Organizational Responses to Vicarious Trauma Among Advocates Working With Domestic Violence Survivors

Background and Purpose: Professionals working in many different fields have long recognized that trauma affects not only the individual victims, but also those who assist them. Over the past two decades, researchers have begun exploring the numerous negative effects of working with victims of trauma (e.g., Bride, 2004; Figley, 1995), utilizing such constructs as vicarious traumatization, compassion fatigue, secondary traumatic stress, and burnout. More recently, researchers have begun to address the prevention and treatment of vicarious traumatization and other related forms of worker distress (Yassen, 1995). Although most of the focus has been on measures the individual helper can take to protect herself or himself, a handful of organizational strategies have been suggested (e.g., Bell et al., 2003). Few studies, however, have examined a direct service organization's efforts to prevent vicarious trauma.

Research Questions and Methods: There are two primary research questions motivating this study: 1) How are the lives of helping professionals impacted by their work with trauma survivors? And 2) How effective are current organizational responses to vicarious trauma among staff members?

To answer these questions, I engaged in participant observation among, and semi-structured interviews with, 29 current and former staff members of an all-female agency (“Safe Harbor”) that provides shelter and other services to survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. The sample is racially diverse, ranges in age from 22-62 years, and is highly educated. Data analysis, conducted with the aid of NVivo software, utilized Emerson et al.'s (1995) analytic strategy, in which a combination of focused and line-by-line coding is used to identify major themes and sub-themes.

Results: The majority of staff members experienced negative physical, emotional, or psychological effects of working with survivors of physical and sexual violence. The most common symptoms of vicarious trauma included: nightmares, physical and emotional fatigue, feelings of helplessness and hopelessness, emotional numbing, and altered cognitive schemas about the world around them. Despite the prevalence of these problems, the majority of interviewees were either unaware of Safe Harbor's response to vicarious traumatization, or they did not think that Safe Harbor had an organizational response. In addition, staff members believed that it was solely their responsibility to prevent their own burnout and to cope effectively with their exposure to secondary traumatic stress. Safe Harbor, as an organization, confirms this message—putting the onus almost exclusively on employees. Furthermore, certain aspects of Safe Harbor's organizational culture prevent staff members from being able to adequately practice “self-care” and are antithetical to employees' well-being.

Conclusions and Implications: These findings raise important questions regarding the role of the individual, administrators, educators, and organizations in preventing or ameliorating the negative effects of vicarious trauma. This study concludes with a summary of recommendations and best practices for organizations to reduce vicarious trauma among staff members. This research is important because this knowledge has the potential to enhance services for survivors of physical and sexual violence, reduce employee turnover, create a more supportive environment for staff members, and assist organizations to more effectively advocate for social change.