Advocacy within a Movement: Changes, Challenges, and Improvements from a Staff Perspective

Background and Purpose: Shelters and women’s organizations have successfully advocated for services needed by those abused by an intimate partner. From the creation of the first shelters in the 1970s to the passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 1994 and its subsequent reauthorizations, advocacy has played a critical role in shaping what the intimate partner violence (IPV) movement is today. However, there is little research on how advocacy has evolved and the role it currently plays in securing services for victims and survivors of IPV.

This study helps fill this gap by examining the perceptions of shelter and coalition workers regarding advocacy’s evolution within the movement. The purpose of the study was to determine changes, improvements, and challenges the movement has seen regarding advocacy from the perspective of practitioners at the micro and macro levels.

Methods: Thirteen in-depth interviews were conducted with workers in IPV programs and the state coalition. Participants represented rural, suburban, and metropolitan areas in one state in the eastern US. Participants worked at programs which primary purpose is to provide IPV related services; programs provide direct services, while the coalition provides services to programs. This study was framed as a basic interpretative qualitative research study. The goal of this type of qualitative research is to understand a process, a situation, or the worldview people have about a specific situation, in this case the evolution of advocacy within the movement. A purposive sampling strategy was used in order to gain access to staff in various locations. Interviews elicited participants’ experiences with the movement, including their understanding of advocacy, their views on changes that have taken place, and the current state of advocacy in the field. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded thematically.

Results: The data suggests that advocacy has changed over the years as the social service environment in which programs operate has changed. Participants felt that advocacy continues to be an important part of the IPV movement. Data analysis also revealed that service provision is viewed as the primary role of programs and therefore advocacy participation from direct service staff has decreased. Participants noted that services are funding driven, therefore resources go to services and not advocacy activities. Findings also suggest that administrative and community advocacy are the most common forms of advocacy used by programs, while legislative advocacy continues to be a priority for the coalition.

Conclusions and Implications: The findings point to the need for organizations to adapt their advocacy activities to the changing environment. Although advocacy continues to take place, direct service workers feel overburdened with not enough time or resources to actually be involved. It is vital that programs and the coalitions that represent them communicate clearly so the advocacy needs of programs are met. Providing education, clear expectations about advocacy, and specific roles to fulfill those expectations can help revive the passion for advocacy present in the IPV movement at its inception.