.3-..

 

3

(Ill1ll(agility,{Mill . g a g 7 H 7 @ ?~

\ 1
I ‘ .

 

LIBRARY N
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitied

THE DEVEIDPNIENI‘ AND EVALUATION OF A
(DMMUNITY ADVCEACY PRCBRAM FOR WOMEN
WHO HAVE LEFI‘ ABUS IVE PARTNERS

. presented by

Mary Sullivan

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for '

 

 

Doctoral degree in Psychology

 

 

 

Major professor

Date October 21, 1988

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

—‘__# A. . _ _ . , __.

 

l a“?!

MSU RETURNING MATERIALS:

Place in book drofifito
”33,3155 remove this checkout from
n. your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

'
l
o
l
I

mm MI
l n

.5. -.
a}? f negfrw‘
D ‘ - W: 2:1" ._> V' _‘ "I" .l‘

 

 

 

THE DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF A
COMMUNITY ADVOCACY PROGRAM FOR WOMEN
WHO HAVE LEFT ABUSIVE PARTNERS

by

Mary Sullivan

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1988

probl
annua
deliv
SEVer
likel

Partn

ABSTRACT
THE IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION OF A

COMMUNITY ADVOCACY PROJECT FOR WOMEN
WHO HAVE LEFT ABUSIVE PARTNERS

by

Mary Sullivan

Woman battering is a severe and widespread social
problem, estimated to affect 1.6 million American women
annually. It has been found by researchers and service
deliverers in the field that domestic violence increases in
severity and frequency over time; however, it is much more
likely for a woman to remain in or return to an abusive
partner than it is for her to leave permanently. The
primary reason that so many women return to their assailants
is that they do not have access to the necessary community
resources (i.e. employment, housing, education, childcare)
needed to live independently. The current research
evaluated the success of the Community Advocacy Project, a
program designed to help women maintain lives independently
of their batterers. The study involved the use of a control
condition, and was longitudinal, following participants for
a period of five months after they left a battered women's
shelter. Forty two women who had been battered by intimate
male partners participated in this research.

The major hypotheses of this study involved the effects
of an advocacy intervention on a battered womanfs l) ability

to obtain desired resources; 2) knowledge of community

resourc
4) abil
of fur!
with a:
or her
a posi‘
obtain
condit
assail.

batter

as wel

resources; 3) confidence in her ability to obtain resources;
4) ability to remain free of her assailant; and 5) incidence
of further abuse. Results indicated that, while working
with an advocate did not affect her knowledge of resources
or her confidence in her ability to obtain resources, it had
a positive impact on a woman/s perceived effectiveness in
obtaining desired resources. The majority of women in both
conditions were successful in remaining free of their
assailants, and none of the women who returned to their
batterers suffered further incidence of abuse.

Discussion of results focused on methodological issues

as well as directions for further research.

Copyright by
MARY SULLIVAN
1988

This dissertation is dedicated to

Women, in struggle and in strength

ii

Wit.
completi
who cont
with the
reportir
with th
Project
Partici
of Suck

Valua i

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Without a doubt the most difficult task involved in the
completion of a dissertation is adequately thanking those
who contributed to the process. There were those who helped
with the concrete tasks of evaluating the project and
reporting its results; there were those who helped me deal
with the less tangible, but no less important aspects of the
project, such as the sleepless nights, concern for
participants, and the occasional doubts about the importance
of such a project, my abilities as a researcher, and the
value of even obtaining a degree at all.

I was extremely fortunate to have many supportive
others in my life throughout this endeavor. First I wish to
thank my chairperson, Bill Davidson, for his guidance and
encouragement. His continual trust in my abilities resulted
in my accomplishing far more than I would have in its
absence. My other committee members were extraordinarily
helpful as well. Paul Freddolino and Ellen Strommen
provided so much warmth and humor, in addition to practical
assistance; they were strong models not only of excellent
researchers but of exemplary, caring people as well. Deb
Bybee has been so much a part of this process she's
practically second author. She has been not only a

committee member, but a teacher, a mentor, and friend. I

iii

learned
collect
now the
Ti
present
laughtc
Genshe
Susan

Alixan

projec
have b
laugh:
PIOgr.

Projec

In

Only 1
SUPPO:
C°Unt.
Stimu
World
remEm

trees

learned so much from each of these people, individually and
collectively, and have even more respect for each of them
now than I did before this process began.

The members of my Dissertation Support Group, past and
present, provided the encouragement, brainstorming, and
laughter so necessary along the way. To all of them: Leah
Gensheimer, Julie Parisian, Andrea Solarz, Sara Wood-Kraft,
Susan Sisu Paulsen, Joanna Basta, Carol Haddad, and
Alixandra Summit, I say "Praise the Group!"

Karin Uhlich was the co-director of this research
project, and it is not an understatement to say it couldn't
have happened without her. Her creativity, dedication,
laughter, and incredible insights performed miracles on the
program and on my heart. I hope our work together on this
project was only the beginning of many future partnerships.

So many friends stuck by me through this process; I
only hope they all know how much their continuing love and
support meant to me. Madeline Wordes could always be
counted on to transform late-night study sessions into
stimulating debates about life, love, and the state of the
world. My solar family, Patti and Michelle Witte, helped me
remember the truly important things in life, like climbing
trees, hiking in the woods, and avocado hugs.

Karen Grahme Hall had the difficult job of keeping me
sane through it all; the success of her attempts has yet to
be determined, but I am forever grateful for her efforts. I
don't know what I ever did to deserve such a wonderful

iv

frienc

dissel

stoppl

make

sourc
Depar
avarc
Caro

Foun<

proj.

ESpe
Part
6551

adV(

of-

Stu

thi

Pa

th

friend; I hope I can help make the process of finishing her
dissertation as painless as she helped make mine.

I am very fortunate to have parents who have never
stopped believing in and supporting me. They taught me to
make a difference.

This research received financial support from two
sources. A student grant was awarded by the Michigan
Department of Mental Health, and a two-year grant was
awarded by the George Gund Foundation. I especially thank
Carol T. Mowbray of MDMH and Judy Simpson of the Gund
Foundation for their interest in and support of this
project.

The staff of The Council Against Domestic Assault,
especially Phillis Mullins and Linda Lane, were an integral
part of this dissertation. Their tremendous dedication to
assisting battered women, their patience with overzealous
advocates, and their assistance in helping us recruit women
as participants for this project were and are nothing short
of ”heroic acts."

I was also very lucky to have had such wonderful
students sign up as either advocates or interviewers for
this project. They wgrg the Community Advocacy Project, and
I thank each of them for their contributions.

Words are simply insufficient to properly thank the 41
participants of this study. I am enriched from having known
them, and continue to be astounded by their courage.

A special thank-you goes out to Julie Parisian, who

V

fir
prc
Ha:
the

an:

The
Bug
anc

hat.

first came up with the wild idea of creating an advocacy
project for battered women (and who then skipped town).
Many of her ideas were integral to this program, and I'm
thankful that she continues to be a strong source of support
and inspiration.

Finally, I must acknowledge my "inner" support system.
Thanks to my three feline companions Doobie, Casey, and B.C.
Bug, for their patience during the many hours I ignored them
and for loving me regardless; I thank Sada and Dena, who

have always been there; and, certainly, I thank my Self.

vi

List 0
CHAPTE
Staten
T
T

Curren
P

The N.

The 1

wother

The 1

The

CHAP

sett
R956

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables and Figures
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem
Terminology
The Extent of the Problem
Current Perspectives on Wife Battering
Psychological Perspectives
The provocative wife theory
Traditional sex-role socialization theory
The learned helplessness theory
Sociological Perspectives
The intrafamily conflict perspective
The ultimate resource theory
Feminist Perspectives on Battering
The male domination theory
The feminist resource theory
The Need for an Ecological Perspective
The Importance of Leaving Abusive Partners
Why Victims Stay
Employment/finances
No place to go
Other contributing factors
Women Who Leave
Community response
Lack of social support
Current Services for Battered Women
Shelters
Failure to provide resources
Short-term help
Support Groups
The Need for Additional Services
The Need for Accessing Community Resources
The Importance of Post-Shelter Services
The Current Research
The Ecological Intervention Approach
The Community Advocacy Project
Research Questions and Hypotheses

CHAPTER II: METHOD

Setting
Research Participants
Recruitment
Yoking Control Group Women with
Experimental Group Women

vii

38
38
39
39

41

CHAPT

The S

Resea
Proce

Heasx

Inte
Vali

CHAP

The 1

R950

Halo

CHAPTER II: METHOD (Continued)

The Sample
Characteristics of the Sample
Dropout Rate
Research Design
Procedure
Recruitment of Student Advocates
Recruitment of Research Assistants
Training of Advocates
Assignment of Advocates to Participants
Supervision of Advocates
The Intervention
Training of Interviewers
Interviewing strategy
Measures
Outcome Measurement
Experience of abuse
Extent of abuse
Desire to return
Knowledge of resources and
how to obtain them
Confidence in ability to
obtain resources
Effectivness in obtaining
desired resources
Life satisfaction
Intercorrelations Among Outcome Variables
Satisfaction With Program
Process Measurement
Intensity of the Intervention
Types of Strategies Used to Obtain
Resources
Interrater Reliability of Interview Data
Validity
Convergent and Discriminant Validity

CHAPTER III: RESULTS

The Sample
History of abuse and separations
Homogeneity of conditions
Resources Women Reported Needing After Leaving
the Shelter
Major Findings
Effectiveness in Obtaining Resources
Knowledge of Community Resources
Confidence in ability to obtain resources
Independence From Assailants
Desire to return
Incidence of Further Abuse

viii

42
42
43
47
50
50
51
51
55
56
56
59
60
61
61
63
63
68

68

72

74
75
77
77
79
79

82
86
86
88

93

93
93
93

95
96
96
101
102
102
104
104

CRAFT?

Addit

CHAPI

Major

Addit

Hethc

Direc

CHAPTER III: RESULTS (Continued)

Extent of the violence
at followup
Summary of Major Findings
Additional Findings

The Intervention Process

Amount of contact

Advocacy intervention activities
Satisfaction With Program
Control Womenfs Post-Shelter Activities
Overall Life Satisfaction
Summary of Additional Findings

CHAPTER IV: DISCUSSION

Major Findings
Battered Women and Community Resources
Independence From Assailants
Incidence of Further Abuse
Additional Findings
The Intervention Process
Satisfaction With Program
Overall Life Satisfaction
Methodological Issues
Internal Validity of Results
External Validity of Results
Directions for Further Research
Larger sample
More extensive measurement
Training of advocates
Summary

ix

106
107
107
107
108
109
111
112
112
113

116

116
116
119
120
121
121
123
124
125
125
126
129
130
130
131
132

3v

Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix

Appendix

H:

I:

References

Administrative Agreement With CADA
Recruitment Letter

Research Assistant Contract
Pre-Interview

Experimental Group's 5 Week Interview
Control Group's 5 Week Interview
Experimental Group's 10 Week Interview
Control Group's 10 Week Interview

Followup Interview

133

134

135

136

147

174

181

208

230

238

 

Ia

Ta

Ta

Ta

Ta

Ta

Ia

Te

Ia

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Figure 1: Items In Pre-, Post-, and Followup Interviews
Regarding Extent of Abuse Experienced

Figure 2: Items In Pre-, Post-, and Followup Interviews
Regarding Knowledge of Resources

Table 1: Demographics of Research Participants

Table 2: Relationship Statuses of Subjects
Pre-Intervention

Table 3: Experimental Design
Table 4: Process (Repeated Measure) Design

Table 5: Psychometric Properties of "Extent of Violence"
Scale and "Extent of Injuries” Scale

Table 6: Psychometric Properties of "Knowledge of
Resources" Scale

Table 7: Psychometric Properties of Scale Measuring
Averaged Total Number of Strategies Used to
Obtain Resources

Table 8: Psychometric Properties of ”Effectiveness"
Scale

Table 9: Intercorrelations Among Outcome Variables

Table 10: Psychometric Properties of ”Level of
Satisfaction” Scale

Table 11: Psychometric Properties of "Intensity of
Intervention" Scale

Table 12: Psychometric Properties of "Amount of
Contacts" Scale

Table 13: Psychometric Properties of Scales Measuring
Preparatory and Active Strategies Used to
Obtain Resources

Table 14: Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix Assessing

Convergent and Discriminant Validity of
Measures

xi

Tab]

lab

Tab

Tat

la

la

Ti

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

15:

16:

17:

18:

19:

20:

21:

Percentage of Subjects Who Experienced Various
Forms of Violence and Who Sustained Various
Injuries in the Three Months Prior to the

Research Study 94

Resources Women Reported Needing After Leaving
the Shelter 97

T-test on Effectiveness in Obtaining Resources 98

Groups Means Indicating the Averaged Preparatory
Strategies, Averaged Active Strategies, and
Averaged Total Number of Strategies Used
Post-Intervention 100

How Often Women Reported Seriously Considering
Returning to Their Assailants
At Post and Followup 105

Group Means Indicating Womenfs General Life
Satisfaction Across The Twenty Weeks After
Leaving The Shelter 114

Repeated Measures Analysis Of Variance Table

Comparing General Life Satisfaction
Between Groups Across Time 114

xii

at
CE

fe

CO

sh.

aPl

was

was
spec
she]
Chap
impl
ther

Re
Virtu

attic

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Statement 2f the Problem

 

 

Wife battering is a severe and widespread social
problem, estimated to affect 1.6 million.American women
annually (Straus et a1” 1986). However, it was not until
the early 1970's, with the rise of the second wave of
feminism, that this issue began to receive national
attention. It was during this time that women began forming
consciousness-raising groups as vehicles for women to openly
share their experiences with one another. It soon became
apparent, as a result of this sharing, that wife battering
was far from the uncommon aberration many people had
assumed. Woman after woman began expressing the need for a
safe place to which they could escape their battering mates.
Hence, in 1971 a woman's meeting center in London, England
was transformed into the first emergency shelter
specifically for battered women. Within three years
shelters began to emerge in the United States and numerous
chapters of the National Organization for Women had
implemented task forces to deal with the problem. Today
there are over 600 shelters across the United States.

Research on the phenomenon of wife battering was
virtually nonexistent before 1972. However, the number of

articles and books written on the subject has dramatically

 

 

ir

V)

If

as

OI

be

increased since that time. While the majority of these
writings on the subject are theoretical or anecdotal, a
respectable amount of empirical research has been conducted
as well. The findings from these studies have impacted not
only service providers' and academicians"views of wife
battering, but have contributed to social policy changes as
well. Research in the mid-19703 began to address how
battered women had been failed by the legal system, the
medical profession, religion, and the mental health and
social service fields (Eisenberg & Micklow, 1977; Martin,
1976; Michigan Women's Commission, 1977). It was found that
doctors were ignoring signs of abuse on women patients, and
human services service providers refused to treat wife
battering as a serious concern. Police were making arrests
in less than 10% of domestic assault calls (Eisenberg &
Micklow, 1977; Roy, 1977), and one study found that less
than 38 of 7500 women seeking to prosecute were successful
in doing so (Field & Field, 1973). This exposure led to
gradual changes in police training as well as public and
professional sentiment toward wife battering. By the late-
1970's it became illegal in all fifty states for a man to
beat his wife.

While noticable improvements have been made in social
and community response to battering, there are still many
barriers facing battered women.today. After giving a brief
overview of the prevalent theories concerning wife abuse,

this document will examine these barriers at length in order

 

 

CO

WC

be

at

1!

1t

to justify the creation of a service-provision program for
women escaping their abusive partners.

Terminology

 

Throughout this document, wife battering and woman
battering will be used synonymously to describe the physical
abuse of a woman by the man with whom she is or has been
involved. Many women are beaten by men to whom they are not
legally married (Moore, 1979; Okun, 1986; Pagelow, 1981b;
Schechter, 1982) and the term "wife" is intended to include
these women as well. Although "woman" has the advantage of
encompassing Ell adult female victims of conjugal assault,
it could connote violence by strangers as well. The term
"wife," in comparison, has the advantage of connoting the
intimate relationship shared between the abuser and the
victim, whether or not that relationship is legalized.
However, "wife" excludes ex-partners and ex-wives, although
these women are frequently victimized as well (Okun 1986;
Pagelow, 1981b; Schechter, 1982). Therefore, while neither
term is satisfactorily inclusive, they are the two most
common terms used in this field and will henceforth be used
interchangably.

Spouse abuse, domestic violence, and conjugal assault
will be used sporadically in this paper to provide
variation, but will generally be avoided. These three
terms, due to their gender-neutrality, disguise the fact
that the vast majority of battering is aimed at the women
and perpetuated by the men (Finkelhor, 1983; Okun, 1986;

Straus et al., 1980). When these terms are employed

thn

t0

the

CC

be

throughout this document they are not intended, therefore,
to imply equal participation in violent behavior; rather,
they signify the meaning identical to that connoted from
"wife beating" or ”woman beating" unless specified
otherwise.

The Extent 2: the Problem

 

 

As previously mentioned, a woman is beaten in this
country every 18 seconds by a man with whom she is or has
been intimately involved (Straus et al., 1980). Wife
battering exists at every socioeconomic level, at all age
levels, and across racial groups. Straus et ale (1980)
landmark study of 2143 randomly selected heterosexual
couples led him to conclude that conjugal assaults occur in
approximately 55% to 60% of heterosexual couples in the
United States. Straus' study involved random phone
interviews of male/female couples who were living together.
Both the man and the woman (when possible) were asked a
series of questions regarding the extent of violence in
their relationship. The 2143 subjects make up 65% of the
number of people contacted to be interviewed, and 45% of the
final sample were male. Twenty eight percent of the couples
admitted to having experienced violence at least as serious
as having been struck or having something thrown at them.
Straus then doubled this figure, claiming that the nature of
the phone interview was such that many people would deny
having experienced such abuse. Given that there are 45

million couples in America, Straus then concluded that,

COT

YEE

re}

an:

(10'

an

in

Th

mi

Hi

1'6

ir

conservatively, at least 1.8 million women are beaten a
year. Taking Straus' finding that 12.6% of the sample
reported experiencing abuse at least as severe as punching
and extrapolating this figure to the 45 million American
couples, one can estimate that there are approximately five
and a half million domestic assaults per year. This figure
includes assaults committed by women against men as well.
The National Crime Survey has estimated that there are 1.06
million conjugal assaults per year also, with 13 assaulted
wives for every assaulted husband. Straus and Gelles (1986)
replicated their 1975 study and found no significant change
in the amount of battering occurring.

Types of violence and the methods used against women
are numerous (Okun, 1986), and range from slapping to
extended torture. The number of women in studies who had
been punched ranged from 11% to 100% (Dobash & Dobash, 1979;
Eisenberg & Gayford, 1978; Micklow, 1977; Prescott & Letko,
1977; Stacey & Shupe, 1983). This diversity in number could
be due to the varying number of subjects per study (N
ranging from 20 to 542) or to categorization differences
between studies. In these same studies, about one-third of
the women had been pushed or shoved repeatedly, and over
half had been kicked. Forty three percent of the women in
Prescott & Letko's (1977) sample had been permanently
scarred from beatings, and threats of murder ranged from 20%
to 40% (Eisenberg & Micklow, 1977; Gayford, 1978;

Rousaville, 1978). Fifty seven percent of Pagelow's (1981)

sample had been threatened with a gun or a knife, and 24%
had had such weapons used against them.

Current Persectives 99 Wife Battering

 

 

The initial focus of researchers and clinicians in the
area of domestic assault was primarily that of examining why
battering occurred as well as why it was so pervasive. This
exploration was most concentrated between the early and late
1970's, although new theories continue to develop. While
there now exist at least twenty distinct theories of
conjugal abuse, the majority can be categorized under
either: 1) psychological theories, 2) sociological theories,
or 3) feminist theories. Therefore the main viewpoints
within these three theoretical frameworks will be elaborated
upon and critiqued.

Psychological Perspectives

 

Psychological theories of domestic violence focus on
the personality differences between those involved in
familial abuse and those who are not. These intrapsychic
perspectives may vary somewhat, but share in common two
major emphases: 1) the abuser is somehow provoked into
violent behavior, and 2) victims of abuse remain in the
relationship due to intrapsychic factors. The three major
analyses within this category are 1) the "provocative wife"
argument (Gayford, 1978; Gelles, 1972), 2) the "learned
helplessness" theory (Walker, 1977-78; Walker, 1979a;
Walker, 1979b), and 3) the ”traditional sex-role
socialization" theory (Martin, 1979; Moore, 1979; Pagelow,

1981b).

I
theori
beat t
Gelles
victim
violen
occurs
'actio
provok
elabor
violen
Extrav

even

feferr

on the
Places
becauS
not do
(Verde
thecry

stance

The "provocative yife" theory. One of the early

 

 

theories to arise in this area was the analysis that men
beat their wives when they are provoked by them to do so.
Gelles (1972) divided domestic abuse into two categories:
victim-precipitated violence and non-victim precipitated
violence. He argued that victim-precipitated violence
occurs when women "contribute" to their assault through
"actions defined as illegitimate by the offender or through
provoking their antagonist” (pp. 85-86). Gayford (1978)
elaborated on this theory, suggesting that women provoke
violence in numerous ways: nagging, being too quiet, being
extravagant with money, being frugal with money--she may
even .pa provoke him by doing nothing at all. Gayford
referred to this as "passive provocationfl'

The most obvious flaw in this theory is that it focuses
on the victim's behavior rather than the assailant's. It
places the responsibility for conjugal violence on the wife,
because provocation encompasses "anything she does or does
not do which, after hitting her, he reports disliking"
(Wardell et al., 1982). One among many opponents of this
theory is Del Martin, who criticizes its victim-blaming
stance. She wrote (1979) that any approach which "attempts
to change the wife's behavior, in order to change the
husband's behavior, only further victimizes her" (p. 40).

The second major flaw with this theory is that it
ignores the fact that frequently there are no precipitating
factors to wife abuse. Some reasons given by men for why

they beat their wives have included: ‘she cut her hair,’

is
Do

Pa

0k

di:

‘she didn't make what I wanted for dinnerfl and ‘I felt like
it' (Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Martin, 1976; Okun, 1986).

"Traditional sex-role socialization" theory. Another

 

 

theory of wife-battering, and one which is very popular in
the field, is that battering men and battered women have
been raised to hold more traditional views of sex-roles than
non-battering men and non-battered women. Roy (1977)
hypothesized that abused women come from violent families of
origin and therefore consider abuse commonplace and
unavoidable. This belief continues to be widely accepted,
despite contradictory empirical findings. For instance, Roy
found in her sample of 150 battered women that one-third
recalled violence existing in their families of origin.
Conversely, then, two-thirds came from non-violent homes.
Okun (1986) reported that 69% of his sample had nonviolent
childhoods, and one study that compared battered wives

with non-battered wives found that there was no difference
in the childhood victimization rate between the two groups
(Parker & Schumacher, 1977).

Evidence does suggest, however, that violent men are
likely to have had violent family backgrounds, although this
is also far from conclusive. Fifty nine percent of the
Dobashes'(1979) sample came from abusive families, 53% in
Pagelow's (1981b), 59% in Gayford's (1978), 81% in Roy's
(1977), and 66.3% in Okun's (1986). It should be noted that
Okun's study was the only one that questioned abusive men
directly. The remaining studies asked the battered partners

for this information, and are consequently considered to be

conservative estimates. Furthermore, these data do not
explain the violent behavior of men who had nonviolent
families of origin; nor do they explain the nonviolent
behavior of those men who have had violent childhoods.

The "learned helplessness" theory. Lenore Walker's

 

(1977-78, 1979a) theory of learned helplessness purports
that battered women have developed poor self-concepts from
having been abused and consequently believe they are
powerless to end or escape from their mates' violence.
Walker based her theory primarily on Seligman's (1975)
experiments with dogs, in which the animals were randomly
and repeatedly subjected to electric shocks. In the
experiment the dogs were unable to escape the shocks,
regardless of their strategies. After attempting numerous
unsuccessful avenues of escape, the dogs became lethargic
and ceased trying to avoid the shocks. When, at the end of
the experiment, the dogs were shown a way out of the cages
they refused to comply, and some had to be literally dragged
to freedom. Walker argues that this situation is analogous
to the plight of battered women, since women are generally
unaware of what may trigger a violent episode and often
powerless to prevent them. Men who batter need no excuse to
begin their abuse, and have even awakened women from their
sleep to begin battering them (Dobash & Dobash, 1979;
Martin, 1976; Roy, 1977). However, Walker's conclusion is
that battered women need to "change their cognitive set to
believe their competent actions can change their life

situation” (pg. 529). Once again the blame has been shifted

10

to the victim, and barriers women face when attempting to
leave the battering situation are ignored. This theory
fails to address how economics, lack of housing, fear for
their lives and the lives of their children, lack of
employment and/or education, and social ostracization
contribute to a woman/s entrapment in her relationshilp.
Given the societal barriers facing women such as employment
discrimination, lack of adequate and affordable childcare,
and inadequate police protection from the abuser, it is very
realistic for a battered woman to believe that her competent
actions aren't always enough to improve her situation. This
theory, then, does not take into account why some women are
successful in ending the abuse while others are not; nor
does it address the social and physical barriers that
prevent womenfls ”competent actions" from being successful in
ending her abuse.

