describe it as a process, an intervention, and an outcome (Dunst, Trivette, & LaPointe, 1993; Gutierrez, DeLois, & GlenMaye, 1995. While social workers have written about empowerment, few offer empirically based descriptions of the empowerment process. Using data from an implementation study of the Casey Family Resource Center Initiative, this paper details a grounded theory of empowerment as a process. Questions include: How do frontline workers enact empowerment principles? What challenges emerge in working with diverse, disadvantaged populations? What strategies do staff employ to address challenges? How is empowerment evident in client's lives? Such knowledge will better guide conceptualization and practice.

Method: Using data from 8 family resource centers in the Northeastern United States, the study determined how staff and clients understand and implement the process of empowerment. Over a 3 year period, interviews with the Casey Family Services' Family Resource Center [FRC] staff provided data for the study. Some FRCs served several ethnic groups. Multiple staff interviews (n=42) were triangulated with interview data from both adult and youth participants (n=60), community collaborators and regular on-site observations. A key area of focus was the degree of participant input in determining FRC activities. Grounded theory analysis was undertaken (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), leading to the development of an empirically grounded model of empowerment. Strong inter-rater reliability was established and member checks via a research advisory committee insured the analysis reflected participants' views.

Results: Empowerment took on a range of forms with different psychological and social yields. For those who remained consistently involved with the program, empowerment emerged as a three stage process. Staff were initially very active, facilitating and “doing for”. Staff aimed to recruit and engage families. Even these first steps were guided by input from a community survey to insure the activities met local needs and involved participants in shaping the program from the start. Many trust issues and practical barriers had to be overcome (language differences, childcare, etc.). In stage two, involvement strategies enhanced relationships between staff and participants and among participants. Involvement in meaningful activities as well as relationship and skill building strategies were prominent. Increasing partnership with staff to meet participant-defined goals was prominent. Staff also worked to help participants develop leadership skills. In stage three, participants used new confidence and skills to take charge of program activities, leading meetings and setting agendas. Some participants extended their new skills to other community activities (tenant council, other local services groups). Only in stage three did participants take charge and demonstrate their power. Ambivalence and adjustment was evident for staff and participants at each stage of the process. The full theory, identifying intervention strategies and challenges is detailed in network form.

Implications: Empowerment interventions involved many preliminary steps that foster change in confidence and potential. The Casey FRCs also sought to develop and apply skills to foster empowerment evident in the larger community. This model empirically details the empowerment process as enacted in programs serving disadvantaged populations.