Survivor-Centered Empowerment-Based Practice with Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence: A Qualitative Study of Advocate-Survivor Interactions

Background. Court advocacy programs are offered across the country supporting survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV) navigating the criminal justice system. Research supports the use of survivor-defined empowerment-based approaches with IPV survivors (Bell, Perez, Goodman, & Dutton, 2011; Kulkarni, Bell, & Rhodes, 2012) and documents the positive outcomes among IPV survivors utilizing the criminal justice system (Cattaneo & Goodman, 2010). Yet research is limited in that it does not illustrate how to provide survivor-defined empowerment-based court interventions. This study aims to identify the specific intervention strategies used by advocates implementing court-based empowerment services.

Research Question: What are the specific skills and strategies used by advocates to conduct survivor-centered empowerment-based interactions with survivors of IPV in court programs?

Method. Initial sessions with survivors were recorded across five family court programs in a large northeastern U.S. city. Twenty-two clients agreed to participate and consented to recording their sessions. Thirteen advocates participated in the study with one to four recorded sessions per advocate. Data analysis was conducted using grounded theory, an inductive method that utilizes an iterative process to build a data-driven framework (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

Results. The findings illustrated the range of survivor-defined empowerment strategies used by advocates in family court programs. During the safety assessment phase of the interaction, advocates utilized open-ended questions to allow survivors to tell their story. Advocates incorporated focused questions aimed at understanding specific immediate risks and paraphrased back to survivors the immediate risks they identified. Advocates then supported survivors in prioritizing risks and transitioned the sessions into the risk management stage. Advocates utilized open-ended questions to explore the safety options available to survivors, to understand past safety strategies and resources used by survivors, and to explore survivors’ support systems.  Advocates focused on providing information and referrals needed to expand survivors’ risk management plans. Advocates used questions aimed to discuss the pros and cons of potential safety strategies and summarized back survivors’ risk management plans. In addition, advocates used strategies to create interactions in which survivors maintained control and choice. Advocates supported survivors by guiding them throughout the interaction so survivors knew what to expect, what was possible, and what choices they had along the way. Advocates frequently paused the interactions to allow survivors to make choices on everything from what options to explore, what risks to prioritize, and what safety strategies to utilize. 

Conclusions. Understanding specific skills and strategies utilized by advocates in providing survivor-centered empowerment-based court services can support the field in developing evidence-informed models, training staff on empowerment-based approaches, and understanding how components of empowerment-based interventions lead to specific outcomes for survivors. These findings suggest advocates strategically utilize different skills at each stage of the interaction in order to open the conversation around safety assessment and identify the needs of the survivors; to collaborate in developing risk management plans by exploring safety options and providing information and referrals; and by providing a space in which survivors have control and choice. These findings invite practitioners and researchers to further examine practices across IPV programs.