In summary, psychological theories attempt to explain
wife abuse by focusing on the intrapsychic profiles of both
the abuser and the victim. There are three major
shortcomings present within this perspective. First, by
examing differences between women who have been abused and
women who have not, the researcher/clinician places
responsibility for the violence on the victim rather than on
the batterer. Second, focusing on intrapsychic reasons for
a woman remaining in an abusive relationship minimizes the
societal barriers she faces when attempting to leave.
Finally, some psychological perspectives attempt to examine

factors which "provoke” men into violent behavior, thus

in

be

of

dc

SC

ll

insinuating that there are external variables causing men to
batter. This places the responsibility for behavior outside
of the men committing the abuse, although it has been
documented that not even professional hypnotists can force
someone into performing behavior that she or he would not
voluntarily perform.

Psychological theories, then, take a very
individualistic approach to a universalistic problem. When
a social issue effects over half of the intimate couples in
America, it seems more appropriate to look outside of the
individual for answers. This is exactly the perspective
taken by sociologists in the area.

Sociological Perspectives

 

Current sociological theories differ from psychological
theories by emphasizing the normality of conflict within
families rather that viewing this as an aberration.
Further, they acknowledge those societal norms and mores
which not only permit but often encourage wife abuse
(Gelles, 1979; Straus, 1978; Straus et al., 1980). There
are two primary approaches within this theoretical
framework: 1) the "intrafamily conflict" perspective
(Gelles, 1979; Straus, 1978; Straus et.a1” 1980), and 2)
the "ultimate resource” theory (Allen & Straus, 1980;
Bowker, 1981; Goode, 1974).

The "intrafamily conflict" perspective. Straus (1978)

 

explained domestic violence not as an aberration of social
norms but as a direct consequence of them. He stressed the

prevalence of conjugal violence in contemporary

 

fa

3P

inc

wife

 

12

entertainment, folklore, and popular humor as contributing
to the prevalence of wife battering. As a case in point
Straus mentioned the work of Stark & McEvoy (1970) which
found that approximately one-fourth of all Americans approve
of slapping their partner's face "under certain conditions)‘
He also emphasized the hesitancy of police and judicial
intervention in family violence incidents as evidence of our
cultural norm not to intrude in family matters. Straus et
a1. (1980) further argued that, when over half of American
families experience some degree of domestic violence, it is
appropriate to examine those sociological factors which
contribute to this phenomenon rather than looking within the
individuals affected by it.

While there is some merit to Straus' argument for
social factors contributing to violence within the family,
his analysis is only a partial explanation for wife
battering. For instance, while it is true that many
cultural norms support intrafamily violence, there also
exist cultural norms which condemn such behavior. There are
certainly societal expectations that violence against one's
wife is unacceptable and that families should be havens of
nurturance and love as opposed to battlegrounds. Straus
does not adequately explain the interrelationship between
these contradictory norms nor how one may come to dominate
over the other.

A second shortcoming of Straus' theory is that he
focused on violence as a result of family conflict. This

does not explain why so many more men than women are

violc
Not 1
occu'
or t

1982

anal
main
Good
ther
othe
fore
'ult
lnsu
Stra
of c
and

find
“one
of c
A119
and

clas

high.

theoJ
se‘VEI

W01f£

l3

violent, since both are subjected to a great deal of stress.
Nor does it take into account that a great deal of battering
occurs regardless of the level of conflict within the family
or the wife's behavior (Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Hofeller,
1982; Okun, 1986).

The "ultimate resource" theory. The personal resources

 

 

analysis of battering contends that men use violence to
maintain power in relationships (Allen & Straus, 1980;
Goode, 1974). Goode (1974) was the first to state that
there are four means of obtaining or maintaining power over
others: economic resources, prestige, likeability, and
force. Force (or the threat of force) is used as the
”ultimate” resource when the other three factors are
insufficient as methods of maintaining control. Allen &
Straus (1980) tested this hypothesis by having 437 families
of college students complete Straus' Conflict-Tactics Scale
and Blood & Wolfe's Decision Power Index. They expected to
find that in families where men had less "resources" than
women, they would be more likely to use violence as a means
of control. Although the data did not bear out this theory,
Allen and Straus did find a correlation between resources
and power for working class men. Specifically, working
class men who scored very low in "resources" also scored
higher on the use of violence against their wives.

There are many major flaws in the personal resources
theory of wife battering. First, Allen & Straus' study has
severe methodological problems. They employed Blood &

Wolfe's Decision Power Index as an indicator of relative

 

answers

 

parent
intervi
base t?
can off
to caus
eXplair
Class f
ithas
"Orkin,
fOund fl

1980).

 

14

power in the family, although this method has been severely
criticized (see Cromwell & Olson, 1975; Gillespie & Dair,
1971) as an unreliable measure of power within the family.
They also gathered their data from college students who
answered questions about the violent behavior of their
parents, offering less reliable information than if they had
interviewed the couples themselves. Second, Allen & Straus
base their conclusions on cross-sectional research, which
can offer no more than correlative explanations as opposed
to causal relationships. Further, this study attempted to
explain why domestic violence is more common in working-
class families, an explanation that is erroneous given that
it has not been established that abuse ig more prevalent in
working-class families (contradictory evidence has been
found in Martin, 1976; Gelles, 1980; and Straus et a1”
1980).

The major problem with the abovementioned theory,
however, aside from all of its methodological flaws, is that
it is based on a false premise to begin with. The theory
postulates that in families where men have less legitimate
power and resources than women, they will be more prone to
violence in order to gain additional power. Given the
existing sex-discriminatory employment policies and earning
imbalance between men and women today it would be very
difficult to find families in which the woman has more
actual power and resources than her male counterpart. This,
then, refutes the theory from the start as wife battering is

so commonplace in this society. However, rather than modify

the

defi
Inst
soci
com:
ques
dinr
pow
the

com;
show
Viol
eXpl

fela

diff
larg

anal

15

the theory, Allen and Straus simply changed the empirical
definition until it was a contest the men could lose.
Instead of examining which partner had more access to actual
societal resources such as a job, an income, status in the
community, and various other advantages, they asked couples
questions pertaining to who decides what they will eat for
dinner or what they will watch on television. Viewing
"power“ in this manner minimizes the very real disadvantages
the vast majority of women face in contemporary marriages
compared to their husbands. In short, while the theory does
show a weak correlation between working-class men being more
violent as their resources go down, it does not adequately
explain why wife battering is so commonplace in the many
relationships where this power imbalance is nonexistent.

In summary, the sociological theories of wife battering
differ from the psychological theories by focusing on the
larger social context of human interaction. Sociological
analyses view violence within interpersonal relationships to
be more a normality in society than an aberration, and
attempt to identify those environmental and societal factors
which contribute to abuse. While these approaches offer a
partial explanation for the prevalence and acceptability of
violence against wives, they do not adequately address 1)
why the victims of domestic abuse are predominantly women,
2) the frequent conjugal violence which occurs outside the
context of intrafamily conflict, or 3) why only some men in

a given social situation abuse women.

um
Ito
lB
1H

°PP°
batt
agre
resu
inst
abus
cate
husb.
SUDCJ
para?
pornc
the f
argun
Eiser
nfemi
Okun,
elabo
wOmar
batte

insis
male
Hickl

that (

V1018!

16

F minist Perspectives pp Eggpggigg

 

 

While there exist a number of different, and often
opposing, views within a feminist framework of wife
battering, there are two dimensions on which the majority
agree. First, feminist theories view wife battering as a
result of the patriarchal social structure, in which
institutionalized sexism contributes to the denigration and
abuse of women in society. Second, feminists avoid
categorizing wife abuse with child abuse, sibling abuse, or
husband abuse; rather, they see woman battering as a
subcategory of male violence against women and tend to draw
parallels between wife abuse and rape, footbinding, incest,
pornography, and/or economic discrimination contributing to
the feminization of poverty. The two most common feminist
arguments, the ”male domination“ analysis (Barry, 1981;
Eisenberg & Micklow, 1974; Wardell et al., 1982) and the
"feminist resource” theory (Gelles, 1976; Martin, 1979;
Okun, 1986; Schechter, 1982; Straus, 1977), will be
elaborated upon as representative of feminist viewpoints of
woman battering. The first attempts to explain why
battering occurs and the second theorizes why women stay in
abusive relationships.

Th3 19313 ggmination" theory. Many feminists have

 

insisted upon viewing wife battering in a larger context of
male violence against women (Barry, 1981; Eisenberg &
Micklow, 1977; Wardell et al., 1982). These theorists argue
that combining woman abuse with other forms of family

violence (such as sibling rivalry or child abuse) or with

 

acce
of c
basi
it w
othe
Eise
to m
betw
batt
vict
it.

must
prov;
havi;
and t

£011,

attii
Paid
0n h(
don't
deem,
don't
are

Part
male
of V0

flaint

l7

acceptance of violence in general (such as one's acceptance
of capital punishment) distorts and minimizes the gender
basis underlying woman battering. They argue, rather, that
it would be more appropriate to compare wife abuse with
other forms of violence against women, such as rape.
Eisenberg & Micklow (1977) were two of the first researchers
to make this parallel: they exposed the similarities
between public opinion toward rape victims and toward
battered women. The contemporary view was and is that both
victims somehow provoked their attacks and that they enjoyed
it. Along the same vein, rape survivors and battered women
must prove themselves "worthy victims"--the raped women by
proving they had not been dressed "seductively" and by
having led sexually acceptable lives previous to the attack,
and battered women by immediately leaving the abuser and
following through on pressing charges.

A further similarity between attitudes toward rape and
attitudes toward battering is that very little attention is
paid to the assailant's behavior. Women.receive instruction
on how to avoid being raped (i.e. don't go out at night,
don't go anywhere alone, don't dress in clothes that may be
deemed provocative), and how to avoid being beaten (i.e.
don't nag, don't argue, cater to your mate's needs) but men
are given no instruction not to rape or beat. Conversely,
part of the male image is to be strong and domineering, and
male sexuality is often associated with aggressive pursuit
of women (Eisenberg & Micklow, 1977). Feminist theory

maintains that it is this double standard of blaming women

for
beha

priV

prov
batt
wife
patr
respl
thor:

of p

the 1
disc:
relat
maint
Child
Sever
that

likel
less .
woman
this j
shelte
financ
Furthe

an

18

for their victimization while exonerating men for their
behavior which systematically serves to maintain male
privilege and women/s oppression.

A general critique of this theory is that it does not
provide potential solutions to the problem of wife
battering, short of mass revolution. If it is true that
wife battering is the result of institutionalized sexism and
patriarchal control, what do feminist theorists prOpose as a
response to woman abuse? These issues need to be more
thoroughly addressed if the male dominance theory is to be
of practical use.

The ”feminist resource” theory. The major thrust of

 

 

 

the feminist resource argument is that societal economic
discrimination serves to entrap women in abusive
relationships. Without the economic resources necessary to
maintain independent living for themselves and their
children (when children are present), women are unable to
sever ties with battering men. This theory hypothesizes
that the more independent resources a woman has, the more
likely she is to leave the relationship; and conversely, the
less resources the batterer provides, the more likely a
woman is to escape the abuse. Walker (1979a) contends that
this is why women on welfare are overly represented in
shelter populations. These women are not being supported
financially by their abusers, and so have less to lose.
Further, Gelles (1976) found that economic dependency was
one of the first three reasons given by women for returning

to an abusive man, and Okunfs (1986) study listed economics

as
the'
res
doe:
rel;
mat.
ove:
sup;
that
Hit}
of s
for

Of a

Pets
batt
fami
COnSj
phenc
batte
hqua
dOES

Other

19

as the first reason for remaining with the batterer. Hence,
there has been empirical evidence to support the feminist
resource argument; the main flaw in the theory is that it
does not account for the women who remain in abusive
relationships in spite of their access to independent,
material resources. Also, Walker's assumption that the
overrepresentation of welfare recipients in shelters
supports her argument is erroneous. It is just as likely
that more welfare recipients utilize shelters because women
with access to their own resources do not need the services
of shelters. Therefore, while there is empirical support
for this theory, it is not representative of the experiences
of all battered women, as it implies.

A primary criticism of the abovementioned feminist
perspectives is that they do not adequately explain how wife
battering is qualitatively different from other forms of
family violence. For instance, would husband abuse be
considered an aberration of wife abuse or a different
phenomenon altogether? Are there no parallels between wife
battering and child abuse, and if not, what dynamics underly
husband battering and child abuse? Secondly, this theory
does not adequately account for why some men batter but
others, raised in the same patriarchal culture, do not.

The Need for 53 Ecological Perspecpiyg

 

 

As mentioned previously, the most popular theories of
domestic violence have emerged from psychological,
sociological, and/or feminist perspectives. While each of

these theories has contributed to a clearer understanding of

wit
thi
to

8C0

imp
P901
Urit
was

exan
envl
macr
atte
chil.
3“ 01
indi‘
Br0n:
the

uDde]

in t1
have
Wife
of w:
but ,
Prime
HoweV

two t

20

wife battering, none alone has been sufficient to explain
this complex phenomenon fully. At this point I would like
to make an argument for taking a more all-encompassing,
ecological perspective toward wife abuse.

The ecological paradigm of psychology emphasizes the
importance of considering all of the many systems in which
people are imbedded if one is to understand human behavior.
Urie Bronfenbrenner (1979), a leading ecological theorist,
was the first to propose studying human development by
examing the influence of microsystems (immediate
environment, family), exosystems (the larger community), and
macrosystems (one's culture) on people's behavior. In
attempting to use Bronfenbrenner's framework to explain
child abuse, Jay Belsky (1980) modified the model by adding
an ontogenetic level--those variables within the
individual's background, or internalized environment.
Bronfenbrenner and Belsky have argued that only by exploring
the interactions of all of these systems can one more fully
understand why people behave in the ways that they do.

Although the ecological analysis has been well received
in the area of child abuse, Carlson (1984) and Dutton (1985)
have been the only researchers to apply this framework to
wife battering. Carlson argued that our current knowledge
of wife abuse suggests multiple determinants of battering
but that, regardless, "Most theories focus exclusively or
primarily on one level, for example, societal or individual.
However, it is futile to attempt to demonstrate that one or

two theories are ‘correct' while the others are wrong, when

ther«
dome:
pers;
they
anal)
onto;
in t:
prim.
conf]

inflt

21

there are factors at many levels that play a causal role in
domestic violence" (p. 570). To elaborate, the other
perspectives fail to fully explain woman battering because
they neglect to account for all of the various levels of
analysis. Psychological theories, for example, focus on
ontogenetic factors (such as family background and beliefs
in traditional sex-roles), while sociological theories focus
primarily on the microsystem (family interaction and
conflict resolution strategies) and the exosystem (community
influences). Feminist perspectives, on the other hand,
mostly address the macrosystem (patriarchal culture) to
explain battering. It is not that any of these theories is
incorrect, but rather that they are incomplete. It is the
influence of factors within and between all of these levels
that increase or decrease the risk of wife battering.

Th3 Impggggpgg pf Leaving Abusive Partners

 

While not all theorists and researchers in the area of
woman abuse agree with respect to how or why battering
occurs, there is an overwhelming consensus that abuse
increases in severity and frequency over time (Dobash &
Dobash, 1979; Martin, 1976; Okun, 1986; Roberts, 1984; Roy,
1977; Stacey & Shupe, 1983; Walker, 1979a). This factor has
led all of these leading experts to agree with Lenore
Walker's conclusion that: ”At the present time.“the most
effective alternative for the battered woman is to end her
relationship with the batterer" (1983: p. 155). Walker's
assessment is directed toward women who wish to salvage the

relationship as well as toward those women who want to end

it.
come
chang
step
relat
their

whom

have
leave

Shy E

theta:
much

abusiw
(DObas
Hofel]
Barbot
f°und
Shelte
returr
40% w
also c
74) an
desire

Weeks

 

to the

return

22

it. Through her work as a researcher and clinician she has
come to believe that battering men will not attempt to
change their behavior unless their victims make the drastic
step of physically removing themselves from the
relationship. Even then, most men do not seek help for
their abusive behavior but merely find someone else with
whom they can become involved (Roy, 1982).

The following sections will address those factors which
have been found to influence a battered woman's decision to
leave, remain in, or return to an abusive relationship.

Eh): 311221.25 £21

The experiences of battered women's shelter workers,
therapists, and researchers have all confirmed that it is
much more likely for a woman to remain in or return to an
abusive partner than it is for her to leave permanently
(Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Gayford, 1978; Gelles, 1979;
Hofeller, 1982; Roy, 1977; Schulman, 1979; Strube and
Barbour, 1983). For instance, Snyder and Fruchtman (1981)
found in their study of 119 battered women in a Detroit
shelter that, while only 13% indicated at intake a desire to
return to the abuser, by the time the women left the shelter
40% went back to the violent men. Snyder and Scheer (1981)
also conducted a study of women in a Detroit shelter (N -
74) and reported that at intake 33% of the women expressed a
desire to return to the abuser. At follow-up, six to ten
weeks following discharge from the shelter, 55% had returned
to the violent men. This 33% rate of women's intention to

return replicates Carsenat's (1975) study as well as

Melv
samp
Roun:
71% i
want.
did.

area

abusi
1979;
1977;
adequ
retur
have

and s

adequ,
rec1501
Hofel:
58% o:
SUPPOI
theirl
foUnd
“heth
Study
the m
of 25
eCOnO;

 

23

Melville's (1978) study, in which 34% and 32% of the
samples, respectively, desired to return to their partners.
Rounsaville (1978) found comparable results in that, while
71% of his sample of battered women seeking counseling
wanted to leave the abusive situation, only 32% actually
did. Most of the research which has been conducted in the
area of domestic violence has focused on why women stay in
abusive relationships (Aguirre, 1985; Carlson, 1977; Gelles,
1979; Hofeller, 1982; Martin, 1976; Rounsaville, 1978; Roy,
1977; Strube & Barbour, 1983). All have found that lack of
adequate resources is a primary reason for remaining with or
returning to an abusive man. Specifically, these resources
have included employment, education, finances, childcare,
and social support systems.

E plgymentlfinances. Lack of employment and/or

 

adequate finances was frequently mentioned by women as
reasons for remaining in the abusive situations. Kathleen
Hofeller (1982) found in her study of 50 battered women that
58% of her sample stayed because they felt they could not
support themselves (and their children, where applicable) on
their own. Michael Strube and Linda Barbour (1983) also
found that employment contributed heavily to the decision of
whether to stay or leave. Of the employed women in their
study, 73.2% left the abusive relationship. Only 47.6% of
the unemployed women left permanently. Their study in 1984
of 251 women seeking counseling corroborated this. Again,
economic hardship was cited as a primary reason for not

leaving the abuse. The results of Bonnie Carlson's (1977)

researF
woman
I
seek 0
survey
and co
have t
themse

of 300

 

woman’
I

likeli

women
liter
AlmoS
Roy'S
Shel
of t
Serx
to,
me
(Do

19-

24

research also led her to conclude that "the more resources a
woman had (for example, a job) the more likely she was to
seek outside intervention" (p. 459). Further, Labell (1979)
surveyed 512 women at a shelter over a period of two years
and concluded that 77.1% of the women in her sample did not
have the job skills or wage earning power to support
themselves and their children. Finally, Okun/s (1986) study
of 300 shelter residents revealed that the greater the
woman's income in relation to her mate's, the greater the
likelihood of her eventually terminating the relationship.

Np plgpg £2 gp. Another frequent response given by
women for staying in a violent relationship was that they
literally had no safe place to go to escape the abuser.
Almost 100% of the randomly selected battered women in Maria
Roy's (1977) study said that they would have gone to a
shelter had one been available to them. Similarly, only 3%
of the women in Schulmanfls (1979) study who wanted the
services of a shelter received them. Very few women turned
to family or friends for safety in any studies, most
claiming that they did not want to put others in danger
(Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Gelles, 1979; Mills, 1985; Roy,
1977; Walker, 1983).

Other contributing Eggpggs. While the lack of money

 

and shelter were the two most common factors mentioned by
women as contributing to their staying in abusive
relationships, other variables were frequently mentioned as
well. In Maria Roy's study of 150 battered women, seven

factors were mentioned which the women felt prevented them

from
refori

abuse:

the s
stati
the f
follo
decis
emplo
ethni
(whet
PIOmi
58g 0
felt

felt

with
the
to l<
£011
abuS
acc°
Stud
abus

Viah

thi;

 

25

from leaving the abuser. These were 1) hope that he would
reform; 2) no place to go; 3) fear of reprisals from the
abuser; 4) children making it difficult to find somewhere to
go; 5) lack of money; 6) fear of living on their own; and 7)
the stigma of divorce. Strube and Barbour (1984) used the
statistical technique of multiple regression to single out
the factors relating to the decision to leave. The
following factors significantly contributed to a woman's
decision to stay with or leave the abusive man (R2 - .25):
employment, length of relationship, economic hardship, love,
ethnicity, nowhere to go, a womanfs coping strategies
(whether she obtained a restraining order), and the partner
promising to change. Similarly, Hofeller (1982) found that
58% of her sample stayed because of economic reasons, 46%
felt sorry for the man, 37% believed he would reform, 30%
felt unable to live on their own, 18% had been threatened
with worse violence were they to leave, and 18% said that
the abuser could find them anywhere. Only 20% still claimed
to love the men. Dobash & Dobash (1979) reported the
following reasons women stayed with or returned to their
abusers: the children, financial support, lack of
accomodations, and inadequate childcare. Clearly, these
studies support the argument that many women remain in
abusive relationships because they simply see no other
viable alternative. As detailed in the following section,

this is a very realistic view.

Womeg

with

of st
sampl
0f th
and 2
also
leave
batt
four
74.25
In 0
to a
What
has

batt

tOt

Stu<
Com,
197g
Sch,
the

873:
dOCL
aVa’

197

26

Hesse 21.12 £2222

Dobash & Dobash (1979) conducted in-depth interviews
with 109 battered women to better understand the phenomenon
of staying, leaving, and returning to violent men. Of their
sample, 88% had at some time left the abusive relationship.
Of these, 20% left only once, 47% left two to five times,
and a full third had left six or more times. Gayford (1978)
also found that many women tended to leave, return, and
leave again. Eighty one percent of the sample of 100
battered women had left more than once; 36% left more than
four times. In Labell's (1979) study of 512 battered women,
74.2% had left the abuser before--some more than 10 times.
In order to more fully understand why so many women return
to abusive men after seeking help, it is crucial to examine
what happens when women attempt to leave. Study after study
has confirmed that community responses to the needs of
battered women contribute significantly to their returning
to the violent home.

megunity response. It has been the conclusion of many

 

studies that women rarely find the help they seek from their
communities (Donato & Bowker, 1984; Flynn, 1977; Gayford,
1978; Hofeller, 1982; Kuhl, 1982; Rounsaville, 1978;
Schulman, 1979). These community resources have included
the police, the legal system, counseling, the health care
system, and social service agencies. It has been well
documented that most professionals lack the knowledge of
available community resources for battered women (Ball,

1977; Bass & Rice, 1979; Dobash & Dobash, 1979). Mark

Schul!
Kentu
of 12
founc
servi
dissa
that
compf
Roy's
poli<
Viol.
dist
(Bel
Dine
resp
inte
and
Serv
batt
Own
(197
“01111
Cons
b10C
batt
Car
mart

isb

27

Schulman (1979), in his study of a random sample of
Kentuckians, discovered that help was received in only 1 out
of 12 cases where battered women sought it. Hofeller (1982)
found that 96% of the women in her study had sought legal
services; of these women, 40% were moderately or completely
dissatisfied with the services they recieved. Of the 52%
that called the police for help, 82% were moderately or
completely dissatisfied. Ninety percent of the women in
Roy's (1977) study who called the police reported that the
police avoided arrest. Although it has been documented that
violence is present in approximately two-thirds of domestic
disturbances, police only make arrests about 13% of the time
(Bell, 1985). Bass and Rice (1979) conducted interviews at
nine agencies dealing with family problems to examine agency
response to abused wives. Only 13 of the 21 people
interviewed even knew of the battered women/s crisis line,
and a mere nine gave accurate information about its
services. It is therefore not surprising that so many
battered women, unable to find the help to live on their
own, return to their assailants. Or, as Langley and Levy
(1977) put it: "A word repeated over and over by battered
women is ‘trappedfl To many the forces of society seem to
conspire against them to trap them in their marriage and to
block every avenue of escape. The fewer resources a
battered wife has-~education, job skills, access to money, a
car, friends--the fewer alternatives she has to staying
married. Or to put it another way, the more entrapped she

is by the marriage, the more reluctant she is to end it" (p.

118-11
area 0‘
combin
care f

the go

narrie

 

Were
Prev
DohaE
asSa
mol-E
“Om
the

res:

 

 

28

118-119). Murray Straus, a well-known researcher in the
area of domestic violence, has also concluded: "The
combination of occupational discrimination, lack of child
care facilities, and inadequate child support from either
the government or the father all coerce women into remaining
married even though they are victims of violence" (p. 210)

ngk pf social support. In addition to finding little

 

if any help from formal community sources, battered women
often find no support from their family or friends (Dobash &
Dobash, 1979; Kuhl, 1982; Martin, 1976). The cultural value
of the wife keeping the marriage together at all costs,
together with many people's reluctance to get involved in
domestic affairs, combine to pressure women into remaining
in the abusive relationship. Women who have reported
receiving help from relatives or friends rated it as very
important to their being able to leave their assailants
(Bowker, 1984; Donato & Bowker, 1984).

In conclusion, it is evident that many more women
ggpgmpg to leave abusive relationships than actually manage
to. The women in Hilberman and Munson's (1977-78) study who
were successful in permanently leaving averaged four to five
previous separations. A third of the sample in Dobash and
Dobash's (1979) study had fled six or more times from their
assailants, and 36% of Gayford's (1978) group had separated
more than three times. The primary reason that so many
women return to their assailants is that they do not find
the support necessary to leave, from either formal community

resources or from their informal social support systems.

Furthe
relati

1982;

offer
rise
consc
and V
Surfs
devej
1971
Nati
on d
cOns
Shel
now
Pub]

r15,

doIn
198
abu
Ehi
hav
ela

29

Further, they often receive pressure to remain in the
relationship (Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Hofeller, 1982; Kuhl,
1982; Martin, 1976; Pfouts, 1978).

Current Services for Battered Women

 

Before the 19705 there were essentially no services
offered specifically for battered women. Then, with the
rise of the second phase of feminism and subsequent
consciousness-raising groups forming in the United States
and Western Europe, the extent of wife battering began to
surface. Out of these consciousness-raising groups
developed the first battered women's shelter in England in
1971, Chiswick Womenfls Aid. By the mid-seventies the
National Organization for Women had established task forces
on domestic violence and the first American shelters were
constructed. Since its conception, the battered women's
shelter movement has flourished to the extent that there are
now hundreds of shelters across the nation. Further, the
publicity generated from the movement has resulted in the
rise of support groups for battered women as well as
improvements in how therapists view and counsel victims of
domestic abuse (Fleming, 1979; NiCarthy, 1982; Schechter,
1982). However, much has yet to be done toward ending wife
abuse, as has been demonstrated by current research studies.
While present services designed to address conjugal violence
have often been helpful, the following sections will
elaborate upon how they fall short in terms of helping women

remain free of their abusive partners.

 

_—
-—
—

provi
batte
refei
refei

edUC;

vita
part

addr

shel
V0ca
EEan
Fruc
it 1
SimP
UEed

abUE

 

like
for‘C
Oppc

med

 

 

Cont

Wom

30

Easlssrs

The primary function of battered women's shelters is to
provide temporary, emergency housing to victims of wife
battering. In addition, staff do their best to offer
referral and advocacy services to residents. Women are
referred to the appropriate legal, medical, mental health,
educational, vocational, or social services that they may
need or desire while they are residents of the shelter, and
any children the women have with them at the shelter attend
the local area schools. While shelters definitely serve a
vital function for women attempting to leave abusive
partners, their limitations need to be recognized and

addressed.

3311332 59 provide resources. The major shortcoming of

 

shelters is that most do not provide educational or
vocational training, and therefore do not provide women with
means of staying independent of the abusive men (Snyder &
Fruchtman, 1981; Straus et al., 1980; Walker, 1978). While
it is recognized that shelter staff are already overworked
simply trying to meet the immediate physical and emotional
needs of battered women, these authors stress that if the
abused women do not have job skills they are much less
likely to be self-supporting, and are thus more likely to be
forced to return to the abuser. In addition to employment
opportunities, other resources such as housing, childcare,
medical insurance and legal assistance are often of primary
concern to women leaving abusive relationships. Whether

women have accessed these resources within thirty days may

well
Mitch
Franc
(i.e.
influ
about

the r

overc
womei
1981)
womet
ofte'
resot
aSSal
Vita]

§EPE§

is tl
Gott'

Part

 

31

well influence their decision to remain free of the abuser.
Mitchell and Hodson's (1983) study of women from six San
Francisco shelters led them to conclude: ”Personal resources
(i.e. education, employment, job skills) may positively
influence adjustment by decreasing women's apprehension
about their ability to follow through on a decision to leave
the relationship” (p. 20).

Short-term help. Due to the tremendous problem of

 

overcrowding at most shelters, it is standard policy that
women may only stay for a maximum of thirty days (Pagelow,
1981). While this is understandable given the number of
women generally waiting for space in the safehouse, it is
often not long enough for a woman to access the necessary
resources to maintain an independent life away from her
assailant (Snyder & Fruchtman, 1981; Walker, 1978). The
vital help provided by shelters is simply too short-term for
some women to make significant changes in their lives.

Support Groups

 

A recent service which has been growing in popularity
is the support group for battered women (Fleming, 1979;
Gottlieb et al., 1983; NiCarthy, 1982; Walker, 1978). The
participants of these groups generally find them very
supportive and helpful in reinforcing to them that they are
not alone in their situation. Walker (1978) reports from
her experience with a support group for battered women: "The
women derive a sense of strength from all the group members
that is difficult to provide on an individual basis. As

women witness others successfully making changes, they are

more

whil
batt
(i.e.
hail

rema

of 5
beer
“if
gai:
abu
dra
Vom
sti
esc
and

COn

Sit

ind

32

more likely to try themselves" (pp. 171-172).

Once again, the main critique of this service is that,
while it serves an important social support function for
battered women, it does not provide community resources
(iue., employment, education, childcare) which have been
hailed by researchers as vital to a woman being able to
remain free of abuse.

The Need for Additional Services

 

From the early 19708 up to the present, the major focus
of service providers in the area of domestic violence has
been to provide immediate, emergency shelter to victims of
wife battery. Support groups for battered women have also
gained popularity as means of helping women cope with their
abusive partners. While these services have contributed to
drawing attention to this major problem and have helped
women deal with being or having been abused, wife abuse is
still very much a problem. The National Crime Survey has
estimated that 1.06 million spouse assaults occur each year,
and Straus et ale (1980) findings imply that there are
conservatively five and a half million conjugal assaults
annually. Further, many women who attempt to escape their
batterers are unsuccessful in doing so; clearly, more needs
to be done to help women who have been battered.

The Need for Accessing Qppmunity Resources

 

 

 

Much of the research conducted in this area supports
the argument that women remain in or return to battering
situations because they lack the resources necessary to live

independently. Snyder and Fruchtman (1981) addressed the

fact

shelt
batte
educa
live

asses
(1982

servi

Stru

0f t'

 

Vome
WomE
thei
year

 

 

 

afte

33

fact that many women return to the abuse after leaving the
shelter. They contended that interventions must provide
battered women with assistance in obtaining vocational and
educational skills if they are to be expected to be able to
live on their own. Further, community resources must be
assessed and mobilized on their behalf. Kalmuss and Straus
(1982) also argued: ”Therapeutic, educational, and support
services designed to deal with wife abuse by building
women/s self-confidence, independence, and belief that they
can survive outside of marriage will not be successful
unless supplemented by programs and policies that reduce
women’s objective dependency on marriage" (p. 285). Kalmuss
and Straus (1982) conclude from their national area
probability sample of 1,183 women cohabiting with a man that
the women who had access to more resources were more likely
to seek outside intervention to end the abuse. Further,
Strube and Barbour's (1983) study found that employment
significantly related to leaving an abusive relationship.

Of their sample of 98 battered women, 73.2% of the employed
women eventually left while only 47.6% of the unemployed
women left. Similarly, Stacey and Shupe (1983) reported in
their study of 542 shelter residents over a period of two
years that the most frequent response given for returning to
the abuser was economic reasons (30%). And Okun (1986)
found in his study of 300 shelter residents that the more
economic resources a woman had in comparison to her mate the
more likely she was to leave the relationship. Hence, study

after study has at least tentatively demonstrated that the

less
to t
this
shel
to t
term
The

to r4
for l
find
anew.

deal

of t1
Vict
Prov

thro

“-9
[IT
I“?

the
"hit
COmr

 

aCcE
aqua

34

less resources a woman has the more likely she is to return
to the abusive relationship. Therefore it is important at
this time to look beyond the initial immediate support
shelters provide and concentrate on providing women access
to those skills and resources vital to maintaining long-
term, positive life changes.

Th3 Igpggpgpgg pf Post-Shelter Services

 

As previously mentioned, most shelters only allow women
to remain for 30 days. This is a very short period of time
for women to deal with having been physically assaulted,
find alternative living arrangements, and start their lives
anew. Thirty days is often simply not sufficient time to
deal with all of these areas, making it very difficult for
a woman to follow through on their decision to remain free
of the abuser. While providing immediate, safe shelter for
victims of domestic assault is crucial, it is time to also
provide second-step services to women after they have passed
through the crisis stage.

The Current Research

 

The Ecological Intervention Approach

 

 

The ecological approach to social problems is based on
the environmental resources conception of human behavior,
which stresses that all individuals have the right to
community resources. This model acknowledges that the
social structure is such that some individuals have more
access to resources than other individuals, and attempts to
equalize this imbalance by providing certain populations

with trained advocates. An advocate, according to Sarason

(197E
targe
Para]
most
sour:
(1981
indi,
proft
serv
Volu:
advo.
1987
this
Vere
thei
a.v1
left
The

“-

COm:

 

to h

abuE

two

 

35

(1976), is a person or group who works with and on behalf of
targeted individuals, providing them with needed resources.
Paraprofessional advocates have been an integral part of
most shelter staffs since their inception, as they provide a
source of inexpensive or free labor. As Donato & Bowker
(1984) concluded from their study, "”.people who are often
indigenous paraprofessionals rather than fully accredited
professional therapists are remarkably capable of delivering
services to battered women" (p. 106). Paraprofessional
volunteers have also been found to be highly successful as
advocates for other populations as well (Davidson et a1”
1987; Durlak, 1979; Hardman, 1981; Moses, 1984). Based on
this information, the services of trained paraprofessionals
were utilized in this intervention project. They assisted
their clients in accessing needed resources and provided_

a vital means of social support to the women after they

left the local battered women's shelter.

The ngmunity Advocacy Project

 

The current research evaluated the success of The
Community Advocacy Project, a program designed by the author
to help women maintain lives independently from their
batterers. Participants were women who had made the
decision to discontinue their relationships with the men who
abused them. The project was designed to assist these women
by working on goals which the women set for themselves. The
two major emphases of the program were to 1) help women
access needed resources, and 2) teach participants those

skills necessary to becoming their own self-advocates.

 

was

free

beco

V85

WONG

assa

that

Iv
to
la

In
I:
no
la

indi
Comm
Vome
Seco
5932

Essi

 

 

36

Research Questions and Hypotheses

As previously detailed, the Community Advocacy Project
was designed to provide resources to women trying to remain
free of their batterers, as well as to teach participants to
become their own self-advocates when the project ended. It
was theorized that these resources would make it easier for
women to maintain their lives independently of their
assailants. Therefore, a major hypothesis of this study was

that: Participants pf £92 92mmunity Advocacy Projegp mgmlg

 

 

be sore successful is reaaiaias free at the see she Eatseres

 

Emgm than mould the ygmgm mm the control condition.

 

 

Current research on the benefits of paraprofessionals
indicated that providing project participants with trained
community advocates would also have the effect of helping
women access those resources they desired. Therefore, a

second hypothesis was that: Participants pf 5mg ngmunmty

 

Advocacy Project ygmlg pg more successful mm obtaining

 

 

 

desired resources than 29319 ygmgm mm the control ggpmp.

 

 

As mentioned, an important goal of this research was to
provide project participants with sufficient knowledge of
available community resources to be capable of being their
own self-advocates. The study's third hypothesis, then, was

that: ngen in the experimental condition ygmlg mmyg mgmg

 

 

kncrledse 2i ssistias sseuuaitr resources and he! 22 222222

 

 

 

Emgm than mould the mgmgm mm the control gmgmp.

 

 

 

Finally, it was expected that some women from both the
experimental and control conditions would, throughout the

course of this study, return to the men who abused them.

 

 

Howet
with
foste
their
some
they
was '
empl
advar
rela
the
£293

--

tron

 

37

However, a goal of this project was, by providing women
with knowledge of and access to community resources, to
foster an independence in the women that may contribute to
their remaining free of abuse. In other words, although
some women may have returned to the men who battered them,
they may not have been returning to continuing abuse. It
was hoped that having access to resources (such as
employment, money, and education) would give these women an
advantage that they had not previously had in the
relationship, resulting in decreased violence. Therefore,
the final hypothesis of this research was: Of gmg mgmgm mpg

EEEEEBEQ £3 their batterersi the project participants youlg

 

 

pg less likely pg suffer further abuse than mould EDS ypmgm

 

 

£52m the control condition.

 

 

Gre.
the
Micl
was
the
unde
rece
term
373:
trai
earn
the
and
by a

BUth

 

 

CHAPTER II
METHOD
§e££ias

The current research intervention was conducted in the
Greater Lansing Area of Ingham County, Michigan and involved
the cooperation of two existing institutions. The first was
Michigan State University, under whose auspices this project
was implemented. The paraprofessional advocates as well as
the research assistants were recruited from the
undergraduate population at this university. Advocates
received their training and supervision throughout a three-
term psychology course sequence (Psychology 371, 372, and
373: Community Projects) and research assistants were
trained in interviewing techniques and data collection,
earning independent study credits. Each class was taught by
the director of this project and a co-director (the author
and a trained M.SJL student), who were in turn supervised
by a member of the Psychology Department at M.S1L (the
author's dissertation committee chairperson).

The Council Against Domestic Assault (CADA) was also
involved in this research, as the referral agency for
potential project participants. CADA is the local battered
women/s shelter, and houses approximately 30 women and
children a month. It is the policy of the shelter to allow
women to remain up to 30 days, resulting in their housing
approximately 360 women (and over 500 children) a year. The
critical individuals at CADA were informed about this

proposed program and were excited about cooperating by

38

 

pro‘
the

Adv:
1’85]

as

she'
Ass.
30

whi
Col.

ran

8173
No
If .

she

 

 

39

providing referrals. An administrative agreement between
the Council's director and the director of the Community
Advocacy Project outlining each party's roles and
responsibilities was negotiated in writing, and can be found
as Appendix A.

Research Participants

 

Program participants were recruited from the local
shelter for battered women, The Council Against Domestic
Assault. As mentioned previously, CADA houses approximately
30 women a month. Of these women, approximately 60% are
white, 35% Black, 4% Hispanic, and 1% are other women of
Color. About 75% are mothers, and ages of residents have
ranged from 17 to the mid-608. While CADA does not keep
compiled records of womenfissocioeconomic status, employment
status or educational levels, the shelter director estimated
that the women are primarily lower and lower-middle class,
and jobless (Bloomfield, 1986, personal communication)

Recruitment

 

All shelter residents were told about the
availability of the Community Advocacy Project by the
project co-director at their twice-weekly house meetings.
If a woman was interested, an appointment was made so that
she could talk to one of the project directors. At the
appointed times, a project director explained the program
more thoroughly to interested women on a one-to-one basis.
This was done in a private room in the shelter or in the
woman/s home after she left the shelter. Each woman was

told that, should she be randomly selected, she would

1'8

th
St
1'8;

V0

as

20-
The
$30
amc
par
amo

wit

exp
the
Pro.
Cho;
aft,
85 5
Pre:
Sea
“0111
the

 

1nd

40

receive the services of a trained advocate six to eight
hours a week for a period of ten weeks. She was told that
this advocate would be a female volunteer from Michigan
State University who had been trained in obtaining community
resources. The project director explained that not every
woman would receive the services of an advocate, but that
mll interested women would be interviewed before the program
as well as three times thereafter (S-weeks, lO-weeks, and
20-weeks). All interviewees were paid for their interviews.
The first interview was worth $10, the second $20, the third
$30, and the fourth $40. It was decided to increase the
amount per interview in order to maximize further
participation from women. It was hoped that the dollar
amount would make it worth women's time to stay in contact
with the project until all interviews had been completed.
Interested women were randomly assigned (two
experimental to each control) to either the experimental or
the control condition. Each woman was interviewed by the
project director before being informed if she had been
chosen to receive the services of an advocate. Immediately
after the first interview was completed (at the shelter or
as soon as a woman had moved out), and while still in the
presence of the participant, the project director opened a
sealed envelope containing a card that stated whether the
woman had been randomly selected for the experimental or for
the control group. The women in the control group (who
received no additional services) were given business cards

indicating the date of their next interview and how much

 

thc
thi
wo
in?
em
wi
Y9!
W81
ter
mox
mig
dec
the
con
eXp
exp
het
con
at 1
Pro;
yoke
“Gui
min,
had
be c

tin.

 

41

they would be paid. They were asked to call the office if
they were not contacted by the date on the card. These
women were not contacted again until their subsequent
interview (approximately five weeks). Women in the
experimental condition had an advocate assigned to them

within a week after leaving the shelter.

 

 

Although the program was offered for a maximum of ten
weeks, it was anticipated that some women would choose to
terminate their involvement before this time, whether due to
moving out of the area, returning to the abusive partner who
might disallow the continuation of the project, or simply
deciding that they no longer needed/desired the services of
the program. In preparation for this, each woman in the
control condition was randomly yoked with a woman in the
experimental condition by the time at which she entered the
experiment. In the event that the experimental woman ended
her involvement with the program before the lO-weeks, the
control woman was also to be given the termination interview
at this time. Therefore, if a woman were to quit the
project after nine weeks, the control woman to whom she was
yoked would also be interviewed after nine weeks. They
would both again be interviewed lO-weeks thereafter. A
minimum of three weeks of services (approximately 18 hours)
had to have been received before a woman was considered to
be a subject in the experimental condition. This length of

time was chosen because it gave the advocate time to

42

acquaint herself with the client, assess various areas of
concern, and begin an intervention.
The hassle

During the nine months of subject recruitment for this
study, 192 women were residents of CADA. This number is
lower than the norm for the shelter (average - 30 a month)
because for unknown reasons they had very few residents
between February and April. Of the 192 residents, contact
was made with or information was obtained from 149. The
other 43 women left CADA without completing an exit form or
telling anyone where they were going. Of the women for whom
information was obtained, sixty five returned immediately to
their assailants (44%). Twenty five women left the Greater
Lansing area, nine women were not victims of domestic
violence, and two women spoke no English. Of the remaining
48 women eligible for the program, 46 expressed an interest
in being research participants. Five of these 46 dropped
out of the program before receiving three weeks of services.
All analyses, therefore, were based on data from 41 research
participants (25 experimental and 16 control).

Characteristics pf EDS gmmplg. Slightly over half

 

(56.1%) of the study participants were white. Thirty nine
percent were Black, and 4.9% were Hispanic. Ages ranged
from 19 to 39 years of age, with both the mean and median
falling at 28 years. All but five of the women had at least
one child living with them, and over half of the mothers

(53.7%) had children under the age of five.

43

Most of the women (63.4%) were unemployed, and 70.7%
were receiving some type of governmental assistance. There
were an equal number of women who had not completed high
school and of women who had their high school diploma or GED
(29.3% in each category). Fifteen subjects (36.6%) had at
least some college experience, and 4.9% had attended a trade
school. Table 1 provides pertinent demographic information
on all participants.

The mean length of stay at CADA had been eighteen days
(median-15). Before arriving at the shelter, 46.3% of the
women had been married to and living with their assailants.
An additional 26.8% had been living with their assailants
but were not married. Six of the women.(l4.6%) were
involved with their assailants but were not living together,
and 9.8% were no longer involved with their partner at the
time of the last assault. One woman (19 years old) had been
emotionally abused and verbally threatened by her father,
with whom she lived. Because her situation parallelled
other women's so closely--she was trying to gain material
and emotional independence from her assailant--she was
included in the sample. Table 2 provides a breakdown of
subjects' relationship statuses.

Dropout rate. In order to qualify as a research

 

participant, women had to receive at least three weeks of
services. Five women ended their involvement before this
time period, and were not included in the analysis. This
drop-out rate was surprisingly low (11%), given the

transiency of this population. Of these five women, three

44

Table 1

Demographics of Research Participants

(measured pre-intervention)

Percentages

 

 

Experimental Control Tota
RACE
White 52 63 56
Black 44 31 39
Hispanic 4 6 5
AGE (mean) 28 30 28
18-19 Years 8 O 5
20-24 Years 16 25 20
25-29 Years 40 18 32
30-34 Years 16 25 20
35-39 Years 20 31 24
PERCENT WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN 84 94 88
Children Under 5 Years Old 52 56 54
Children 5 to 12 Years Old 52 50 51
Children 13 to 18 Years Old 4 6 S
EMPLOYED 44 25 37
Clerical 27 25 27
Domestic 36 25 27
Sales/Waitress 18 0 20
Factory 9 50 2O
Self-employed 9 0 7
CURRENTLY A STUDENT 8 0 5
EDUCATION LEVEL
Less than high school 32 25 29
High school grad/GED 24 38 29
Some college 36 13 27
College Grad 8 13 10
Trade school 0 13 5

l

45

Table 1(cont'd)

Eersshheses

 

Experimental Control Total

RECEIVING GOVERNMENTAL AID 68 75 71
INCOME LAST YEAR

Less than $8,000 32 25 29

$8,000 - $14,999 20 38 27

$15,000 - $24,999 28 19 24

$25,000 + 20 19 20

NUMBER OF PREVIOUS SEPARATIONS

None 8 0 5
One or two 36 38 36
Three to five 28 50 37
Six to ten 4 13 7

More than ten 24 0 15

46

Table 2

Relationship Statuses of Subjects Pre-Intervention

 

 

Percent Percent Percent
Relationship status Experimental gmeEQI Tgpml
Married, living with 40 56 46
Lovers, living together 24 31 27
Married, separated 8 0 5
Lovers, not living together 16. 13 15
Ex-lovers 8 0 5
Other (father was assailant) 4 0 2

*No significant differences were found between the two
conditions on this dimension

 

W0

be

r,

47

women went back to their assailants and quit the program
before receiving three weeks of services, and two women
moved out of the Greater Lansing area before receiving three
weeks of services. Only two research participants opted to
end their involvement before the ten-week termination date;
one woman moved out of state after five weeks and one woman
decided at week eight that she had completed all that she
had wanted to work on, and asked that her advocate be
assigned to someone who needed her services more urgently.
Neither of these experimental group women had been yoked to
a control woman; therefore all women in the control
condition received their second interview ten weeks after
leaving the shelter.

Research Design

 

Evaluation of this program required the construction of
two experimental designs. Effectiveness of the intervention
program in helping women maintain independent, violent-free
living was addressed in a single factor design with repeated
measures across time. The experimental factor was
experimental condition (program or control), and their were
five time intervals (pre-, 5-weeks, post, and lO-weeks
followup). See Table 3 for the design.

Process evaluation of the program was accomplished by a
single group repeated measures design. Program participants
and student advocates were interviewed about their
activities and goals at five weeks (halfway) into the

intervention, as well as at termination. See Table 4.

Experimental

Control

48

Table 3

Experimental Design

 

 

 

Pre 5-weeks Post Followup
(lO-weeks) (20-weeks)

25 24 25 25

16 16 l6 l6

 

 

 

 

 

49

Table 4

Process (Repeated measure) Design

 

 

week 5 week 10
"-1
Experimental 24 25
Group
J
Advocates 24 25
__4

 

 

 

 

50

Procedure

 

Recruitment pf Student Advocates

 

 

Three methods were used to recruit students for this
project. First, letters describing the course were mailed
to all female social science majors and women pursuing a
women/s studies thematic (a concentration of women's studies
courses). The letter explained the course briefly and
directed interested students to call the main project office
(see Appendix B for the recruitment letter). The second
method to recruit students was the posting of flyers across
campus. These flyers were essentially identical to the
recruitment letters. Third, the director made brief
presentations to various social science and women's studies
courses in order to recruit interested students. Flyers
were distributed to those students who wanted them. There
were two mandatory introductory meetings that interested
undergraduates were required to attend. At the first
meeting the program was explained in more detail by the
director. The time commitment and intensity of this course
sequence was stressed repeatedly to students. They were
told that during the first term of their involvement they
would meet as a group once a week for two and a half hours.
During this time they would receive intensive training
regarding advocacy skills as well as theories of wife
battering. These skills would be assessed through the use
of weekly quizzes, class discussion, and group roleplays.
Students were also informed that their grades for the first

two terms would be held until completion of the last course.

51

Any questions students had regarding the program were
answered at this meeting.

The rationale behind requiring a second mandatory
meeting was primarily to assure the project directors that
the students were committed to the course sequence. Those
undergraduates who were willing to spend two of their week
nights in meetings at least demonstrated some level of
investment to this program.

This recruitment procedure was implemented spring term
of 1986 for the fall-winter-spring sequence, and fall term
for the winter-spring-summer sequence. Twenty five students
(14 the first wave and 11 the second) participated as
advocates in this study.

Recruitment pf Research Assistants

 

 

Most of the data necessary to evaluate this program was
collected through the use of face-to-face interviews with
project participants and volunteers. Therefore 9 additional
students (5 the first wave and 4 the second) were trained as
project interviewers. These students were also informed of
the time and energy requirements of this sequence, and a
commitment to all three terms was mandatory. Those students
who chose to participate signed a contract agreeing to
remain throughout the three terms (see Appendix C).

Training pf mdvocates

 

 

During the first term of this three-term sequence,
classes met once a week for two and a half hours. Training
was designed to familiarize students with wife battering as

well as to teach them to be effective community advocates.

52

To this end, a training manual was designed which covered
these two components in detail. The manual was divided into
six units, each of which addressed a different component of
advocacy intervention.

of human behavior both in general and how it specifically
applied to women escaping violent partners. This is the
theory upon which the Community Advocacy Project was based.
Outside readings for this unit acquainted students with the
dynamics of wifebattering and with common misperceptions and
myths surrounding the issue.

9215 I; was designed to teach students empathy skills
and values clarification. The importance of respecting
one's client and eventually empowering her to become her own
advocate was stressed. This unit was devoted to giving
students practical skills in active listening, nonjudgmental
responses, and distinguishing between empathy and pity.

Ummg Ill provided students with an overview of the
process of becoming a trained community advocate, with an
emphasis on the first stage of assessment. The entire
process was presented in terms of generating possible
resources, targeting critical individuals who hold those
resources, using various techniques to mobilize resources,
monitoring the process, and instructing clients on how to be
their own self-advocates. The first stage of this process--
Assessment-~was explained in depth. Outside readings
provided practical information about available community

resources and addressed the difficulty many battered women

53

face in attempting to access these resources.

Ummg l! addressed how one initiates one's advocacy
intervention specifically. The emphasis was on mobilizing
community resources, including how to prioritize which unmet
need to address first, how to target specific individuals
who may possess the desired resource, and what strategies
could then be employed to access that resource. For
instance, if a study participant wanted to find employment
and childcare but had no heat in the middle of winter, the
advocate and participant might prioritize having the heat
turned on. The appropriate agency would be targeted
(probably either the electric company, Department of Social
Services, or Welfare Rights Organization), and a specific
person within that agency would be approached. The chosen
strategy might involve a positive approach (such as
appealing to the person's empathy at hearing about a woman
and perhaps her children freezing), a neutral approach
(providing the facts of the matter and expecting results),
or a negative approach (making the resource provider aware,
perhaps, that the client's rights had been infringed upon
and that the advocate would go to the press or to the
person's boss if the situation did not improve immediately).
Once this situation were dealt with successfully, the
advocate and participant might turn their attentions to
obtaining employment and/or childcare in a similar fashion.
Various strategies were detailed in the outside readings for
this week, and role-plays were used in class to help

familiarize students with the material learned thus far.

54

intervention. The importance of monitoring the success of
their efforts was stressed, and the effect of crises on
intervention activities was discussed. Hypothetical crisis
situations were role-played with students. This unit also
instructed students in the application of the secondary
advocacy effort, as well as in teaching their clients to
become their own self-advocates. Secondary advocacy efforts
involved utilizing new direct and indirect approaches when
initial strategies failed to obtain the desired resource.
Outside readings stressed the importance of empowering the
population that an advocate works with, with practical
suggestions for attaining this.

Ummg VI reviewed the entire process of the lO-week
intervention and detailed the process of termination,
including the importance of transferring skills to clients.

Each class session began with a brief question-and-
answer period relating to that week's assigned material.
After all students' questions had been addressed they each
completed a written short-answer quiz. The two instructors
immediately graded the written quizzes while students took a
short break together. After all of the exams had been
graded the answers were discussed in class. Those students
who missed any items were required to re-write their answers
before the next class period. The remainder of each class
session was devoted to either oral questions, films, role-
plays, or guest speakers. The fifth week of training was

devoted to discussing practical strategies of accessing

55

community resources. Four speakers from The American Red
Cross, Legal Aid, The Welfare Rights Organization, and
CADA's ex-resident support group were invited to come this
week and talk with students. No unit was assigned this
week.

Grades were based on the following criteria: attendance
(4.0 or 0.0 weekly), class participation (4.0 or 0.0
weekly), and written quizzes. Students who responded with
at least 80% competency on their quizzes received a 4.0 for
that component that week. Any re-writes handed in within a
week resulted in a grade of 3.0. Re-writes continued to be
marked down one grade point each week that they were handed
in late or contained errors. Attendance was mandatory for
this course, and more than two unexcused absences resulted
in a student failing the course.

Approximately four weeks into the term the larger class
of students were divided into two small classes of five to
seven students and two supervisors. Selection into sections
was based on schedule flexibility of students. Smaller
group size at this time was essential to providing students
with individualized attention and supervision, as they began
to be assigned to project participants.

Assignment pf Advocates Em Project Participants

 

 

 

Approximately five weeks into training, students began
to be assigned to project participants. Therefore, intakes
from CADA began approximately three weeks into the fall
academic term. Each woman in the experimental condition

began receiving the services of an advocate within a week

56

after leaving the shelter. Assignment of students was done
randomly, with one exception. Those students who did not
have regular access to transportation were assigned to a
client living near a bus line. Students were instructed to
contact their clients within two days of being assigned,
either in person or by telephone. They were told that they
were expected to begin their interventions immediately and
to have put in a full week's work by the next class period.

Supervision 2f Advocates

 

 

The second and third terms of this course sequence were
devoted entirely to supervision. Classes continued to meet
once a week for two and a half hours, but the entire time
was spent discussing students' cases. Specifically, each
student talked about the progress of their case, what they
accomplished that past week, and what they hoped to accom-
plish in the next week as well as by the end of the project.
Students were graded on a pass/fail basis these two terms,
contingent upon their attendance and the completion of their
weekly goals. Each week each student turned in a completed
progress report covering each of these specific areas.

Also, students received weekly feedback sheets from the
supervisors which provided specific recommendations and
positive reinforcement.

The Intervention

 

 

Student advocates were required to spend six to eight
hours per week with or on behalf of their clients, working

on mutually identified goals. Therefore, a degree of

57

flexibility on the parts of students was expected in order
that they could meet their time requirements.

The intervention can be viewed as comprising five
distinct phases: assessment, initiation of intervention,
monitoring, secondary advocacy strategies, and termination.

Assessment was the process by which the advocate became

 

acquainted with her client and the significant others in the
client's environment (children, friends, eth. Students
were encouraged to participate in recreational activities
with their clients in order to facilitate a more casual,
trusting relationship. This was the information-gathering
stage, during which the project participant and advocate
decided upon those goals they would like to accomplish
during their time together. It was stressed to students
that the best way to gather specific information was to ask
open-ended questions and to discover unmet needs through
casual conversation in the womanfs natural setting.
Advocates were also trained to pay attention to those
remarks which may clue them into an area of unmet need for
their client, such as employment, housing, education,
childcare, legal assistance, and health care.

The assessment phase then naturally led into lBlEléElBE

the intervention. Based on what specific areas of unmet

 

needs the project participant and advocate had identified,
intervention strategies were chosen and implemented.
Specifically, once an unmet need had been identified it was
the role of the community advocate to help her client

generate and mobilize those community resources necessary to

58

meet that need. This included brainstorming possible
resources; locating the critical individuals within specific
organizations, institutions, and agencies who held those
resources; and devising strategies to access said resources.
This phase involved making phone calls, obtaining printed
materials, applying for resources in person-~any methods
which would aid them in creating positive change in the
lives of the women with whom they were working.

The third phase was to mgmjpgm the success of the
implemented intervention. During this time it was the
responsibility of the volunteer to assess how effective the
initial advocacy efforts had been in bringing about the
desired results. They examined if the resource had been
obtained and if that resource was satisfactory to their
client in meeting their unmet need. If the reply to either
of these concerns was negative, the advocate initiated a

secondary advocacy effort in this area with the goal of more

 

adequately meeting her client's needs.

Termination began at about week seven of the lO—week

 

intervention, as the advocate prepared her client for the
end of the program. During this phase the advocate worked
on transferring to her client the skills she possessed in
obtaining community resources. The volunteer gradually
played less and less of a role in intervention activities to
ensure that each program participant had the necessary
skills to access resources on her own after the program had
ended. Through instruction, modeling, and role-playing the

advocate moved her client toward the position of self-

59

advocate, thus maximizing the probability of each woman
maintaining and increasing positive changes in her life.

While the process of advocacy intervention has been
explained here as five discrete stages for clarification
purposes, in reality students engaged in various phases
simultaneously. For instance, assessment was a continuous
process, as additional areas of unmet need arose throughout
the ten weeks. Hence, multiple interventions were
implemented at various points so that, for example, the
advocate may have been monitoring one intervention effort
while initiating another.

Iraihihs hi Interviehers

 

A total of nine interviewers were trained in
interviewing techniques and data collection. During the
first term, they met once a week for two and a half hours
with the author for training. The first two weeks were
spent discussing written material in the practice of
interviewing, and the remainder of the term was devoted to
role-plays, class discussion, and outside assignments. Each
student had extensive practice conducting interviews before
she was allowed to administer an actual program
questionnaire. Interrater agreement on all interview items
(assessed by calculating % agreement across all items) was
extremely high by the end of training (ranging from 84% to
100%).

After training, groups continued to meet once a week
for two hours to review techniques and discuss the progress

of their interviews. All of their interviews were

60

audiotaped, and these tapes were sometimes re-played and
critiqued during class time. Also, all interviews and tapes
were listened to and re-coded by either the project director
or another student, so that interrater agreement could
continue to be assessed. Agreement as measured by Cohen's
kappa (correcting for base rate) was consistently above 82%.
Interviewers received grades for this course sequence, based
on attendance, expertise in interviewing techniques, and
work completed.

Interviewmmg gpmmpggy. The nine interviewers were

 

responsible for administering all of the face-to-face
interviews throughout the project's duration except the
first (which the project co-director administered at the
shelter). Each of the 41 research participants were given
three interviews (S-week, post-, and follow-up). In
addition, the 25 student advocates were given process
interviews (5-week and post-).

In order to minimize interviewer bias, the interviewer
who gave a woman her second interview was never the same
interviewer who administered that woman/s post interview or
her advocates' interviews. Interviews were conducted at the
respondent's home unless otherwise requested.

The first duty of the interviewer was to explain the
reason for the interview and answer any questions the woman
may have. The second step in the interviewing process
involved requesting that the session be recorded.

Interviewers explained to the participant that this measure

61

was taken only to verify responses and that tapes would be
used for research purposes only. Participants were also
assured that their names would not appear on the tape and
that the tape would be destroyed after the research ended.
All respondents were comfortable with having their
interviews taped.

Upon completing the interview, the interviewer recorded
the length of the interview, thanked the respondent and paid
her. A receipt for the money was signed by the respondent
and returned to the project supervisors.

Interviews with student advocates were dealt with in a
similar manner. Interviews were administered in the
advocate's homes and sessions were audiotaped. Student
advocates, however, were not paid for their participation.

EEEEEESE

In order to most fully evaluate the effectiveness of
The Community Advocacy Project in helping women build
independent lives free of abuse, both dependent (outcome)
variables and independent (process) variables were measured
in this study. The remainder of this chapter details
instrument development, data reconfiguration, and scale
construction. Reliability, convergent validity, and
discriminant validity of the data are presented, as well as
intercorrelations among outcome variables.

Qm£gome Measurement

 

To assess the overall effectiveness of the

intervention, detailed face-to-face interviews were

62

constructed and administered to women in both the
experimental condition and the control condition. These
interviews were given immediately before the start of the
project, S-weeks thereafter, at termination five weeks
later, and at 10 weeks follow-up for each participant, and
addressed both subjective and objective variables. All
women received identical first interviews (Appendix D). The
experimental women/s second interview was longer than the
control women's, as it also asked questions about the
program. The project participants' second (or process)
interview can be found in Appendix E, and the control
women's second interview is Appendix F. The termination
interview was also longer for project participants for the
same reason (Appendix CL The third interview for the women
in the control condition is in Appendix H. All women
received identical follow-up interviews (Appendix I).

The following outcome variables were measured by the
interviews: 1) experience of abuse; 2) extent of abuse; 3)
relationship status; 4) effectiveness in obtaining desired
resources; and 5) overall life satisfaction.

In addition, three intermediate outcomes were measured,
which were hypothesized to influence the final outcome
variables. These were: 1) desire to return to assailant; 2)
knowledge of resources and how to obtain them; and 3)
confidence in ability to obtain resources. Satisfaction
with the advocacy program was also assessed for women in the

experimental condition. The following sections detail how

63

the intermediate and final outcome variables were measured
and scaled.

Experience 2f mpmgg. A major hypothesis of this study

 

was that project participants would be more successful in
remaining free of abuse than would be the women in the
control condition. Specifically, it was expected that women
in the experimental condition would be less likely to return
to the men who abused them, and of the women who did return,
those in the experimental group would suffer less abuse over
time compared to the women in the control group. To test
this hypothesis empirically, all four of the interviews
asked women questions regarding the level of abuse in their
lives. The pre-, process, post-, and follow-up interviews
asked how many times a woman had been physically harmed by
her assailant within the referent time period. This item
(found in Appendix G as question #77) was used to measure
frequency of assaults in research participants' lives
throughout the course of the study. All women were also
asked during their second, third, and fourth interviews if
they were involved with the men who had abused them in order
to ascertain whether a difference on this dimension existed
between the two conditions.

Emggmg pf gbmgg. Women who responded that they
had been harmed were asked specifically how they had been
harmed, what type of injuries they had sustained, who they
had told about the abuse, how many times they had needed
and/or sought medical attention, how many times they had

called the police because of violence or threats, and how

64

typical had been the violence that had occurred. While
these items were asked in identical form in each interview,
they can be found as items 13 through 21 of Appendix I (the
Follow-up interview). See Figure 1 for the exact items.

Thirteen items referred to specific ways a woman could
have been harmed by her assailant, ranging from having had
her hair pulled to having had a weapon used against her.
These items represented a modified version of Straus'(l979)
Conflict-Tactics Scale Violence subscale, found by Straus to
have an internal consistency of .83. These items were open-
ended at the pre-interview (”How many times in the last
three months has your assailant done any of the following
things to you?') and were dichotomous (yes/no) during the
remaining interviews. However, due to the nonnormal
distribution obtained from the pre-data (a couple women, for
example, experienced over 30 incidents of some types of
abuse while most experienced under 10) these items were
dichotomized (presence or absence of occurrence) before
being scaled. Eleven of the thirteen items from the pre-
interview were then combined to create a general "extent of
violence" scale. Two of the items were not included because
of low variance; only 5% of the women reported having been
burned and none had had a gun or knife used against them.
The remaining eleven items included 1) hair pulled, 2)

glasses broken/clothing torn, 3) pushed, shoved, and/or

65

Figure 1

Items in pre-, post-, and follow-up interviews
regarding extent of abuse

How many times in the last 10 weeks has (assailant's name)
threatened you in any way?

How many times in the last 10 weeks has (assailant's name)
physically harmed you?

In what ways has he harmed you in the last 10 weeks?

Did you sustain any of the following injuries?

Who did you tell about the assaults?

How many times in the last 10 weeks did you seek medical
attention because of injuries sustained by (assailant's
name)?

How many times in the last 10 weeks do you think you
required medical attention because of such injuries but

didn't receive it?

In general, how typical was the violence in the last 10
weeks compared to the violence throughout your relationship?

How many times in the last 10 weeks have you called the
police because of his violence or threats toward you?

*****

See Appendix I, items 13-21, for the items and response
categories

66

grabbed, 4) slapped with open hand, 5) kicked, bit, or hit
with fist, 6) had something thrown at her, 7) was hit or
almost hit with an object, 8) choked, 9) tied up/physically
restrained, 10) forced into sexual activity/raped, and 11)
threatened with a gun or knife.

Women who had been harmed were also asked about
injuries sustained. Ten dichotomously coded items were
presented to them, ranging from "cuts/scrapes/bruises" to
"knife or gunshot woundfl The items were based on Pagelow's
(1981) study, wherein participants answered an open-ended
question regarding types of injuries sustained. The most
frequently mentioned injuries were used in the current
research. Before these items were combined into a
meaningful "extent of injuries” scale, five items were
deleted because they had been reported as having had
occurred in less than 10% of the cases. These items were as
follows: loose or broken teeth, broken bones/fractures,
dislocations, pregnancy complications, and knife or gunshot
wounds. The five remaining items (cuts/scrapes/bruises,
soreness without bruises, burns <including rug burns>,
internal injuries, and strains/sprains) were scaled.

The two scales ("extent of violence" and "extent of
injuries”) and items that comprise them, complete with scale
means, scale standard deviations, corrected item-total
correlations, and internal consistency estimates, can be
found in Table 5. As the table indicates, the alpha level
for the "extent of violence" scale was .74, and the alpha

level for the "extent of injuries” scale was .60. Corrected

67

Table 5

Psychometric Properties of "Extent of Violence"

and "Extent of Injuries” Scale

Scale

 

Items comprising scales

 

"Extent of Violence" Scale

 

a. hair pulled

b. clothing torn / glasses broken

c. pushed, shoved, and/or grabbed

d. slapped

e. kicked, bit, or hit with fist

f. something thrown at her

g. hit with object

h. choked

i. tied up or physically restrained
j. forced into sexual activity, raped
k. threatened with gun or knife
Alpha - .74 X - 5.22 SD - 7.53

 

cuts, scrapes, and/or bruises
soreness without bruises
burns

internal injuries

strains / sprains

(DO-00“!)

Alpha - .60 It - 1.95 so - 1.50

Corrected
item-total
Correlations

.44
.52
.39
.44
.42
.44
.26
.47
.41
.27
.12

.46
.39
.19
.28
.44

68

item-total correlations were low to moderate for both
scales, indicating a degree of lack of shared variance among
scale items. The scales were used only to test for
homogeneity of the two groups at Time 1; lack of variance
among subjects on these items at post and followup (due to
reported abuse being extremely low) precluded their use in
outcome analyses.

Qggjgg pg ggpmpm. All women who were currently
separated from their assailants were asked how often they
thought about returning (item 66 of Appendix G). This was
asked during the second, third, and fourth interviews in
order to see if this desire changed over time and to see if
there existed a difference between the frequency with which
project participants considered returning to the assailant

and the frequency with which control women did.

Knoyledge pf resources and mm! pp obtain them. Another

 

 

 

major research hypothesis concerned women's knowledge of
existing community resources and methods of obtaining such
resources. Specifically, it was hypothesized that women in
the experimental condition would be more knowledgable in
these areas at the end of the project than would be the
women in the control group.

The pre-, post-, and follow-up interviews measured
knowledge of resources by presenting three hypothetical
situations (identical across time) asking women to 1) advise
a friend how to obtain a job, 2) explain what she would do
if she were to decide to move, and 3) advise a friend who

had little money how to obtain some furniture. These items

69

(see Figure 2) were open-ended; interviewers coded
responses verbatim from the session and audiotapes.

The numbers of resources mentioned for each item were
independently counted by the author and a research assistant
(interrater agreement, as measured by Cohen's kappa, ranged
from .92 to 1.00). The three items were then grouped to
create a "knowledge of resources“ scale. Internal
consistency (as measured by Cronbach's alpha) was .75, and
no corrected item-total correlation was below .56. See
Table 6 for the "knowledge of resources" scale and
information regarding its psychometric properties.

Knowledge of how to obtain resources was assessed in
the following way. The post interview asked all women about
specific areas in their lives that they had wanted to
improve since leaving the shelter. Women were asked if they
had wanted to see change in or had worked on the following
eleven issues: housing, transportation, employment,
education, legal issues, health care, childcare, social
support, finances, material goods or services, and issues
regarding their children. This list of items can be found
as item 3 of Appendix G or item 22 of Appendix H. The items
”finances" and "legal issues” were dropped from analyses due
to lack of convergent validity (discussed in more detail
later). All questions pertaining to these items were also
excluded from scale development. For every affirmative
response to the other nine items, women were asked what
strategies they had used to obtain those resources (i.e.

phoning resource providers, obtaining written materials,

70

Figure 2

Items in pre-, post-, and follow-up interviews
regarding knowledge of resources

(All items were open-ended; interviewers probed by asking
"Is there anything else?”)

If a friend of yours wanted to find a job and didn't know
how to go about finding one, what all could you advise her
to do to find one?

If you were to decide in a couple of months to move, what
all could you do to find a new place?

If a friend of yours asked your advice on how she could find
some cheap furniture--she has very little money--what all
would you advise her to do?

71

Table 6

Psychometric Properties of "Knowledge of Resources" Scale

 

 

 

Corrected
Items comprising scale item-total
Correlations
"Knomledge pf Resources" Scale
a. number of resources mentioned to get job .56
b. number of resources mentioned to find house .57
c. number of resources mentioned to get furniture .59

Alpha -.75

it - 10.85 so - 4.08

72

looking in person). Women in the experimental condition
were also asked if they had discussed options with their
advocates. However, these were not included in scale
development since they were only asked of women in the
experimental condition and would have artificially inflated
their scores in comparison to women in the control
condition.

To measure womenfls knowledge of how to obtain
resources, a scale was constructed which measured the number
of strategies women engaged in over the course of the
intervention. First, all the strategies a woman engaged in,
proportionate to the total number of possible strategies
presented, was calculated. This number was then divided by
the number of areas in which a woman worked. This second
step was taken so that women who worked on a higher number
of needs did not obtain artificially inflated scores. See
Table 7 for the psychometric properties of this "averaged

number of strategies” scale.

 

 

Confidence 12 mpmllpy £2 obtain resources. The three
hypothetical scenarios described earlier in Table 6 were
also designed to measure each woman's confidence in her
ability to access community resources. It was hypothesized
that experimental women would be more confident in their
abilities than control women, and that this change would
persist over time. To test this, one 4-point Likert-type
item followed each of the three hypothetical situations in
the pre, post- and follow-up interviews and asked how

successful the participant thought she (or her friend, where

73

Table 7

Psychometric Properties of

"Averaged Number of Strategies" Scale

"Averaged Nmmpgm pf Strategies" Scale

 

This scale was comprised of the total number of
strategies research participants engaged in
proportional to the total number possible they
could have engaged in. The resulting variables
were:

Strategies in housing

Strategies in education

Strategies in transportation
Strategies in employment

Strategies in health

Strategies in childcare

Strategies in social support
Strategies in material goods
Strategies in issues for the children

H:rm ma>atao‘m

Alpha-.77 i- 5.46 313- 3.69

Corrected
item-total
Correlations

.36
.50
.35
.52
.41
.63
.35
.38
.62

74

applicable) would be in obtaining the desired resource
(items 24, 26, and 28). Although the mean for each item was
3 (somewhat successful), none of the items correlated
significantly with one another. This indicates that
participants viewed these items as being conceptually
distinct from one another. When the three items were scaled
to create a generalized ”confidence in abilities" scale
internal consistency was quite low (alpha - .37, item-total
correlations ranging from .16 to .32). Therefore the three
items were retained in their original form for further
analyses.

Effectiveness $9 obtaining desired resources. All

 

 

 

 

respondents were asked during their lO-week (post) interview
how effective their efforts had been in achieving their
goals. Six of the nine items measured women's perceived
effectiveness, asking how effective they thought their
efforts had been“ Response categories were in the form of a
Likert-type scale (range - l to 4: l-not effective at all,
2-not very effective, 3-somewhat effective, 4-very
effective). Three items were more objective in nature; they
asked if the woman had found housing yet, had gotten a job
yet from her efforts, and whether she had obtained
childcare. Responses to these items ranged from 1 to 3:
1-no, 2-probably yes, and 3-yes. While it would have been
optimal to obtain an objective measure of effectiveness
across all areas in which women worked, the complex nature
of most women/s needs precluded this. For instance, many

women who worked in the area of "social support" were

75

looking to make supportive friends. There is no way to
measure success objectively in this endeavor by counting
number of friends obtained because some women may have just
wanted one friend and some may have wanted ten. Therefore
it was most appropriate to ask women themselves how
effective they thought they had been in obtaining their
goals.

Prior to scale construction, the nine items were
standardized to the same scale through the process of 2-
score variable transformation. An overall effectiveness
score was then obtained for each woman by calculating the
mean of her effectiveness scores across all areas in which
she worked. Internal consistency of the ”effectiveness"
scale was .67; see Table 8 for the scale and its
psychometric properties.

Life satisfaction. All women were asked during the

 

post- and follow-up interviews how satisfied they were with
their lives overall (item 29 of Appendix I). This single
item, composed of a 7-point scale ranging from "extremely
pleased" to "terrible,” was taken from Andrews' 6 Withey's
(1976) Quality of Life scale. Andrews and Withey found this
item to be one of the most sensitive of a set of alternative
scales measuring quality of life in general. It was
hypothesized that women who worked with advocates would
answer more positively than women who were in the control

condition, and that this difference would persist over time.

76

Table 8

Psychometric Properties of ”Effectiveness" Scale

 

Corrected
Items comprising scale item-total
Correlations

 

"Effectiveness" Scale

 

How effective have your efforts been (in the area of):

a. education .36
b. transportation .32
c. health .20
d. social support .33
e. material goods and services .34
f. issues for the children .35
Have you found housing yet? .42
Have you gotten a job yet? .36
Have you achieved your goal (in childcare) yet? .47

Alpha - .67 3t - 0.00 so - 4.74

(Note: scale constructed from individual Z-scores)

77

Intercorrelations mmong Outcomg Variables

 

 

 

A correlation matrix examined the interrelatedness
among the outcome variables. This matrix, presented in
Table 9, revealed a high degree of independence between the
variables. This lack of correlation suggests that the
outcome variables were indeed measuring different
constructs. The only significant correlations (at the p <
.01 level) were 1) between whether a woman was involved with
her assailant and how often she considered returning to him
(r - .59), and 2) between perceived effectiveness in
obtaining resources and life satisfaction (r - .44).

Satisfaction With Program

 

 

Experimental women's interviews were designed to
measure one additional outcome variable: satisfaction with
the program. Each participant was asked 1) how satisfied
she was with the project, 2) how satisfied she was with the
volunteer, and 3) how satisfied she was with the amount of
time she spent with the volunteer (items 58 through 60 of
Appendix G). .Further, for each area in which a woman worked
(i.e. housing, employment) she was asked how satisfied she
was with the efforts of her advocate. Response categories
were in the form of a Likert-type scale (range 1 to 4:
l-very dissatisfied, 2-somewhat dissatisfied, 3-somewhat
satisfied, 4-very satisfied). An overall "satisfaction with
efforts” score was obtained for each woman by calculating
the mean of her satisfaction across all areas in which she
worked. This resulting score, along with the other three

items measuring program

78

Table 9

Intercorrelations Among Outcome Variables
At Time 3 (Post-Intervention)

 

 

N - 41

Variable 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Relationship w/ *

assailant .59 -.05-u08 -.04‘m13 -.06.20 -.12'm08
2.Desire to

return -- .01 '.O7‘m06 -.25 .ll .16-u06 -.10
3. Experience of

abuse -- .05 -.16 -.09 -.13 .24 .03 -.05
4. Knowledge of

resources -- .01 .22 .28 .23 .27 .26
5. Averaged number of

strategies used -- .10 -.01 .03 .20 .03
6. Confidence in obtaining

employment -- .23 .02 .15 .ll
7. Confidence in obtaining

housing -- .24 .22 .29
8. Confidence in obtaining

furniture -- .12 .17

9. Effectiveness in obtaining
resources -- .44

10. Life satisfaction ~-

* p < .01

79

satisfaction, were combined to create a "level of
satisfaction" scale (alpha - .71). See Table 10 for a
description of this scale and its psychometric properties.

Process Measurement

 

A main objective of the Community Advocacy Project was
to provide clients with individualized interventions,
dependent upon individual needs, concerns, and goals.
Therefore, since no two women received identical
interventions, it was essential to monitor the process
itself (the independent variable) throughout the duration of
the program. Archival records (students' weekly progress
reports) and face-to-face interviews were used to gather
this important information.

The following sections describe the measurement and
scale construction of the following process variables:
intensity of the intervention (including amount and type of
contacts with advocates), and types of strategies
(preparatory and active) engaged in to obtain desired
resources.

Intensity 9f the intervention. As previously

 

 

mentioned, all student advocates were required to complete
weekly detailed records of their contacts with and on behalf
of their clients. Progress reports included: 1) what their
specific plans were for that week, 2) how many telephone
contacts they had with their clients, 3) how many face-to-
face contacts they had with their clients, 4) how many times
they drove their client somewhere, 5) how many phone calls

they made with or on behalf of their clients, 6) how many

80

Table 10

Psychometric Properties of ”Level of Satisfaction" Scale

 

Corrected
Items comprising scale item-total
Correlations

 

 

a. How satisfied have you been with the program? .58

b. How satisfied are you with the effort (advocate)
put in toward the goals you“ve chosen? .37

c. How satisfied are you with the amount of time
you spent with (advocate) a week? .51

d. "Satisfaction with efforts" score .52

Alpha - .71 it - 15.20 so - 1.23

81

people they talked to in person, with or on behalf of their
clients, 7) what they specifically did with or on behalf of
their clients to obtain resources, 8) how many hours they
spent with their clients that week, 9) what specific areas
of unmet needs they focused on, and 10) what their specific
plans were for the next week. These data were collected to
assess the intensity of the intervention and the validity of
the information obtained from the face-to-face interviews.

A number of variables from the progress reports were
scaled to measure the intensity of the intervention.
Specifically, the "intensity of the intervention" scale was
comprised of seven variables measuring the total number of
times the advocate 1) saw the client, 2) talked to her on
the phone, 3) drove her somewhere, 4) obtained written
materials, 5) talked to a resource provider on the phone, 6)
talked to a resource provider in person, and 7) taught her
client a new skill. Before scaling, these items were
weighted to reflect their unique levels of intensity.
Specifically, responses to the two items pertaining to
talking to the client and talking to a resource provider on
the phone were considered the least intense and were
multiplied by one. Obtaining written materials, seeing the
client in person, and driving the client somewhere were
considered to measure a higher level of involvement, and
were multiplied by two. Responses to the item pertaining to
talking to a resource provider in person were multiplied by
three, and scores regarding teaching the client a new skill

were multiplied by five. The estimated internal consistency

82

of this scale (measured by Cronbach's alpha) was .84, and
all corrected item-total correlations were .43 or higher.
See Table 11 for the psychometric properties of this scale.

In addition to gathering specific process information
from weekly progress reports, a process interview (Appendix
E) was administered to program participants. Items from the
process interviews were given midway through the
intervention and post-intervention, and assessed a number of
independent variables, including three items pertaining to
amount of contacts with the advocates. These items were 1)
number of hours spent weekly with advocate (item 1 of
Appendix E), 2) number of contacts per week on average (item
2), and 3) number of hours spent on the phone per week with
advocate (item 3). These items were scaled to create an
"amount of contacts" scale (alpha - .65). See Table 12 for
the psychometric properties of this scale.

Typgm pf strategies used 22 obtain resources. Within

 

 

every area a woman might have chosen to work, she was asked
what strategies she had used to obtain that resource (i.e.
made phone calls, looked in person, checked newspapers,
checked other written materials). Women in the experimental
condition were also asked if they had discussed options with
their advocates. Some of the strategies included in the
list were preparatory in nature CLe. looked at written
materials, checked the phonebook) but were not sufficient in
and of themselves to access a desired resource. The
remaining strategies, on the other hand, required taking an

active step toward pursuing a resource (i.e. making phone

83
Table 11

Psychometric Properties of
"Intensity of Intervention" Scale

 

Corrected

 

 

 

Items comprising scale item-total
Correlations
"Intensity pf Intervention” Scale
a. Number of in-person contacts .69
b. Number of telephone contacts .43
c. Number of times drove client somewhere .59
d. Number of times obtained written materials .45
e. Number of telephone contacts with
potential resource provider .61
f. Number of in-person contacts with
potential resource provider .64
g. Number of times taught client new skill .71

Alpha -.84

It - 163.64 so - 85.47

84

Table 12

Psychometric Properties of "Amount of Contacts" Scale

 

Corrected

Items comprising scale item-total
Correlations

 

Amount of Contacts Scale

a. About how many hours a week did you spend with
in person? .63

 

less than one

- one or two

- three or four

- five or six

- seven or eight
- more than eight

O‘U‘i-i-‘WNH

b. How many times a week did you see her? .60
(open-ended)

c. About how many hours a week did you spend with
on the telephone? .26

 

less than one

- one or two

- three or four

- five or six

- seven or eight
- more than eight

O‘U‘bUNi-fl

Alpha - .65 "it - 8.00 so - 2.84

85

calls, looking in person). As a means of measuring if
effectiveness was related to how "actively” a resource was
pursued, a scale was constructed which measured the number
of active strategies women engaged in. This involved a
number of steps: first, the number of active strategies each
woman chose proportionate to the number of possible
strategies she could have chosen from the options presented
was calculated. For example, in the area of employment four
"active" strategies were presented to women. All
participants were asked whether or not they had 1) looked in
person, 2) posted flyers, 3) submitted applications, and/or
4) contacted an agency or agencies. A woman who had engaged
in three of these behaviors would have received a score in
this area of 3/4, or .75. All scores in all areas worked on
were summed to create a "total active" score. This "total
active” score was then divided by the number of areas in
which a woman worked so that women who worked on a higher
number of needs did not obtain artificially inflated scores.
The resulting "averaged active strategies" scores were used
in subsequent analyses as indicators of the degree to which
women engaged in active strategies to obtain desired
resources.

An "averaged preparatory strategies" scale was
constructed from the preparatory items (i.e. looked at
written materials, checked the phone book) in the same
manner described above. This scale was then used as an
indicator of the extent to which women engaged in

preparatory activities to obtain desired resources. The two

86

scales, along with the reconfigured variables comprising
them, scale means and standard deviations, item-total
correlations, and internal consistency estimates are
presented in Table 13.

Interrater Reliability pf Interviey Data

 

 

Interrater reliability was assessed by having each
interview coded independently by two interviewers (one at
the actual interview and one who coded responses based on
the audiotape). The vast majority of items on all
interviews were comprised of forced-choice, Likert-type
response categories, resulting in extremely high interrater
agreement. On the post interviews, 224 of the 228 items
showed 100% agreement. For three out of the four items on
which the two raters disagreed, the rater coding from the
tape was unable to hear the woman's response and left the
item blank.
yeiieisx

To assess the validity of participants' interview data,
advocates were asked identical items pertaining to
intervention activities and the womanfs relationship with
her assailant. Advocates also completed weekly progress
reports which assessed some of the same information that was
covered in interviews. The use of these three sources
allowed convergent and discriminant validity to be assessed
through the use of a multitrait-multimethod matrix (Campbell
6 Fiske, 1959). Convergent validity was measured by the
degree to which sources agreed on identical scales/items,

and discriminant validity was reflected in the independence

87

Table 13

Psychometric Properties of Scales Measuring
Preparatory and Active Strategies Used to Obtain Resources

Corrected
item-total
Correlations

 

"Averaged Active Strategies” Scale

 

This scale was comprised of the number of active
strategies research participants engaged in
proportional to the total number possible they
could have engaged in. The resulting variables
were:

a. Active strategies in housing .40
b. Active strategies in education .60
c. Active strategies in transportation .28
d. Active strategies in employment .44
e. Active strategies in health .26
f. Active strategies in childcare .58
g. Active strategies in social support .28
h. Active strategies in material goods .31
1. Active strategies in issues for the children .66

Alpha - .74 it - 8.80 so - 5.91

"Averaged Preparatory Strategies" Scale

 

This scale was comprised of the number of preparatory
strategies research participants engaged in
proportional to the total number possible they

could have engaged in. The resulting variables

were:

a. Preparatory strategies in housing .40
b. Preparatory strategies in education .38
c. Preparatory strategies in transportation .31
d. Preparatory strategies in employment .50
e. Preparatory strategies in health .43
f. Preparatory strategies in childcare .61
g. Preparatory strategies in social support .36
h. Preparatory strategies in material goods .37
i. Preparatory strategies in issues for the

children .48

Alpha - .75 _X - 5.37 so - 4.07

88

of responses given by the sources on different scales/items.

Convergent and discriminant validity. A multitrait-

 

 

multimethod matrix was constructed to determine convergent
and discriminant validity of the data. The scales/items
used in this table had been asked at post-intervention of
both the project participants and the advocates and were
included in further analyses: 1) number of face-to-face
contacts per week between participants and advocates, 2) the
"effectiveness" in obtaining resources scale, 3)
relationship with assailant, 4) extent of violence
experienced, and whether or not they had worked on 5)
housing, 6) education, 7) transportation, 8) employment,

9) healthcare issues, 10) childcare, 11) social support, 12)
material goods and services, and 13) issues for the
children. Advocates' progress reports also contained
information regarding the number of contacts per week and
whether they had worked on the various areas of unmet need.
A summary of the multitrait- multimethod matrix can be found
in Table 14. This table displays the average convergent and
discriminant validity coefficients for each variable, as
well as the range of monotrait-heteromethod and heterotrait-
monomethod correlations. Averaged convergent and
discriminant validity coefficients were obtained in the
following manner: correlation coefficients were first
normalized through the use of the Fisher r to z
transformation. The resulting z-values were then averaged,

and these final scores were transformed back to r-values.

89

Table 14

Summary of Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix Assessing
Convergent and Discriminant Validity of Measures

 

 

Convergent Validity Discriminant Validity
(monotrait-heteromethod) (heterotrait-monomethod)
a b
Variable M Range M Range
Contacts
per week .38 .31-.51 .17 -.34 - .36
Effectiveness in
obtaining
resourcesc .55 .40 -.37 - .78
Relationshipc .98 .25 -.66 - .32
Experience of
abusec 1.00 .21 -.36 - .15
Housing .57 .51-.63 .22 -.27 - .49
Education .60 .55-.62 .17 -.30 - .45
Transportation .50 .34-.66 .18 -.20 — .44
Employment .54 .49-.56 .21 -.41 - .45
Healthcare .57 .54-.61 .22 -.27 - .57
Childcare .56 .44-.65 .27 -.35 - .78
Social support .36 .25-.54 .18 -.43 - .38
Material goods .67 .49-.75 .24 -.66 - .50
Issues for children .46 .24-.66 .24 -.38 - .60

 

Note: Within participant source and advocate archival
source, n - 25. Within advocate interview source,
”relationship with assailant" and “experience of abuse"
were added to advocates' interviews midway into the project,
resulting in information being obtained from only 12
advocates for these variables.

a

Average convergent validity coefficient is the mean of the
participant-advocate interview, participant-advocate
archival, and advocate interview-advocate archival
correlations (the monotrait-heteromethod correlations),
using Fisher's r to z transformation.
b

Average discriminant function coefficient is the mean
across all variables (absolute values) within each source
(the heterotrait-monomethod correlations), using Fisher's r
to z transformation.
c

participant-advocate interview source only

90

As the table indicates, there was moderate to high
convergence between participant and advocate sources on
eleven of the thirteen scales/items (range from .46 to
1.00). However, participants and advocates exhibited lower
convergence onwhether they worked on social support (mean r
- .36) and on how many times they saw each other per week
(mean r - .31). This latter finding is not surprising given
that the item asked respondents to average how often they
saw each other over the ten-week intervention. In many of
the interventions, the number of times advocates were able
to see their project participants each week was quite
variable. This could make it difficult for both the
advocate and participant to average across the ten weeks.

Convergence between advocate archival information and
participant data was quite variable (ranging from .24 to
.75) as was convergence between advocate archival data and
advocate interview data (ranging from .28 to .74). This
finding, however, is not unexpected since the data were of
different types (archival and interview) and therefore
contained different types and magnitudes of error and bias.
As can be seen in the table, the heterotrait-monomethod
correlations were quite variable, ranging from -.66 to .78.
Only thirty of the two hundred one correlations were
significant at the .05 level, with half of these being
correlations between the effectiveness scale and the areas
of unmet need.

In addition to the information presented in the

table, evidence for discriminant validity was examined by

91

tabulating the number of heterotrait-monomethod correlations
which exceeded their relevant monotrait-heteromethod
correlations. Within the participant source heterotrait
monomethod triangle, correlations ranged from -.38 to .78,
with only seven correlations exceeding the relevant
convergent validity correlation values. Within the advocate
interview source, heterotrait monomethod correlations ranged
from -.41 to .54, with only three correlations exceeding the
corresponding convergent validity correlation values.
Within the advocate archival source, heterotrait monomethod
correlations ranged from -.43 to .60, with three exceeding
the relevant convergent validity correlation value.

It was expected that the heterotrait-heteromethod
correlations would show the highest degree of independence.
Correlations ranged from -.53 to .66, with only thirty five
of the 429 significant at the .05 level. In 27 cases (out
of a possible 396), a heterotrait heteromethod correlation
exceeded the corresponding convergent validity correlation
value.

In summary, the multitrait-multimethod matrix revealed
a moderately acceptable level of convergent validity, with
22 of the 33 correlations exceeding .50. Convergent
validity was highest between participant and advocate
interviews regarding the the woman's relationship status (r
- .98) and the level of abuse experienced (r -1.00). The
level of discriminant validity was moderately low, although

each average discriminant function coefficient was exceeded

92

by its relevant average convergent validity coefficient.
Further, most of the heterotrait correlations were exceeded
by convergent validity estimates, and only 35 of the 597

heterotrait correlations were above .40.

CHAPTER 111
RESULTS
The eeeele

Higggmy pf abuse and separations. The vast majority of

 

the sample (95.1%) had had at least one separation from
their assailants prior to their arrival at CADA. Fifteen
percent of the women had left more than 10 times in the
past. Violence against the women in the prior three months
ranged from being pushed (91.2%) to being raped (43.9%)
and/or threatened with a gun or a knife (41.5%). Injuries
sustained during this same time period ranged from cuts and
bruises (78%) to internal injuries (17.1%), burns (9.8%),
broken bones (7.3%), and pregnancy complications (4.9%).
These findings resemble results from previous studies (for
example, Dobash 6 Dobash, 1979; Pagelow, 1981b) and are
considered typical of CADA residents (Mullins, personal
communication, 1988). Table 15 lists the percentages of
subjects experiencing various degrees of abuse during the
three months prior to the study. Over half of the sample
had called the police at least once in the last three
months, and 34.1% had sought medical attention. Twenty
three of the women (56JAO reported that the violence in the
prior three months had grown more severe.

heheseheier eh eeheieiehe- The women in the control
condition were compared with the experimental group to
ensure that they were not significantly differenthat the
outset. T-tests were performed on the following ordinal

variables: age, number of children, number of children

93

94

Table 15

Percentage of Subjects Who Experienced Various Forms of
Violence and Who Sustained Various Injuries
In the Three Months Prior to the Research Study

 

1222 eh Yielehee hereeee
Had hair pulled ' 44
Had glasses broken/clothes torn 46
Was pushed, shoved, and/or grabbed 90
Was slapped with an open hand 61
Was kicked, bit, or hit with fist ' 51
Had something thrown at her 39
Was hit or almost hit with an object 37
Was choked 41
Was burned 5
Was tied up or physically restrained 27
Was forced into sexual activity, raped 44
Was threatened with a gun or knife 41
Had gun or knife used against them 0
Injuries Sustained Pgmggmp
Cuts/scrapes/bruises 78
Soreness without bruises 71
Burns (including rug burns) 10
Loose or broken teeth 2
Broken bones/fractures 7
Internal injuries ‘ l7
Strains/sprains h 20
Dislocations ‘ 5

Pregnancy complications 5

95

living with her, education level, years in relationship,
number of previous separations, number of times she was
harmed in the last three months, number of times she was
threatened in the last three months, severity of abuse
experienced, and how successful women thought they or a
friend would be (given hypothetical situations) finding a
job, finding a house, and finding cheap furniture. In
addition, chi square tests were performed on the following
non-ordinal variables: race, whether she was employed,
whether she was a student, whether she was on ADC, whether
she had access to a car, whether she had someone in her life
to do a number of favors or services for her, her
relationship status, and what areas she thought she would be
working on in the following ten weeks (housing, education,
employment, transportation, legal assistance, healthcare
issues, childcare, material goods and services, advocacy for
the children, social support, ways of getting money other
than through employment, and other). The only significant
difference found between the two groups (at the p < .05
level) was that women in the control condition were more
likely to have access to a car than were the women in the
experimental condition (56% versus 24%). No other
significant differences were found between the two groups,
providing no evidence to reject the hypothesis that the two
groups were comparable.

Resources Hess heeereee heeeihs After heexihs Eh‘e §hel£e£

 

At the pre-interview each woman was presented with 11

areas of possible unmet need and asked if she thought she

96

would want to see change in any of them in the upcoming ten
weeks. She was then asked if there was anything else she
would want to be working on (OtherL. The category most
often chosen by women (82.9%) was obtaining material goods
or services (i.e. furniture, clothing, a plumber), followed
by education and transportation (75.6% each). As can be
seen in Table 16, nine of the 12 categories were chosen by
over half of the respondents. There were no significant
differences between the experimental and control groups with
respect to what resources they reported needing.

Major Findings

 

Effectiveness 1m ngmlmimg Resources

 

 

To test the hypothesis that women in the experimental
condition would be more effective in obtaining desired
resources than women in the control condition, a t-test was
performed between the two groups with the "effectiveness"
scale as the dependent variable. This test revealed that
women who had worked with advocates reported being more
effective in reaching their goals than women in the control
condition (t(4l) - -2.58, p < .05). Standardized means for
the two groups were -0.41 for the control condition and 0.19
for the experimental group. See Table 17 for the summary
table.

To better understand why women in the experimental
group were more effective in their efforts than the women in
the control condition, the strategies that each ghoup used
to access resources were examined. The three scales

measuring the types of strategies women engaged in (Averaged

97

Table 16

Resources Women Reported Needing
After Leaving the Shelter

At the end of each pre-interview, participants were
asked the following question: "Finally I'd just like to
know, do you think in the next couple of months you'll be
working on any of the following issues?" The 12 categories
listed below were then presented to respondents.

Percentages indicate the number of "yes” responses.
Categories are ranked from the most often chosen area to the
least often chosen area.

QEEEBBEX "Yes" Responses

 

Material Goods and Services

(i.e. furniture, clothing) 82.9%
Education 75.6%
Transportation 75.6%

Finances (or ways of making
money other than employment,

such as ADC) 70.7%
Legal Assistance 65.9%
Health 63.4%
Social Support 56.1%
Employment 53.7%
Issues for Children 53.7%
Housing 48.8%
Childcare 46.3%

Other 24.4%

98

 

Table 17
T-test on Effectiveness in Obtaining Resources

(Post)

Standard Two-tail
Condition n Mean SD Error T-value Probability
Control 16 -0.405 .844 .211

-2.57 .014

Exper. 25 0.190 .669 .134

(Note: Effectiveness scale based on Z-scores;
group mean - 0)

99

Preparatory Strategies, Averaged Active Strategies, and
Averaged Total Number of Strategies) were subjected to t-
tests to examine whether differences existed between
conditions on these dimensions. Although no differences
were found at the .05 level of significance, trends were in
the expected direction, such that mean scores for each of
these scales were higher within the experimental condition
compared to the control condition. On the Averaged
Preparatory Strategies scale, women in the experimental
group obtained a mean score of .595, compared to .455 for
the control group. Similarly, on the Averaged Active
Strategies scale, the mean score for women in the
experimental group was again .595, compared to .535 for the
control group. With regard to the Averaged Total Number of
Strategies scale, the mean score for women in the
experimental group was 3.47; women in the control group
averaged 3JIL Similar t-tests were then performed with
"effective" and "ineffective" participants as the comparison
groups. Women who had an averaged "effectiveness" score of
3.0 or higher (3-somewhat effective) were compared to women
with scores below 3.0 on the same three scales. Results
were quite similar to those found between the two
experimental conditions: for each scale the "effective"
group scored higher, but none of these differences reached
significance. The group means and standard deviations for
the experimental conditions and for the .3
effective/ineffective groups across these three scales are

presented in Table 18.

100

Table 18

Group Means Indicating the Averaged Preparatory Strategies,
Averaged Active Strategies, and Averaged Total Number of
Strategies Used Post-Intervention

 

 

 

 

Preparatory Active Averaged Total
Group Strategies Strategies Strategies
7 so i so i so
Experimental .595 ' .14 .595 .25 3.47 2.02
(n-25)
Control .535 .31 .475 .27 3.10 2.12
(n-l6)
"Effective" .578 .26 .618 .19 3.79 2.33
(n-21)
”Ineffective" .501 .27 .523 .24 2.84 1.60
(n-20)
Note: None of these differences reached the .05 level of

significance when t-tests were performed

101

Pearson product moment correlations revealed that
significant relationships existed between the three
"strategy" scales and women's effectiveness levels. The
"Averaged Preparatory Strategies" scale correlated .44 with
effectiveness (p < .05), the "Averaged Active Strategies”
scale correlated .47, and the "Averaged Total Strategies”
scale correlated .86 with effectiveness. It should be
remembered here that all of the strategy scales are
intercorrelated due to the fact that the preparatory and
active strategies scales were subsets of the total
strategies scale.

Knoyledge pf ngmunity Resources

 

 

In order to assess research participants' knowledge of
available community resources, the pre, post, and followup
interviews contained three hypothetical vignettes (identical
across time) asking respondents to I) advise a friend how to
obtain a job, 2) explain what she would do were she to
decide to move, and 3) advise a friend who had little money
how to obtain furniture. As detailed in the previous
chapter, a "knowledge of resources" scale was constructed
from these variables.

A t-test was performed to assess whether experimental
and control women differed at the onset of the intervention
on their knowledge of resources. No significant differences
were found between the two conditions at time 1. A repeated
measures analysis of variance was then performed to compare
the two conditions across three time periods (pre, post, and

followup). which revealed no significant differences.

102

Confidencg in ability £9 mpgmmm mgggmmggg. It was

 

hypothesized that women who received the services of
advocates would be more confident than control women in
their abilities to access community resources, and that this
difference would persist over time. Confidence was measured
by asking respondents how successful they thought they (or
friends, where applicable) would be in obtaining the
resources mentioned in the three aforementioned hypothetical
scenarios. A repeated measures analysis of variance was
calculated to compare the groups across the three time
periods (pre, post, and followup). No significant
differences were found between the two conditions at any
point in time; most women reported feeling that they (or a
friend, where applicable) would be somewhat successful in
acquiring the hypothetical resources.

Independence From Assailants

 

 

When participants were interviewed five weeks after
leaving the shelter, 82% reported not being involved with
their assailants. None of the women were living with their
assailants; two women in the control group (13%) and five
women in the experimental condition (21%) were involved with
the men who had abused them. By the time women had been out
of the shelter ten weeks, 92.5% reported that they were not
involved with their assailants. One of the women in the
control group was living with the man who had abused her;
two of the experimental women were involved but Ah: living
with their assailants. At follow-up (when women had been

out of the shelter approximately five months) 81% of the

103

control women and 83% of the experimental women were still
not involved with the men who had battered them. A repeated
measures analysis of variance revealed no significant
differences between the experimental and control groups on
this dimension.

Qggjgg pg mgpmgm. Of the women not involved with their
assailants at time 2 (5 weeks after leaving the shelter),
59% of the respondents (50% control; 67% experimental)
reported having never seriously considered returning to the
men. Within the control condition, 21% considered it once
or twice, 7% had thought about it three or four times, and
21% considered the option at least once a week. Of the
women in the experimental condition, 22% thought of
returning to their assailants once or twice and 11%
considered it three or four times. None of the experimental
group women reported considering returning more often than
this. By time 3 (10 weeks after leaving the shelter), 57%
of the respondents not with their assailants (60% control;
55% experimental) reported having never seriously considered
returning to the men. Within the control group, 20% thought
of returning once or twice and 20% considered the option
once or twice a week. Of the experimental women, 27%
considered returning to their assailants once or twice, 5%
thought about it three or four times, and 14% considered it
once or twice a week. 1

At followup (approximately five months after exiting

the shelter), 81% of the control group women and 83% of the

104

experimental group women reported that they were not in
relationships with the men who had battered them. Seventy
five percent of the respondents not involved with their
assailants (69% control; 79% experimental) had never
considered the idea of returning in the previous ten weeks.
Of the women in the control condition, 15% had considered
returning once or twice, and 8% had considered this option
once or twice a week. An additional 8% reported thinking
about returning more than four times a week. Within the
experimental group, 16% considered returning to their
assailants once or twice, and 5% thought about it three or
four times. A repeated measures analysis of variance
revealed that there were no differences between the two
conditions with regard to how often women considered
reuniting with their batterers. The responses were then
dichotomized in order to compare women who never considered
returning with women who had considered it at least once.
Again no significant differences were found between the two
conditions. See Table 19 for a breakdown of how often women
considered returning to their assailants at 5-weeks, post
and followup.

Incidence of Further Abuse

 

 

 

 

Of the seven women who had returned to their assailants
within five weeks after leaving the shelter (2 control, 5
experimental), none reported experiencing further abuse. Of
the three women (1 control, 2 experimental) involved with
their batterers at time 3 (post-intervention), again none

reported experiencing further abuse. Three women from the

105

Table 19

How Often Women Reported Seriously Considering Returning
To Their Assailants at Post and Followup

(n - women not currently involved with their assailants)

 

3252222
Number of Within First Within First Within Second
Times 5 Weeks 10 Weeks 10 Weeks
Considered
Returning
E C E C E C
(n-18) (n-14) (n-22) (n-lS) (n-20) (n-13)
Never 67 50 55 60 79 69
Once or
Twice 22 21 27 20 16 15
3 or 4 Times 11 7 5 0 O 0
Once or Twice
a Week 0 14 14 20 5 8
3 or 4 Times
a Week 0 0 O O O 0
More than 4
Times a
Week 0 7 0 0 0 8

 

E - Experimental (total n - 25)

C - Control (totaltl- 16)

(Note: the woman in the experimental condition whose
assailant was her father was not included in this

analysis)

106

experimental condition and one woman from the control group,
however, who were not involved with their batterers, had
been assaulted by them within 10 weeks after leaving CADA.
The violence experienced ranged from being pushed to being
threatened with a weapon, and injuries included soreness,
bruises, and cuts. One woman reported having a bleeding
ulcer as a result of the abuse. Only one of the women did
not call the police; one woman called once, one woman called
five times, and one woman called the police 22 times in the
10 weeks following her stay at CADA.

Six women (3 control, 3 experimental) reported having
experienced further abuse within the 10 weeks between the
post and followup interviews. None of these women were
involved with their assailants at the time of the followup
interview; however, it is unclear how many had been involved
with the batterers at the time of the assault. The
interview asked only if the respondent was currently in a
relationship with the batterer, neglecting to ascertain
relationship status at the time of the violent episode.

£52222 9.: £112 Xiglssss as igllszgn- 0f the six women
reporting abuse at followup, all had been pushed, and four
had been slapped, punched and/or kicked. Half of the women
had been choked and/or had their clothing torn. Two had
been physically restrained and two had experienced forced
sexual activity; One woman was threatened with a knife.
Five of the women suffered cuts and/or bruises, ahd 50%
experienced soreness without bruises. Two suffered internal

injuries, and one woman had a bone broken in the attack.

107

The six women who had been battered were asked to
compare the severity of the violence to the abuse
experienced throughout their relationship. They were
presented with a 5-point Likert-type scale asking whether
the current abuse was 1) much less severe, 2) less severe,
3) about the same, 4) more severe, or 5) much more severe.
Groups means were 1.8 for the control group and 1.3 for the
experimental; this difference was not significant at the p <
.05 level.

assay 2: flaior Findings

 

The major hypotheses of this study involved the effects
of an advocacy intervention on a battered woman/s l) ability
to obtain desired resources; 2) knowledge of community
resources; 3) confidence in her ability to obtain resources;
4) ability to remain free of her assailant; and 5) incidence
of further abuse. Results indicated that, while working
with an advocate did not affect her knowledge of resources
or her confidence in her ability to obtain resources, it had
a positive impact on a womanfs perceived effectiveness in
obtaining desired resources.

The majority of women in both conditions were
successful in remaining free of their assailants, and none
of the women who returned to their batterers suffered

further incidence of abuse.

The Intervention Process l

 

A primary goal of this research, in addition to

assessing the impact of an advocacy project on women leaving

108

abusive partners, was to examine the process involved in the
intervention itself. The program was intentionally designed
to emphasize an individualized approach with each project
participant; each advocacy intervention necessarily differed
in content based on individual womenfs needs and
preferences. Therefore, it was important to examine the
commonalities and differences among the 25 interventions as
a means of exploring how often women met with their
advocates, how much time they spent together throughout the
ten weeks, what areas they worked on, and what specifically
they did during their time together. It was hoped that
there would be a sufficient number of research participants
to make comparisons between interventions based on success
in obtaining resources and/or success in remaining free of
assailants. Unfortunately, due to the small number of women
in the experimental condition and the fact that returning to
assailants was a rare event, such analyses were precluded.
Therefore the following sections are meant to describe the
interventions in general, exploring specifically the extent
of time participants and advocates spent together, what they
worked on and what strategies they used, and participants'
satisfaction with the program.

522325 2: $235393. Both advocates and women in the
experimental condition were asked during their post
interviews how many hours they had spent together on average
per week. They were given a 6-point scale ranging from
l-less than one hour to 6-more than eight hours a week.

According to the women in the experimental condition, five

109

or six hours were spent together on average each week (range
- "one or two" to "more than eight”,—X - 3.88, SD - 1.54).
Advocates estimated a slightly lower number (k - 3.48:
"three or four hours a week”, SD - .99). Participants
generally saw their advocates twice a week, and spent an
additional two hours per week on the phone with them.

The ”amount of contacts" scale consisted of the number
of hours women saw their advocates weekly, how often they
met, and how often they spoke on the phone. This scale did
not correlate with how effective their efforts were in
obtaining resources (r - .13), but did correlate with the
"intensity of intervention" scale derived from advocates'
weekly progress reports and measuring the amount/types of
effort they put into the intervention (r - .47, p < .05).

Advocacy intervention activities. Program termination

 

 

interviews contained a number of items addressing what
specific activities women and their advocates engaged in to
obtain each desired resource.

Women also reported in their termination interviews how
much time they and their advocates spent trying to obtain
each desired resource. The least amount of time was spent
on transportation (i - 3; range - l to 6 hours), while
the most time-consuming area was material goods (3 - 12;
range - 2 to 50 hours). The average total number of hours
spent working in each area was 10, with amount of time spent
ranging from half an hour to 70 hours. 3

Advocates' weekly progress reports were designed to

collect more specific information regarding intervention

110

activities. Advocates indicated on these forms how many
times each week they I) gathered written materials for their
clients, 2) called a potential resource provider on the
telephone, 3) contacted a potential resource provider in
person, and 4) taught their client a new skill. Data from
these reports revealed that advocates called resource
providers an average of 20 times throughout their
interventions (range - 4 to 63), and that they provided
their clients with written information an average of 18
times (range - 2 to 38). Advocates were less likely to
contact resource providers in person, averaging six times
throughout their ten week interventions (range - 0 to 20),
and they reported teaching their clients an average of eight
new skills (range - 2 to 19). The intensity of the
intervention (as measured by the Intensity scale) did not
correlate with how effective participants were in their
efforts to obtain resources (r - .04).

Weekly progress reports also indicated which specific
areas advocates worked in each week (i.e. housing,
employment, childcare). In order to assess whether certain
areas were more likely to be addressed during the first or
second half of the interventions, paired-samples t-tests
were performed on each of the nine areas. The one
significant finding was that advocates were more likely to
have reported working on obtaining material goods and
services during the first half of their interventions
(i - 2.39, SD - 1.56) compared to the second (-X - 1.65, SD -=

IL58). This makes sense, given that many women needed to

111

furnish their new homes immediately after leaving the

shelter.

 

 

Satisfaction With Program

Women in the experimental condition were asked a number
of questions during their post-interviews which were
designed to assess how satisfied participants were with the
program overall. For each area that she chose to work on
with her advocate, a respondent was asked how satisfied she
was with what the advocate had done with and for her in that
area (Likert-type scale ranging from 1 to 4: l-very
dissatisfied, 2-somewhat dissatisfied, 3-somewhat satisfied,
4-very satisfied). Women were also asked how satisfied they
were with the program in general, how satisfied they were
with the advocate in general, and how helpful they thought
the program had been in helping them remain free of abuse.
An overall satisfaction score was obtained for each woman by
calculating the mean of her satisfaction across all areas in
‘which she worked. No womanfs averaged score went below a 3
(somewhat satisfied), and 64% of the women/s averaged scores
were 3.75 or higher. Eighty percent of the women reported
being "very satisfied" with both the program and with the
advocate in general. No woman reported being less than
somewhat satisfied. In response to how helpful they thought
the program had been in helping them remain free of abuse,
64% of the women found it to have been very helpful and 32%
answered that it had been somewhat helpful. Onlylone woman
said it had not been helpful at all in helping her remain

free of abuse.

112

Women's "satisfaction" scale scores did not
significantly correlate with their knowledge of resources
post-intervention (r - .32), nor with the "intensity" of the
intervention (r - -.24); however, satisfaction with the
project did significantly correlate with how effective women
perceived themselves to have been in obtaining desired
resources (r-.44, p (.05).

angrgl Women's Post-Shgl£g£ Activities

 

Women in the control condition were also asked in their
lO-week interviews about specific activities they engaged in
to obtain desired resources.

The most time-consuming area of unmet need for control
women appeared to be trying to obtain housing (2 - 18; range
- l to 40 hours). The least amount of time was spent on
healthcare issues (It - 4; range - 1 to 15 hours). The
average total number of hours spent working in each area was
9, with a range from 0 to 60. The amount of time control
women spent working on each need was not significantly
different from the experimental women.

Overall Life Satisfaction

 

 

All respondents were asked one general Quality of Life
item to assess the program's impact on a womanfs feelings
about her life in general. Women were asked during their
second, third, and fourth interviews "How do you feel about
your life in general?" and were given a 7-point scale from
which to choose a response (l-extremely pleased, 2-pleased,
3-mostly satisfied, 4-equally satisfied and dissatisfied,

S-mostly dissatisfied, 6-unhappy, 7-terrible). A repeated

 

 

 

mea
exi
the
won
the
the
wee
sat
(st
id:
inc
No
20
an

an

Co
Dr
Th
re
re

”0

113

measures analysis of variance revealed that a time effect
existed across the three assessment periods. The means for
the two conditions at 5-weeks were 3.79 for the experimental
women and 4.19 for the control, indicating that on average
they felt mixed (equally satisfied and dissatisfied) about
their lives. By the time they were out of the shelter 10
weeks, the experimental womenfs mean score was 2.96 ("mostly
satisfied") and the control women's mean score was 3.75
(still "mixed"). At followup the groups had almost
identical mean scores (3.17 experimental, 3.25 control),
indicating they were generally satisfied with their lives.
No interaction or treatment effects were found. See Table
20 for the group means across the three assessment periods,
and Table 21 for the results of the repeated measures
analysis of variance.

Summary of Additional Findings

 

Program participants indicated high levels of
satisfaction with both the project and the advocates. The
vast majority also responded that they felt the program had
been at least somewhat helpful in helping them remain free
of abuse.

No differences were found between experimental and
control women regarding how often they engaged in
preparatory and/or active strategies to obtain resources.
There was also no difference between the two groups with
regard to how much time they spent trying to obtain
resources. However, as mentioned in the previous section,

women in the experimental condition reported being more

114

Table 20

Groups Means Indicating Women's General Life Satisfaction
Across the Twenty Weeks After Leaving the Shelter

 

Condition §;ngk§ lO-Weeks 20-Weeks

Experimental 3.79 2.96 3.17
(n-25)

Control 4.19 3.75 3.25
(n-16)

Entire Sample 3.95 3.28 3.20
(n-41)

- extremely pleased

- pleased

- mostly satisfied

mixed (equally satisfied and dissatisfied)
- mostly dissatisfied

- unhappy

- terrible

\IO‘U'IJ-‘UNH
I

Table 21

Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Summary Table
Comparing General Life Satisfaction Between Groups Across Time

 

df MS F Sig of F
Condition 1 5.17 1.49 .230
Error 38 3.48
Time 2 6.63 7.80 .001
Condition x Time 2 1.21 1.42 .247
Error 76 .85

 

Note: summary based on averaged tests of significance,
analogous to the multivariate analysis of variance

115

effective in obtaining needed resources. This suggested
that advocacy services increased the probability of
effectiveness; however, the investigator was unable to
ascertain what exactly about working with an advocate caused
this difference. Experimental women also indicated feeling
more satisfied with their lives compared to control women
post-intervention, although this finding did not persist
over time. These findings will receive further elaboration

in the following chapter.

 

 

 

anal
sect
vari
proc
and

sect
this

r856

Vhi
nee
198
the
Par
are
edU
he-
suI
to

(Ehj

139,

8r.

CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION
This chapter presents more elaborate discussion of the

analyses presented in the previous chapter. The first
section focuses on the major findings relevant to outcome
variables, and the second addresses findings related to
process variables. Methodological issues such as internal
and external validity of results are dealt with in the third
section. The final section discusses the implications of
this research as well as possible directions of further
research.

Major Findings

 

Eassszsé 2226

229 Egaasaitx Esseszsss

Findings of this study corroborated earlier research
which suggested that battered women often lack resources
needed to live independently of their assailants (Hofeller,
1982; Labell, 1979; Okun, 1986; Strube & Barbour, 1983). At
the time they left the shelter, over half of the study
participants indicated a desire to improve the following
areas of their lives: material goods and services,
education, transportation, finances, legal assistance,
healthcare, social support, employment, and issues
surrounding their children. A sizable minority also wanted
to work in the areas of finding housing (49%) and finding
childcare (46%L

One of the study's major hypotheses had been‘that
receiving the services of an advocate would result in

greater effectiveness in obtaining desired resources. The

116

117

research bore out that, while there were no differences
between the two groups post-intervention regarding women's
knowledge of community resources or women/s confidence in
their abilities to obtain resources, working with an
advocate did result in women being more effective in
obtaining needed resources. While there were no significant
differences between the experimental and control women
regarding amount of time they spent working on obtaining
resources or on types of strategies used, women who worked
with advocates indicated being more effective in their
efforts compared to women who did not receive advocacy
services. One plausible explanation for this finding is
that advocates were effective in making the community more
responsive to battered women's needs. A number of
researchers (for example, Donato & Bowker, 1984; Hofeller,
1982; Kuhl, 1982) have argued that women often know what
resources are available in their communities and that they
make numerous efforts to access said resources. However,
these efforts are often futile because the community
provider (i.e. potential employer, lawyer) is unhelpful or
uncooperative. Because of this, the Community Advocacy
Project was focused, not on changing the battered women, but
on changing the community to make it more adequately address
the legitimate needs of battered women. To this end,
student advocates were trained in a variety of strategies to
make community resource providers more responsivefi and to
ensure that their clients' rights were being upheld. It

would make sense, therefore, that while there were no

118

differences between the conditions with regard to knowledge
of resources, time spent trying to obtain resources, and
confidence in one's ability to access resources, women with
advocates reported being more effective in their efforts.
Unfortunately, the instruments used in this research did not
sufficiently measure the strength and integrity of the
advocacy interventions, which would have led to a clearer
understanding of exactly what about working with an advocate
led to this increase in effectiveness. Instruments also
were not designed to fully measure effectiveness
objectively; rather, outcome data was based on self-report
information. The objective variables which were measured at
post and followup--1evel of employment, whether participants
were in school, whether they were receiving governmental
assistance, and where they were living--revea1ed no
significant differences between groups. In other words,
while women in the experimental condition reported being
more effective in their efforts, there was no objective
evidence of this as measured by the interviews. This leads
one to consider an alternative explanation for this
finding--name1y, that women in the experimental condition

perceived themselves to be more effective simply because

 

they worked with advocates and therefore felt more invested
in being effective. Women with advocates also may have
reported being more effective out of a sense of gratitude to
the project for helping them free of charge. Thelpotential
for this was minimized by training interviewers to stress

their independence from the project; however, the

 

 

 

af

re

as

to

ex

th

8X

th

ra

St

81'

t1

0!

119

possibility remains that gratitude may have influenced
womenfs responses. Again, more refined instruments would be
beneficial in accurately measuring womenfs effectiveness in
obtaining desired resources.

Independence From Assailants

 

 

When research participants were interviewed five weeks
after their exit from the shelter, 83% of the total sample
reported that they were still not involved with their
assailants (79% experimental; 87% control). This number
rose to 93% at the ten-week assessment period (92%
experimental; 94% control), and returned to 83% by the time
the women had been out of the shelter five months (83%
experimental; 81% control). The number of women not with
their assailants post-intervention (93%) was higher than the
rate found by Snyder and Scheer's (1981) followup shelter
study. Snyder and Scheer found that 40% of the women who
had intended to leave their assailants were living with them
six to ten weeks after their shelter stay. This is a
tremendous discrepancy from the current study, in which only
one woman (3%) was living with her assailant within the
first ten weeks of leaving the shelter.

The fact that numerous researchers have found a high
incidence of battered women repeatedly leaving and returning
to their assailants (Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Gayford, 1978;
Gelles, 1979; Hofeller, 1982) coupled with the fact that 95%
of the current sample had returned to their assailants
before suggests that five months may be an insufficient

period of time to conclude whether a woman will remain

 

 

 

 

IH

120

independent of her assailant permanently. Regardless of
whether the women in this study will ultimately return to or
remain free from their abusive partners, it is encouraging
that 83% of the women who wanted independence from their
assailants had obtained their goal at the five-month
assessment period.

Incidence of Further Abuse

 

 

It is interesting that, within the first 10 weeks of
having left the shelter, while none of the women who had
returned to their assailants reported experiencing further
abuse, four women who were not involved with their
assailants (three experimental, one control) were assaulted
by them. This supports the argument that many batterers act
on their best behavior when women first return to them and
that battering sometimes escalates when women try to escape
(Walker, 1983).

Six women (three experimental, three control) reported
having experienced further abuse within the 10 weeks between
the post and followup interviews. While none of the women
were involved with their assailants at the time the
interviews were conducted, the instrument neglected to
ascertain relationship status at the time of the violent
episode. Therefore it is unknown if these women's
experiences lend support to or deviate from the_
aforementioned theories.

As mentioned in the preceding chapter, the small sample
size precluded a more thorough analysis of the frequency and

severity of abuse experienced by battered women attempting

 

 

 

’h‘!

t?

r:
U

V]

at

St

th

de

121

to escape their assailants. Ten percent of the sample were
assaulted within the first 10 weeks after leaving CADA.
Fifteen percent were abused within the second 10 weeks.
This is a significant proportion of women continuing to be
assaulted by the men with whom they have been involved.
Perhaps a larger sample size would have enabled the
investigator to ascertain whether differences existed
between conditions with regard to frequency and severity,
and whether differences existed pre and post interventions
on either or both of these dimensions.

Additional Eiaéinss

 

The Intervention Process

As mentioned in the previous chapter, a major goal of
this research was to examine the commonalities and
differences among the twenty five interventions as a means
of deducing treatment strength and integrity. The small
number of women in the experimental condition and the fact
that returning to assailants was a rare event precluded
making comparisons based on being successful in remaining
free of abuse and/or being successful in obtaining
resources. However, a great deal of information was
collected from interviews and advocates' progress reports
which was used to describe the interventions in detail.
Data pertained to the extent of time participants and
advocates spent together, what they worked on and what
strategies they used, and participants' satisfaction with
the program. This information is useful not only in

(describing the range of interventions offered and what the

122

typical intervention looked like, but to aid in the design
and modifications of future interventions.

According to the interview data obtained from research
participants, women saw their advocates twice a week on
average, and spent an additional two hours per week on the
phone with them. The ”amount of contacts" scale, derived
from participants' interviews and consisting of items
pertaining to amount and duration of weekly contacts with
advocates, correlated moderately (r - .47, p < .05) with the
"intensity of intervention" scale derived from advocates'
weekly written progress reports and measuring the types and
amount of effort they put into the interventions. This
correlation suggests that advocates who spent a greater
amount of time with their clients also engaged in more
intensive efforts to meet their clients' needs.

Not surprisingly, the most time-consuming area in which
women and their advocates worked was in the legal system (i
- 13 hours), followed closely by trying to obtain material
goods and services (3 - 12 hours). The average total
number of hours spent working in each area was 10, and the
mean number of areas in which women worked was five. On
average, then, women and their advocates spent approximately
fifty hours over the course of their ten-week interventions
trying to obtain needed resources.

Advocates' weekly progress reports were designed to
collect more specific information regarding intervention
‘activities. According to these reports, the most common

zactivities for advocates to engage in were obtaining written

123

materials (X - 18 times) and calling resource providers on
the telephone (i - 20 times). These activities were
considered to be preparatory in nature, being generally
insufficient by themselves in obtaining a needed resource.
The more active strategies advocates could have engaged in--
contacting resource providers in person and teaching their
clients new skills-~were engaged in much less frequently
(i - 6 and 8 total times, respectively). This suggests to
the investigator that training could benefit by focusing
more heavily on encouraging the use of these more active
strategies throughout interventions.

Satisfaction With Program

 

 

Overall, women in the experimental condition reported
being very satisfied with the program in general and with
the efforts of their advocates. Eighty percent of the
women, for example, reported being "very satisfied" with
both the program and their advocates; no woman indicated
being less than ”somewhat satisfiedfl This corresponds to
the verbal feedback the two co-directors received from a
number of the project participants. Most indicated that the
project had been helpful to them, and had no suggestions for
how it could be improved. Two women did suggest, however,
that the advocates be better trained in the local Family
Court system as well as more knowledgable about availability
of resources. Sixty four percent of the women in the
experimental condition reported that they thoughtlthe
project had been "very helpful" in helping them remain free

of abuse; 32% responded that it had been "somewhat helpfulfl

124

One woman, who had been attacked by her assailant, indicated
that the project had not been helpful to her at all in
remaining free of abuse.

While women/s "satisfaction" scale scores did not
significantly correlate with their knowledge of resources
post-intervention or with the ”intensity” of the
intervention they received, a significant correlation was
found between womenfs level of satisfaction and their
effectiveness in obtaining needed resources (r - .44, p <
.05). This indicates that, while all of the women who
participated in the advocacy component of the project were
satisfied with their advocates and with the program, the
more effective women perceived themselves to be in obtaining
resources the more satisfied they reported they were with
the project in general. These findings suggest not only
that a project such as this is seen as helpful by women
leaving a battered womenfls shelter, but that women relate
their satisfaction to how effective they perceived
themselves to have been in reaching their goals.

922E211 Life Satisfaction

 

Both the women in the experimental condition and the
women in the control condition went from feeling "equally
satisfied and dissatisfied" about their lives to feeling
"mostly satisfied" over the course of the twenty week
assessment period. Although a repeated measures analysis of
variance revealed no significant interaction or treatment
effects for overall life satisfaction, a trend existed in

the group means indicating the possibility that this process

125

was accelerated for women in the experimental condition.
Women in the experimental group felt "mostly satisfied" on
average by the time they were out of the shelter ten weeks.
This was not true for women in the control condition until
the twenty-week assessment point. A larger sample size and
a more expansive measure of life satisfaction would be
necessary to examine whether this trend is indicative of an
actual group difference or simply due to chance.

Methodological Issues

 

Internal Validity of Rggglgg

 

In order to assess whether significant group
differences were due to the presence of the intervention, a
number of threats to internal validity were examined. The
research study randomly assigned women to either the
experimental or the control condition, which controlled for
most such threats (such as selection, lack of group
equivalence, testing, maturation, and regression effects).
As explained more thoroughly in Chapter II, the groups were
compared at pre-intervention to verify their equivalence.
Only one between-condition effect was found at the p < .05
level of significance--women in the control condition were
more likely to have regular access to cars. Since no other
pre-existing differences were found, and since the one
difference favored the control condition, it was determined
that the two groups were sufficiently comparable.

A potential threat to internal validity which was not
controlled for by the experimental design was that of

interviewer bias. Due to the nature of the intervention

126

questions, it was not feasible to use blind interviewers for
this research study. However, the potential for such bias
was minimized by a number of strategies. First,
interviewers were selected for their interest in conducting
field research. Part of their training, therefore, included
learning about the importance of conducting research in as
unbiased a manner as possible. It was repeatedly stressed
to students that the current study was interested in
uncovering truth, not proving a point. The investigator was
satisfied that by the end of training, interviewers
understood the importance of this. A second way that
interviewer bias was minimized was by using closed-ended
response categories to the majority of interview items.
This greatly reduced the extent to which interviewers needed
to interpret answers, and thus reduced the potential for
bias. Interviewers were instructed to code all open-ended
responses verbatim. Also, all interviews were recorded and
listened to by another interviewer for accuracy. These
safeguards led the investigator to believe that interviewer
bias did not pose a significant threat the internal validity
of this research.
Eatssasl Xaliéitx a: Essslss

There is evidence that this research project's findings
could be generalizable to many other battered women's
shelter populations. The demographic characteristics of the
subject pool closely resembled other shelter populations
found in research studies with respect to age range, income,

race, education, employment status, and number of children

127

(for example, Hilbert & Hilbert, 1984; Okun, 1986; Pagelow,
1981). They were also similar to other populations of
battered women with regard to how many prior separations
they had experienced from their assailants (for example,
Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Gelles, 1979; Hofeller, 1982). Very
importantly, the women in this sample reported needing a
number of resources after leaving the shelter, including
employment and other ways of bringing in money (such as
governmental assistance), which was a basic premise of this
research and which corroborates other studies which found
lack of adequate finances to contribute to a woman's
remaining with or returning to an abusive partner (Aguirre,
1985; Carlson, 1977; Hofeller, 1982; Labell, 1979; Okun,
1986; Strube & Barbour, 1983).

The potential for instrumentation bias was assessed
through the use of the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Convergent validity between participant and advocate
interviews ranged from moderately low (r - .31 for how often
women and advocates saw one another per week) to perfect (r
- 1.00 for how often the woman was harmed). .As detailed
more fully in the previous chapter, convergent validity was
generally acceptable and most of the heterotrait
correlations were exceeded by convergent validity estimates,
as would be expected. Convergence between different types
of data sources (interview and archival) was not generally
as high as degree of agreement across the same daka source
(interviews). This is also not unexpected since data of

(differing types contain different types and magnitudes of

128

error and bias. Discriminant validity was also found to be
acceptable; only 35 of the 597 heterotrait correlations
exceeded.40.

Although the degree of convergent and discriminant
validity revealed by the multitrait-multimethod matrix was
acceptable, confidence in the research findings would have
been increased by employing a number of standardized
measures known to have high internal consistency and
reliability. The use of such measures could be very
beneficial should this project ever be replicated.

It is not within the scope of this research to make any
generalizations about battered women as a whole. This
project was designed for women leaving a battered women’s
shelter; it is not known how battered women who utilize an
emergency shelter differ from battered women who do not.
However, it would appear that this type of program--
providing free advocacy services to women after they have
left a battered womenfs shelter--could be beneficial in most
areas where resources such as low-income housing, unskilled
employment, affordable education, affordable and accessible
childcare, and affordable attorneys are scarce. On the
practical side, this project relied very heavily on the use
of undergraduate college students who earned credit for
their participation. It would be difficult to find
volunteers who would have the time and energy to devote to
such an intensive intervention, suggesting that this type of
project could be most feasibly run out of a city or town

with a college or university. Another reason why a city

129

might be more feasible for a project such as this is that
many rural communities may simply not have enough of the
resources available that battered women need to escape their
assailants.

Despite its limitations, this study provided
preliminary support for offering advocacy services to women
exiting a domestic violence shelter. In addition, the
longitudinal nature of the study provided important
information about the process involved for battered women
trying to build lives independent of their assailants. It
is hoped that subsequent research can build upon this
foundation to better understand and meet the needs of women
leaving abusive partners.

Directions for Further Research

 

The current study was an important step in better
understanding the process involved for women leaving abusive
partners. It was built on an empowerment model, designed on
the premise that battered women are not victims but are
survivors; designed on the premise that women who have been
assaulted by their partners know what they need to escape
the situation and simply need assistance in accessing what
they are entitled to from society. The study demonstrated
that providing battered women with trained advocates is
potentially feasible and inexpensive. Further, it
demonstrated that it is possible to follow battered women
after they leave an emergency shelter, if a thorohgh and
concerted effort is made to do so. However, time and

resource constraints limited the breadth of this research.

130

An additional wealth of information could be obtained if
future research were to replicate this study, using a larger
sample size, measuring a broader range of variables, and
extending the research past the first five months post-
shelter.

Latest £22212

A larger sample size would greatly enhance the
contribution this type of research could make to the field
of domestic violence in a number of ways. First, increased
sample size would, at least up to a point, enhance the power
of the statistical tests. With the current N of 41,
treatment effects would have had to be very large to even be
detected.

Increased sample size would also enable investigators
to make comparisons within and between conditions.
Comparisons could be made, for example, between mothers and
non-mothers, or women who had left their assailants before
with women who had not. These types of comparisons could
lead to a further refinement of the intervention based on
specific needs of specific types of women, and would
increase generalizability of the findings.

flare Extensive Esasgseasnt

 

Future research could also greatly benefit by measuring
a broader range of variables with a wider variety of
measurement tools. A number of instruments have been used
successfully with battered women, which measure divariety of
constructs such as degree of social support, degree of

internal/external locus of control, level of depression,

131

coping strategies, and level of abuse experienced. These
constructs have been mentioned in numerous studies as being
important variables to measure when addressing the issue of
woman battering.

Further, the instruments used in the current research
need to be refined to gather more specific intervention
activity data. The present instruments relied on women's
perceptions of their effectiveness and were not sensitive
enough to measure effectiveness in obtaining resources
objectively. They were also unable to explain what exactly
about working with advocates led women in the experimental
condition to perceive themselves as more effective than
women in the control group.

Izainias 2i Advocates

 

While the current study found that all women in the
experimental condition were somewhat or very satisfied with
their advocates, there are a number of areas where
improvement could be made in the training of students.
First, it was found that advocates were more likely to
engage in preparatory strategies as opposed to active
strategies throughout their interventions. Training of
advocates could in the future include a stronger emphasis on
the importance of utilizing active strategies to obtain
resources.

Experiences training student advocates also lead the
investigator to conclude that meeting with students twice a
week would be potentially more effective than meeting only

Once a week. It is further believed that students need a

132

stronger background in the local family court system as well
as the local Department of Social Services welfare office in
order to be more effective change agents. Finally, it was
the opinion of most of the participants and the advocates
that the optimal amount of time to meet per week would be
four to six hours as opposed to six to eight hours. It is
recommended that, should this project be replicated, these
changes be instituted into the training structure.
§BEE§EX

In conclusion, there are many possibilities for the
directions of future research in the area of domestic
violence. The current research lent support to the
argument that women leaving battered‘womenksshelter are
often in need of a variety of services if they are to be
successful in living on their own. It also demonstrated
that women perceive working with advocates to be at least
somewhat effective in helping them remain free of abuse and
in accessing desired resources. It is important, however,
that future research build upon the findings of this study.
The findings of the current study suggest that a
longitudinal study, following women for a longer period of
time and employing a multitude of measurements, would be an
invaluable addition to the current body of research

available in this area.

APPENDICES

133

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

 

 

 

 

COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIE\CE EAST L.&\‘SI\G ' HICHIGAA - 48624
Appendix A
Administrative Agreement
between The Community Advocacy Project
and The Council Against Domestic Assault

The Community Adfocacy Project directors acree to:

l. assume full responsibili y for the design, implementation,
analysis, and publication of this research study.

2. follow tniversity proceceres for insuring the conflcent-ality
of information from participants in ttis study.

3. follow University procedures for insuring the arc.yn1ty
of participants in this study.

4. make available to CADA tne results of this research when the
project is completed.

The Council Against T"cameo:- ic Assault director agrees o:

1. refer residents to The Commua.ty fdvocacy Project during
house meetings by briefly explaining the program and allowing
women to make appointments with the project directors.

2. provide the CAP directors with a room two afternoons a week,
for the duratic. of this study, in which to exclain the
project to “otential participarts.

6"“! f; .
L /
William 8. Davidson II, Ph.D. Mary Su livan, Directo
The Connmnity Advocacy Project The Community Advocacy Project

134

Appendix B: Recruitment Letter

COURSE ANNOUNCEMENT
Dear Student:

‘We would like to inform you about a new course being offered
this year which will give you hands-on community experience.
This is a three-term course sequence (winter, spring, and
summer terms) through which students will provide services
to women leaving the local battered women’s shelter. The
sequence will be offered under Psychology 371, 372, and 373
(Community Projects), Section 2, for 4 credits each term and
is entitled The Community Advocacy Project. Four of these
12 credits can be used toward completing the Women's Studies
Thematic.

During the winter term students will receive extensive
instruction in how to access community resources (such as
employment, housing, legal assistance, childcare services,
and healthcare). Following training, students will work
one-on-one with a woman, helping her obtain resources
necessary to live independently. This course content is a
unique combination of theoretical information, practical
intervention techniques and actual community experience. It
is an invaluable experience for anyone considering graduate
school and/or a career in the human service field.

If you would like to receive further information and
instructions concerning how to get involved in this course
sequence, please contact Mary Sullivan at 372-9481 or Karin
Uhlich at 482-3899. You could also try our office (353-8867)
and leave a message if we are not in: we will get back with
you immediately; NOTE: this is an "enrollment controlled"
class and no one is allowed to register for it without prior
approval. We still have openings for students so feel free
to call us over break and during registration week (if we
still have room, you may add this during drops and adds).

Sincerely,

Mary Sullivan, Co-Director
The Community Advocacy Project

Karin Uhlich, Co-Director
The Community Advocacy Project

135

Appendix C

STUDENT AGREEMENT
MSU COMMUNITY ADVOCACY PROJECT

PSY 490: EXPERIMENTAL INTERVIEWERS
1986

I am interested in interviewing for the MSU Community
Advocacy Project.

If I am selected to be an interviewer for this project, this
agreement signifies my commitment to completing three
consecutive terms of involvement.

1. I fully understand that all of the information
concerning the‘woman whom I will be interviewing is to be
held in the strictest confidence.

2. I agree to be involved in the course and field work
during all three terms, including registration and finals
week.

3. Grading for this course will be based on my
demonstration of responsibility in class and in field work,
mastery of interviewing material, class attendance, and
following ethical standards. My grades will be held until
the end of my involvement with this project.

4. I understand that project staff reserves the right to
deny my further involvement with the project after training
if I have not met the standards outlined above.

5. If I elect to transport an individual in my personal
motor vehicle while working on behalf of this project, I
have been informed to look to my own insurance to cover any
liabilities if an accident/injury were to occur.

 

 

Student Professor Wm. S. Davidson II

 

 

Date Project Director

136

Appendix D
MSU COMMUNITY ADVOCACY PROJECT

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

1. Name

 

2. Address

 

3. City

 

4. Phone

 

5. If you were to move or otherwise be difficult to reach,
who would be most likely to know how we could contact you?

a. Name

 

Address

 

City State

 

Phone

 

b. Name

 

Address

 

City State

 

 

6. When are the best times to contact you?

Weekdays

 

Weekends

 

7. Are there times that are unsafe for us to contact you?

 

IF WE WERE TO BE UNABLE TO CONTACT YOU FOR THE NEXT
INTERVIEW, COULD WE CONTACT THE ABOVEMENTIONED PEOPLE OR
CADA TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU ARE?

YES NO

 

Participant’s signature

 

137

Interviewer ID#

 

Respondent ID#

 

Time Interview Started:
First, 17d like to ask you some general questions so that we
get an idea of what type of women are interested in this
program.

1. Race: (ASK ONLY IF UNCLEAR)

BLACK............. .......... 1
WHITE................ ....... 2
HISPANIC/CHICANA...... ...... 3
ASIAN-PACIFIC............... 4
OTHER ( ).... 5

 

2. How old are you?

 

3. How many children do you have?

 

4. How many children are currently living with you?

4a. What are their ages? (INDICATE NUMBER IN EACH AGE
RANGE)

UNDER FIVE YEARS OLD
5 TO 12 YEARS OLD
13 TO 18 YEARS OLD

OVER 18 YEARS OLD

 

5. Within the last 3 months, have you been employed?
YES. 0 O O O O O O O O O 00000000000000 1
No. 0 O O O O O O O O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 2

5a. What type of work do/did you do?

CLERICAL.................... 1
DOMESTIC/CHILDCARE.......... 2
SALES/WAITRESS.............. 3
MANAGERIAL............ ...... 4
FACTORY..................... 5
HUMAN SERVICES .............. 6

OTHER ( )- 7

138
5b. Do/did you work part-time, full-time, or
sporadically Off and on, temporary)?
PART-TIME.......... .........
FULL-TIME...................
SPORADICALLY.......... ......

(NOT EMPIDYED)OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Are you a student?

YES.................... .....

NO..........................
6a. Part-time or full-time?

PART-TIME............. ......

FULL-TIME...................

(NOT A STUDENT).............

Are you receiving any governmental assistance? (food
stamps, General Assistance, ADC, etc.)

YES.................... .....
NO............ ..............
What's your educational level?
LESS THAN HIGH SCHOOL. ......
HIGH SCHOOL GRAD./GED. ......
SOME COLLEGE....... .........
COLLEGE GRADUATE..... .......
TRADE SCHOOL................

PROFESSIONAL DEGREE. ........

l

l

2

l

2

3

4

5

6

139

9. What was your total family income last year?
LESS THAN $4,999 (<$416/MONTH)....... ....... 1
$5,000 - $7,999 ($417 - $666/MONTH).... ..... 2
$8,000 - $9,999 ($667 - $833/MONTH)......... 3

$10,000 - $14,999 ($834 - $1,250/MONTH)..... 4

$15,000 - $19,999 ($1,251 - $1,666/MONTH)... 5
$20,000 - $24,999..... ...................... 6
$25,000 - $29,999....000 O 0.. O O. O. 0.. ........ 7

$30,000-$40,000....OOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.0... 8
OVER $40'OOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.. 9

10. How much of this income did you directly bring in to
the home (rather than another adult)?

NONE OF THE INCOME.......... ..... 1
LESS THAN 1/4 OF THE INCOME...... 2
1/4 TO 1/2 OF THE INCOME ......... 3

OVER 1/2 BUT LESS THAN 3/4
OF THE INCOMEOOOCOCCOOOOOOO0.0... 4

OVER 3/4 BUT NOT ALL
OF THE INCOEOCCCOOOOOO .......... 5

ALL OF THE INCOME........... ..... 6

11. How long have you lived in the area you were living in
before coming to the shelter?

LESS THAN 6 MONTHS......... ...... 1
6 MONTHS TO 11 MONTHS............ 2
1 TO 2 YEARS..................... 3
2.1 T0 5 YEARS................... 4
5.1 T0 10 YEARS......... ......... 5

MORE THAN 10 YEARS....... ........ 6

140

12. Do you have regular access to a car?

YESOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOO0.00.00...0.0. 1

NOOCOOOOOOOOCOOOO00.0.00... 000000 2

13. Where will you be living as soon as you leave the

shelter?
STAYING WITH FRIENDS/RELATIVES... 1
RENT HOUSE OR APARTMENT.......... 2
OWN HOUSE OR APARTMENT...... ..... 3
OTHER ( ).... 4

 

14. How many other adults will be in the same home you're
in?

15. How many children will be in the same home you're in?

 

16. How long have you been at CADA? (INDICATE NUMBER OF
DAYS FOR THIS STAY ONLY--NO PREVIOUS)

EXACT NUMBER OF DAYS:

 

Now 17d like to ask you some questions about your
relationship with the man who abused you. Would you mind
telling me his first name so that I can refer to him by
that? NAME:

 

 

 

17. What was your relationship with just

before you came to the shelter?
MARRIED,LIVING TOGETHER........ ......... 1
MARRIED,SEPARATED................ ....... 2
DIVORCED....................... ......... 3
GIRL/BOYFRIEND, LIVING TOGETHER... ...... 4
GIRL/BOYFRIEND, NOT LIVING TOGETHER ..... 5
EX-GIRLFRIEND,EX-BOYFRIEND....... ....... 6
DATING, BUT NOT GIRL/BOYFRIEND.......... 7
onmR( ).H.. ..... 8

18. How long have you known ?

 

(WRITE EXACT NUMBER OF MONTHS)

19.

20.

21.

22.

141

How long were you in a relationship with

 

(WRITE EXACT NUMBER OF MONTHS)

Have you had any previous separations from
9

 

YESOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00....0.

NOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0....

2 0a. How many?
(ACTUAL NUMBER)................
(No SEPARATIONS)........ ........
20b. How long did your last separation last?
(ACTUAL NUMBER OF pg;g).....
(NO SEPARATIONS)................ 08

How long after you became involved with

 

did he first physically assault you?
(ACTUAL NUMBER OF DAYS).....

How many times in the last three months has
threatened you in any way?

 

NEVEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00 l
ONCE OR TWICE............... 2
THREE OR FOUR TIMES......... 3

ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK........ 4

THREE OR FOUR TIMES A WEEK.. 5

MORE THAN FOUR TIMES A WEEK. 6

l

2

08

142

23. How many times in the last three months has
physically harmed you?

 

NEVER....................... 1
ONCE OR TWICE........ ....... 2
THREE OR FOUR TIMES.... ..... 3
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK........ 4

THREE OR FOUR TIMES A WEEK.. 5
MORE THAN FOUR TIMES A WEEK. 6

24. I wonder if you could tell me, to the best of your
recollection, how many times in the last three months

has done any of the following things to you.

For instance, how many times in the last 3 months has

 

 

PULLED YOUR HAIR.............
BROKE GLASSES/TORE CLOTHING..
PUSHED, SHOVED, GRABBED YOU..
SLAPPED WITH OPEN HAND.......
KICKED, BIT, OR HIT WITH FIST
THREW SOMETHING AT YOU.......

HIT OR TRIED TO HIT YOU
WITHANomEflOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

CHOKED YOU...................
BURNED YOU...................
TIED UP,PHYSICALLY RESTRAINED
FORCED SEXUAL ACTIVITY.......
THREATENED W/GUN OR KNIFE....

USEDGUN 0R “IFEOOOOOOCOOOOO

143

25G Did you sustain any Of the following

 

injuries? YES NO
CUTS/SCRAPES/BRUISES.... l 2
SORENESS W/OUT BRUISES.. 1 2
BURNS................... l 2
LOOSE OR BROKEN TEETH... 1 2
BROKEN BONES/FRACTURES.. 1 2
INTERNAL INJURIES....... l 2
STRAINS/SPRAINS......... 1 2
DISLOCATED JOINTS....... 1 2
PREGNANCY COMPLICATIONS. l 2
KNIFE/GUNSHOT WOUND..... 1 2

26. How many times in the last three months have you
called the police because of 's violence or
threats?

(INDICATE EXACT NUMBER)........
27. How many times in the last three months did you seek
medical treatment because of injuries
from ?

(INDICATE EXACT NUMBER)........
28. How many times in the last three months do you think
you required medical attention because of such injuries
but didn't receive it?
(INDICATE EXACT NUMBER)........
29. In general, how typical was the violence in the last
three months compared to the violence throughout
your relationship?

MUCH LESS SEVERE............ ..... 1
LESS SEVERE.............. ........ 2
ABOUT THE SAME.... ...... . ........ 3
MORE SEVERE...................... 4

MUCH MORE SEVERE............ ..... 5

144

30. What injuries did you sustain from the gorst attack by
‘3

 

. YES NO
CUTS/SCRAPES/BRUISES.... 1 2
SORENESS W/OUT BRUISES.. 1 2
BURNS................... 1 2
LOOSE OR BROKEN TEETH... 1 2
BROKEN BONES/FRACTURES.. 1 2
INTERNAL INJURIES....... 1 2
STRAINS/SPRAINS.... ..... 1 2
DISLOCATED JOINTS....... 1 2
PREGNANCY COMPLICATIONS. 1 2
KNIFE/GUNSHOT WOUND..... 1 2
PERMANENT SCARRING...... 1 2

Now I'd just like to ask you some questions about your life
in general.

31. Do you feel there is someone in your life who could
generally be counted on and is available to:

YES NO
WATCH YOUR CHILD(REN)... 1 2
TAKE YOU PLACES

(PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION. 1 2
LEND YOU MONEY.......... 1 2
GIVE YOU A PLACE To

STAY IN EMERGENCY....... 1 2
DOYOUAFAVOR.......... 1 2
GIVE YOU GOOD ADVICE.... 1 2

LISTEN TO YOU WHEN
YOU NEED TO TALK....... 1 2

145

 

 

 

 

32. If a friend of yours wanted to get a job but didn”t
know how to go about getting one, what all would you
advise her to do to find one? (PROBE: "IS THERE
ANYTHING ELSE7")

33. If she followed your advice, how successful do you
think she'd be in getting a job?

DEFINITELY UNSUCCESSFUL ......... 1
PROBABLY UNSUCCESSFUL...... ..... 2
PROBABLY SUCCESSFUL.... ......... 3
DEFINITELY SUCCESSFUL.... ....... 4

34. If you were to decide in a couple Of months to move,
what all could you do to find a place?
(PROBE: "ANYTHING ELSE?”)

35. How successful do you think you'd be in finding a new
place?

DEFINITELY UNSUCCESSFUL......... l
PROBABLY UNSUCCESSFUL ........... 2
PROBABLY SUCCESSFUL... .......... 3
DEFINITELY SUCCESSFUL........... 4
36. If a friend of yours asked your advice on how she could

find some cheap furniture--she has very little money--
what all would you advise her to do?
(PROBE: "ANYTHING ELSE?”)

 

 

146

37. If your friend from the above example followed your
advice, how successful do you think she'd be in
getting furniture?

DEFINITELY UNSUCCESSFUL... ...... 1
PROBABLY UNSUCCESSFUL.. ......... 2
PROBABLY SUCCESSFUL....... ...... 3
DEFINITELY SUCCESSFUL. .......... 4

Now finally I’d just like to know:

38. Do you think in the next couple months youflll be
working on:

YES NO

a. housing issues?......................... ...... 1 2
b. education issues?....... ......... . ..... . ...... 1 2
c. transportation issues?........................ 1 2
d. employment issues? ....... ......... ............ 1 2
e. legal issues?........................ ......... 1 2
f. health issues?.. ..... ........ ....... ... ...... . 1 2
g. childcare issues?............................. 1 2
h. getting social support, or making friends..... 1 2
1. financial issues, or ways of getting money.... 1 2
j. getting material goods or services, such as

furniture, toys, clothes, a plumber?.......... 1 2
k. any issues regarding your children, such as

schooling, extra activities, etc.?............ 1 2
i. any other issues that I haven’t mentioned?.... 1 2

If yes, what specifically?

 

 

Thank you for answering all of these questions. Is there
anything else you’d like to mention or talk about right now?

Time Interview Ended:

Length Of Interview:

147

Appendix E: Process Interview for Experimental Group

Interviewer ID#

 

Respondent ID#

 

Time Interview Started:

The CAP Process Interview

We’re doing these interviews to see how we can improve our
program. SO I’ll be asking you some questions about how you
feel about the program and what you’ve been doing with

will not be told anything
about this interview so please feel free to say how you
really feel. Now, I’d like to begin by asking you some
questions about what you and have been
doing since the program started.

 

 

1. About how many hours a week do you spend with
in person?

 

LESSTHANONE..... ........ 1
ONE ORTWO.......... ...... 2
THREE OR FOUR.. ........... 3
FIVE OR SIX..... .......... 4
SEVEN OR EIGHT. . . ......... 5
MORE THAN EIGHT. . . ........ 6

2. How many times a week do you see her?

(INDICATE EXACT NUMBER)........

3. About how many hours a week do you spend with
on the telephone?

 

LESS THAN ONE ............. 1
ONE OR TWO.... ............ 2
THREE ORFOUR..... ........ 3
FIVE OR SIX.... ........... 4
SEVEN OREIGHT....... ..... 5

MORE THAN EIGHT. . . . . ...... 6

148

4. Now'IVd like to ask you some questions about what you

 

and have decided to work on together.
(PROBE)
YES NC
a. Have you decided to work on any housing issues? 1 2
b. Have you decided to work on education issues? 1 2
c. Have you decided to work on transportation? 1 2
d. Have you decided to work on employment issues? 1 2
e. Have you decided to work on any legal issues? 1 2
f; Have you decided to work on any health issues? 1 2
q. Have you decided to work on childcare issues? 1 2

In Have you decided to work on getting more
social support, or ways of making friends? 1 2

i. Have you decided to work on any financial issues,
or ways of getting money other than employment? 1 2

j. Have you decided to work on getting material
goods or services, such as furniture, toys,
clothes, a plumber? 1 2

k. Have you decided to work on any issues regarding
your fchildren, such as schooling, extra
activities, etc:? 1 2

1. Is there anything else you and
have decided to work on that I havenft'mentioned?1 2

 

If yes, what specifically?

 

 

FOR EVERY OPTION WHICH THE RESPONDENT ANSWERED "YES" TO,
ASK THE APPROPRIATE QUESTIONS BEGINNING ON THE NEXT
PAGE.

IF

149

HOUSING WAS CHOSEN, ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

In the area of housing, what all have you and
done together?

 

YES
ASK EACH DIstSED ONIONS. O O O O O O O O O 1

MADE PHONE CALLS........... 1
LOOKED IN PERSON........... 1
OBTAINED WRITTEN MATERIALS. 1
CHECKED NEWSPAPERS . . . . . . . . . 1
CONTACTED AGENCY,AGENCIES.. 1

OTHER 1

2

2

How much time have you two spent in the last five weeks

looking for housing?

(WRITE EXACT NUMBER OF HOURS)

Have you found housing yet?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.0.0000...OO

PROBABLY YES.....OOOOOOOOOOOO

DEFINITELY YES.. .............

How satisfied are you with what has

done with and for you in the area of housing so far?
ASK EACH VERY DISSATISFIED............
SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED ........

SOMEWHAT SATISFIED... ........

VERY SATISFIED......... ......

1

2

3

1

2

3

4

150

IF EDUCATION WAS CHOSEN,.ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
9. In the area of education, what type of schooling were
you interested in pursuing?
OBTAIN GED/FINISH HIGH SCHOOL .... 1
ATTEND JUNIOR/COMMUNITY COLLEGE... 2
ATTEND COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY......... 3

ATTEND GRAD./PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL.. 4

 

 

ATTEND TRADE SCHOOL............... 5
OTHER .u 6
10. What all have you and done in this area?
YES NO
ASK EACH DISCUSSED OPTIONS.............. 1 2
MADE PHONE CALLS............... 1 2

LOOKED IN PERSON............... 1 2

OBTAINED WRITTEN MATERIALS..... 1 2
APPLIED OR ENROLLED.. .......... 1 2
OTHER 1 2

 

11. How many hours have you two spent in the last five
weeks looking into educational options?

(WRITE EXACT NUMBER OF HOURS)

12. How effective have your efforts been so far in
accomplishing your goa1(s)?

 

NOT EFFECTIVE AT ALL...... ........ 1
ASK EACH
NOT VERY EFFECTIVE. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2
SOWT EFFECTIVE. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 3
VERY EFFECTIVEOOOOOOOOOOOOO ....... 4
13. How satisfied are you with what has
done with and for you in this area?
ASK EACH VERY DISSATISFIED................. l

SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED............. 2

SOMEWHAT SATISFIED................ 3

VERY SATISFIED.................... 4

151

IF TRANSPORTATION WAS CHOSEN, ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

14. In the area of transportation, what had you decided to

 

work,on?
LEARNING BUS ROUTES...........1
BUYING A CAR..................2
FIXING HER CAR.......... ...... 3
GETTING BUS PASS.. ............ 4
OTHER ...5
15. What all have you two done together so far in this
area?
YES NO
ASK EACH DISCUSSED OPTIONS.......... 1 2

PHONE CALLS................ 1 2
GOT WRITTEN MATERIALS...... 1 2
LOOKED IN PERSON........... 1 2
OTHER . 1 2

16. How much time have you two spent in the last five weeks
looking into transportation?

(WRITE EXACT NUMBER OF HOURS)

17. How effective have your efforts been so far in
accomplishing your goals?

 

 

ASK EACH NOT EFFECTIVE AT ALL... ...... 1

NOT VERY EFFECTIVE........... 2

SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE ........... 3

VERY EFFECTIVE............... 4

18. How satisfied are you with what has done
with and for you in this area so far?

ASK EACH VERY DISSATISFIED............ 1

SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED. ....... 2

SOMEWHAT SATISFIED........... 3

VERY SATISFIED... ..... ....... 4

152

IF EMPLOYMENT WAS CHOSEN, ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

19. In the area of employment, what all have you two done

together so far?

YES NO

ASK EACH DISCUSSED OPTIONS.. ........... . 1 2
PHONE CALLS.................... 1 2
LOOKED IN PERSON............... 1 2
GOT WRITTEN MATERIAL. .......... 1 2
POSTED FLYERS.................. 1 2
PRACTICE APPLICATIONS.......... 1 2
ACTUAL APPLICATIONS..... ...... . 1 2
MADE RESUME............ ........ 1 2
ROLEPLAYED INTERVIEWING........ 1 2
NEWSPAPER ADS............ ...... 1 2
CONTACTED AGENCY,AGENCIES...... 1 2
OTHER .... 1 2

 

20. How much time have you two spent in the last five weeks

working on employment?
(WRITE EXACT NUMBER OF HOURS) _
21. Have you gotten a job yet from your efforts?
NO..............................

PROBABLY YES.....OOOOOOOOOO .....

YES.....OOOOOOOOOOOOOO.... ......

1

2

3

153

 

22. How satisfied are you with what has done
with and for you in this area?

ASK EACH VERY DISSATISFIED............... 1

SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED........... 2

SOHEWHAT SATISFIED.............. 3

VERY SATISFIED.................. 4

154

IF LEGAL ISSUES WAS CHOSEN, ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
23. In the area of legal issues, what have you decided to
work.on?
YES NO

INJUNCTION/RESTRAINING ORDER....... 1 2
LEGAL SEPARATION/DIVORCE........... 1 2
ALIMONY/CHILD SUPPORT.............. 1 2
OTHER ( ). 1 2

24. In the area of legal issues, what all have you two
done together so far?

YES NO
ASK EACH DISCUSSED OPTIONS.......... 1 2
PHONE CALLS.......... ...... 1 2
LOOKED IN PERSON...... ..... 1 2
GOT WRITTEN MATERIALS ...... 1 2

APPLIED FOR LEGAL AID...... 1 2

GOT RESTRAINING ORDER OR
INJUNCTION (OR SIMILAR).... 1 2

MET WITH LAWYER............ 1 2
WENT To COURT 0 C O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 2
OTHER 1 2

25. How many hours have you spent in the last five weeks
working on legal issues?

(WRITE EXACT NUMBER OF HOURS)

26. How effective have your efforts been in this area so

far?
ASK EACH NOT EFFECTIVE AT ALL............ 1
NOT VERY EFFECTIVE... ..... . ..... 2
SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE........ ...... 3

VERY EFFECTIVE... ............... 4

155

 

27. How satisfied are you with what has done
with and for you in this area so far?
ASK EACH VERY DISSATISFIED.... ....... 1
SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED.. ..... 2
SOMEWHAT SATISFIED.......... 3

VERY SATISFIED.............. 4

156

IF HEALTH ISSUES WAS CHOSEN,.ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

28. In the area of health, what specifically were you
interested in looking into?

MEDICARE/MEDICAID...........
FIND HEALTH INFORMATION.....

GET (PRIVATE) INSURANCE.....

 

FIND DOCTOR/CLINIC. .........
GET MEDICATION... ...........
OTHER ..
29. What all have you two done together so far in this
area?
YES
ASK EACH DISCUSSED OPTIONS. ......... 1
PHONE CALLS....... ......... 1
LOOKED IN PERSON........... 1

GOT WRITTEN MATERIAL....... 1
PHONE BOOK/NEWSPAPER....... 1
OTHER .. 1

30. How many hours have you two spent in the last five
weeks looking into this area?

(WRITE EXACT NUMBER OF HOURS)
31. How effective have your efforts been in this area so
far?
(ASK EACH) NOT EFFECTIVE AT ALL............
NOT VERY EFFECTIVE..............
SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE...... ........

VERY EFFECTIVE... ...............

1

2

3

4

157
32. How satisfied are you with what has done
with and for you so far in this area?
ASK EACH VERY DISSATISFIED........... 1
SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED....... 2
SOMEWHAT SATISFIED.......... 3

VERY SATISFIED.............. 4

158

IF CHILDCARE WAS CHOSEN,.ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

33. What all have you two done together in the area of
childcare?

YES NO
ASK EACH DISCUSSED OPTIONS.. ........ 1 2
PHONE CALISOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1 2
GOT WRITTEN MATERIAL....... 1 2
NEWSPAPEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1 2
WENT TO AGENCY/AGENCIES.... 1 2
ADVERTISEDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1 2
OTHER .. 1 2

34. How many hours have you spent in the last five weeks
looking into finding childcare?

(WRITE EXACT NUMBER OF HOURS)

35. Have you achieved your goal yet?

NO................ .......... l

PROBABLY YES................ 2

YES......................... 3
36. How satisfied are you with what has

 

done with and for you in this area?

ASK EACH VERY DISSATISFIED........... 1
SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED. ...... 2
SOMEWHAT SATISFIED.... ...... 3

VERY SATISFIED..... ......... 4

159

IF SOCIAL SUPPORT WAS CHOSEN, ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

37. In the area of social support, or making new friends,
what all have you two done so far?

YES NO
ASK EACH DISCUSSED OPTIONS.......... 1 2
MADE PHONE CALLS........... 1 2

GONE TO GATHERINGS......... 1 2
NEWSPAPER/PHONE BOOK....... 1 2
GOT WRITTEN MATERIALS...... 1 2
OTHER ... 1 2

38. How many hours have you two spent in the last five
weeks looking into finding some social support?

(WRITE EXACT NUMBER OF HOURS)

39. How effective have your efforts been so far in getting
you some social support?

 

ASK EACH NOT EFFECTIVE AT ALL....... 1
NOT VERY EFFECTIVE.. ....... 2
SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE......... 3
VERY EFFECTIVE............. 4
40. How satisfied have you been with what has
done with and for you in this area?
ASK EACH VERY DISSATISFIED.......... l
SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED...... 2
SOMEWHAT SATISFIED......... 3

VERY SATISFIED........ ..... 4

160
IF FINANCIAL (OTHER THAN EMPLOYMENT) WAS CHOSEN, ASK THE
FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
41. In the area of getting money, other than employment,
‘what.had.you decided specifically to work on?
YES
GOVERNMENT AID............. 1
BORROW FROM INSTITUTION.... 1
BORROW FROM FRIEND/RELATIVE 1

42. What all have you two done together in the area of

finances?
YES
ASK EACH DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES.... 1
DISCUSSED OPTIONS.. ........ 1
PHONE “MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1

CONTACT BANKS IN PERSON.... 1

LENDING AGENCIES IN PERSON. I
ASKED FRIEND/RELATIVE ...... 1
OTHER . 1

 

43. How many hours have you two spent in the last five
weeks looking into getting money?

(WRITE EXACT NUMBER OF HOURS)
44. How effective have your efforts been so far?
ASK EACH NOT EFFECTIVE AT ALL........
NOT VERY EFFECTIVE..... .....
SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE ..........
VERY EFFECTIVE..............

45. How satisfied are you with what has done
with and for you in this area so far?

 

ASK EACH VERY DISSATISFIED... ........

SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED.......

SOMEWHAT SATISFIED.. ........

VERY SATISFIED....... .......

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

161

IF MATERIAL GOODS WAS CHOSEN, ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

46. In the area of obtaining material goods or services,
such as food, furniture, clothing, toys, a plumber, etc”

 

what all have you and done together so far?
YES NO
ASK EACH DISCUSSED OPTIONS.......... 1 2

MADE PHONE CALLS........... 1 2
LOOKED IN PERSON........... 1 2
GOT WRITTEN MATERIAL....... 1 2
PHONEBOOK/NEWSPAPER........ 1 2
CONTACTED AGENCY/AGENCIES.. 1 2
ADVERTISED................. 1 2
OTHER .... 1 2

47. How many hours have you two spent in the last five
weeks looking into this area?

(WRITE EXACT NUMBER OF HOURS)

48. How effective have your efforts been in this area so

 

 

far?
ASK EACH NOT EFFECTIVE AT ALL........ 1
NOT VERY EFFECTIVE.......... 2
SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE.......... 3
VERY EFFECTIVE.............. 4
49. How satisfied are you with 's efforts in this
area so far?
ASK EACH VERY DISSATISFIED........... 1
SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED....... 2
SOMEWHAT SATISFIED.. ........ 3

VERY SATISFIED........ ...... 4

162
IF ISSUES REGARDING CHILDREN (EXCLUDING CHILDCARE) WAS
CHOSEN, ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

50. In the area of advocacy services for your children,
what specifically did you choose to work on?

SCHOOL ISSUES............... 1
EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES.. 2
COUNSELING SERVICES.. ....... 3
EMPLOYMENT ISSUES...... ..... 4
GETTING THE CHILD(REN)
MATERIAL GOOD(S) LIKE TOYS,
BIKES, ACCESSORIES.......... 5

OTHER . 6

 

51. What all has the advocate and you and/or the child(ren)
done so far in this area?

YES NO
ASK EACH DISCUSSED OPTIONS. . . . . . . . . . 1 2
PHONE CALLS................ 1 2
LOOKED IN PERSON. . . ........ 1 2
GOT WRITTEN MATERIAL. . . . . . . 1 2

PHONEBOOK/NEWSPAPER. . . . . . . . 1 2
CONTACTED AGENCY/AGENCIES.. 1 2
OTHER .. 1 2

52. How many hours have you spent in the last five weeks
looking into this area?

(WRITE EXACT NUMBER OF HOURS)

163

53. How effective have these efforts been so far?

 

ASK EACH NOT EFFECTIVE AT ALL........

NOT VERY EFFECTIVE..........

SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE..........

VERY EFFECTIVE..............

54. How satisfied are you with 's efforts so
far?

ASK EACH VERY DISSATISFIED...........

SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED.......
SOMEWHAT SATISFIED..........

VERY SATISFIED..............

2

164

IF (OTHER) WAS CHOSEN, ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

 

55. In the area of , what all have
you two done so far?
YES
ASK EACH DISCUSSED OPTIONS.......... 1

PHONE CALLS................ 1
LOOKED IN PERSON........... 1
GOT WRITTEN MATERIALS...... 1
PHONEBOOK/NEWSPAPERS....... 1
OTHER . 1

56. How many hours have you two spent in the last five
weeks looking into this area?

(WRITE EXACT NUMBER OF HOURS)
57. How effective have your efforts been so far?
ASK EACH NOT EFFECTIVE AT ALL. .......
NOT VERY EFFECTIVE..........
SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE..........
VERY EFFECTIVE..............
58. How satisfied are you with ’s efforts so fa
in this area?
ASK EACH VERY DISSATISFIED...........
SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED.. .....
SOMEWHAT SATISFIED..........

VERY SATISFIED..............

1

2

3

4

r

1

2

3

4

165

ASK ALL RESPONDENTS THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS

59. Now I'd like to ask you some questions about the
program in general. How satisfied have you been
with the program so far?

 

ASK EACH VERY DISSATISFIED........... 1
SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED....... 2
SOMEWHAT SATISFIED.......... 3
VERY SATISFIED.............. 4

60. How satisfied are you with the effort has

put in toward the goals you've chosen?

ASK EACH VERY DISSATISFIED........... 1
SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED.. ..... 2
SOMEWHAT SATISFIED..... ..... 3

VERY SATISFIED.....OOOOOOOO. 4

61. How satisfied are you with the amount of time you spend

 

with a geek?
ASK EACH DON’T SPEND ENOUGH TIME..... 1
SATISFIED................... 2
SPEND TOO MUCH TIME......... 3

62. How many hours a week would you like to spend with
9

 

LESS THAN ONE............... 1
ONE OR TWO.................. 2
THREE OR FOUR............... 3
FIVE OR SIX................. 4
SEVEN OR EIGHT.............. 5

MORE THAN EIGHT (SPECIFY ) 6

63.

64.

65.

166

 

Now if you don’t mind I’d like to ask you a few
questions about your home life. At the first interview
you said that ___ of your children were living with you.
How many of your children are living with you now?
(WRITE EXACT NUMBER)...........___
63a. What are their ages? (INDICATE NUMBER IN EACH AGE
RANGE)
____ UNDER FIVE YEARS OLD
____ 5 TO 12 YEARS OLD
____ 13 TO 18 YEARS OLD
OVER 18 YEARS OLD
Since you left the shelter, have you been employed?
YES.......... ............... 1
NO.................... ...... 2
Are you employed right now?
YES......................... 1
NO................. ......... 2
IF'YES:

65a. ‘What type of work do you do?

CLERICAL......... ........... 1
DOMESTIC/CHILDCARE.. ........ 2
SALES/WAITRESS..... ......... 3
MANAGERIAL..... ............. 4
FACTORY........... .......... 5
HUMAN SERVICES... ........... 6

OTHER ( ). 7

167

IF SHE WORKS NOW:

65b. Do you work.part-time, full-time, or sporadically
(off and on, temporary)?

PET-TIEOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0 1
FULL-TIMOOOOOOOOOOOOO ...... 2

SPORADICALLY................ 3

(NOT EMPLOYED).... .......... 8
66. Are you a student?

YES............... .......... 1

NO.................... ...... 2

IF YES:

66a. Part-time or full-time?
PART-TIME...... ............. l
FULL-TIME................... 2

67. Are you receiving any governmental assistance? (food
stamps, General Assistance, ADC, eth

YES.....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.... 1
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOO ...... 2

68. Where are you living right now? Are you:

ASK EACH STAYING WITH FRIENDS/RELATIVES.. 1
RENT HOUSE OR APARTMENT.. ....... 2
OWN HOUSE OR APARTMENT. ......... 3
onmR( %--4

 

69. How many other adults are in the same home you’re in?

70. How many children are in the same home you're in?

168

Now 17d just like to ask you some questions about your
contact with

since you left the

 

 

shelter.
71. Are you currently living with ?
No. 0 O O I O O I O 0 O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
Go To #76 YES. 0 O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
72. How often have you seen over the last

73.
the

74.

 

 

five weeks?

NEVEROOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOO....

ONCE OR TWICE...............

THREE OR FOUR TIMES.........

ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK........

THREE OR FOUR TIMES A WEEK..

MORE THAN FOUR TIMES A WEEK.

How Often have you talked on the phone with him over

last five weeks?

NEVER.................. .....
ONCE OR TWICE.......... .....
THREE OR FOUR TIMES.........
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK........
THREE OR FOUR TIMES A WEEK..

MORE THAN FOUR TIMES A WEEK.

Are you currently in a relationship with

 

GO TO #76

NOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO .....

YES.....OOOOOOOOOOOO ........

1

2

169

75. Separating from someone is sometimes a difficult
process. About how many times in the last 5 weeks
would you say you've seriously considered getting back

 

together with ?
ASK EACH ONLY IF YOU NEVER................... ........ l
NEED TO PROBE ONCE OR TWICE................... 2
THREE OR FOUR TIMES..... ........ 3
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK...... ...... 4
THREE OR FOUR TIMES A WEEK...... 5
MORE THAN FOUR TIMES A WEEK..... 6

76. How many times in the last five weeks has
threatened you in any way?

 

ASK EACH ONLY IF YOU NEVER.......... ............. 1
NEED TO PROBE ONCE OR TWICE....... ........ 2
THREE OR FOUR TIMES......... 3
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK ........ 4

THREE OR FOUR TIMES A WEEK.. 5
MORE THAN FOUR TIMES A WEEK. 6

77. How many times in the last five weeks has
physically harmed you?

 

GO TO #81 NEVER........................ 1
ONCE OR TWICE................ 2
THREE OR FOUR TIMES.......... 3
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK......... 4
THREE OR FOUR TIMES A WEEK... 5

MORE THAN FOUR TIMES A WEEK.. 6

170

77a. In what ways has he harmed you in the last 5
weeks? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

YES NO
SHOW CARD, AND PULLED YOUR HAIR.................. 1 2
ASK EACH BROKE GLASSES/TORE CLOTHING....... 1 2

PUSHED, SHOVED, GRABBED YOU....... 1 2
SLAPPED WITH OPEN HAND............ 1 2
KICKED, BIT OR HIT WITH FIST...... 1 2
THREW SOMETHING AT YOU............ 1 2
HIT OR TRIED TO HIT WITH OBJECT... 1 2
CHOKED YOU........................ 1 2
BURNED YOU........................ 1 2
TIED UP, PHYSICALLY RESTRAINED.... 1 2
FORCED SEXUAL ACTIVITY............ 1 2
THREATENED WITH GUN OR KNIFE...... 1 2
USED GUN OR KNIFE................. 1 2

77b. Did you sustain any of the following injuries?

YES NO
SHOW CARD, AND CUTS/SCRAPES/BRUISES.............. 1 2
ASK EACH SORENESS WITHOUT BRUISING......... 1 2

BURNS............................. 1 2
LOOSE OR BROKEN TEETH............. 1 2
BROKEN BONES/FRACTURES............ 1 2
INTERNAL INJURIES................. 1 2
STRAINED/SPRAINED JOINTS.......... 1 2
DISLOCATED JOINTS................. 1 2
PREGNANCY COMPLICATIONS........... 1 2

KNIFE OR GUNSHOT WOUND............ 1 2

171

77c. Who did you tell about the assault(s)? (CHECK ALL)

YES NO
PROBE NO ONE. 0 C C O I O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 2
VOLUNTEER.. ............. 1 2

CADA 1 2
RELATIVE................1 2
FRIEND.................. I 2
POLICE.................. 1 2
DOCTOR/NURSE............ 1 2
OTHER ). 1 2

78. How many times since leaving the shelter did you seek
medical treatment because of injuries
from ?

(INDICATE EXACT NUMBER).. .....

79. How many times since leaving the shelter do you think
you required medical attention because of such injuries
but didn’t receive it?

(INDICATE EXACT NUMBER).......
80. In general, how typical was the violence since leaving
the shelter compared to the violence throughout
your relationship?

ASK EACH MUCH LESS SEVERE... ......... 1
LESS SEVERE................. 2
ABOUT THE SAME........ ...... 3
MORE SEVERE...... ........... 4
MUCH MORE SEVERE............ 5

81. How many times since leaving the shelter have you
called the police because of 's violence
or threats?

(INDICATE EXACT NUMBER).......

82. How many times since leaving the shelter have you
called CADA because of his violence or threats?

(INDICATE EXACT NUMER). .......

172
Thanks for answering all of those questions. Now 17d just
like to ask you questions about your life in general.
83. Do you feel there is someone in your life other than
your volunteer who could generally be counted on to:
YES NO
WATCH YOUR CHILD(REN)........ l 2

TAKE YOU PLACES (PROVIDE
TRANSPORTATION)............. 1 2

LEND YOUMONEYOOOOOOOOOOOO... 1 2

GIVE YOU A PLACE TO STAY IN
MMRGENCYOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOI 1 2

DO YOU A FAVOR............... 1 2
GIVE YOU GOOD ADVICE......... 1 2

LISTEN TO YOU WHEN YOU
NEED To TAILKOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1 2

84. How often do you and talk about
7

 

 

NEVER.................... .......
ONCE OR TWICE...................
THREE OR FOUR TIMES....... ......
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK............
THREE OR FOUR TIMES A WEEK......
MORE THAN FOUR TIMES A WEEK.....

84a. How helpful has it been for you to talk to
about ?

 

 

ASK EACH VERY UNHELPFUL..................
SOMEWHAT UNHELPFUL..............
NEITHER HELPFUL NOR UNHELPFUL...
SOMEWHAT HELPFUL........... .....

VERY HELPFULOOCOOOOOOCO .........

1

4

5

173

85. How would you say you feel about your life in general?

SHOW CARD, AND EXTREMELY PLEASED....... ..... ... 1
ASK EACH PLEASED.................... ..... 2
MOSTLY SATISFIED................ 3

MIXED (EQUALLY SATISFIED AND
UNSATISFIED.................... 4
MOSTLY DISSATISFIED.. .......... . 5
UNHAPPY.................. ....... 6
TERRIBLE................. ....... 7

86. Thank you very much for answering all of these
questions. YOur answers will help us improve this
program to better meet the needs of women who want
advocates. How helpful would you say this project has
been in helping you gain independence from

a

 

ASK EACH NOT AT ALL HELPFUL...... ........ 1
.A LITTLE HELPFUL........ ........ 2
SOMEWHAT HELPFUL........ ........ 3
VERY HELPFUL........... ......... 4

87. How many other women do you know who are participating
in this program?
(INDICATE EXACT NUMBER) ......

IF ANY:
87a. How many of them have advocates?

(INDICATE EXACT NUMBER)......

88. Is there anything else you'd like to say about the
program? Can you think of ways in which it could be
improved?

 

 

(Use back if necessary)
Time interview ended:

Length of interview:

174

Appendix F: Process Interview for Control Group

Interviewer ID#

 

Respondent ID#

 

Time Interview Started:

The CAP Second Interview
We're doing these interviews to see how things have been
going for you since leaving the shelter. I’d like to remind
you again that anything you say here will be held in the
strictest confidence. 17d just like to ask you some
questions about how your life has been going since the last

interviewu.At the first interview you said that of your
children were living with you.

1. How many of your children are living with you now?
(WRITE EXACT NUMBER)...........

1a. What are their ages? (INDICATE NUMBER IN EACH AGE
RANGE)

UNDER FIVE YEARS OLD
5 TO 12 YEARS OLD
13 TO 18 YEARS OLD

OVER 18 YEARS OLD

 

2. Since you left the shelter, have you been employed?
YES........ ................. 1

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ....... 2

3. Are you employed right now?
YES............ ..... . ....... 1

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO .......... 2

175

IF SHE IS EMPLOYED NOW:
3a. 'What type of work do you do?
CLERICAL.................... l
DOMESTIC/CHILDCARE.......... 2

SAIES/WAITRESS...‘......O... 3

MANAGERIAL............ ...... 4
FACTORY............... ...... 5
HUMAN SERVICES......... ..... 6
OTHER ( ). 7

 

3b. Do you work part-time, full-time, or sporadically
(off and on, temporary)?

PART-TIMEOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.... 1
WLL-TIMEOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. 2

SPORADICALLY................ 3

4. Are you a student?

YES.....OOOOOO0.0.0.0....... 1

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOO0......... 2

IFASTUDENT:
4b. Part-time or full-time?
PART-TIME................... 1
FULL-TIME.............. ..... 2
5. Are you receiving any governmental assistance? (food
stamps, General Assistance, ADC, etc.)

YES.....OOOOOCOOOOO. ...... O. 1

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0... 2

176

6. Where are you living right now? Are you:

ASK EACH STAYING WITH FRIENDS/RELATIVES... 1
RENT HOUSE OR APARTMENT... ....... 2
OWN HOUSE OR APARTMENT..... ...... 3
OTHER ( ).... 4

 

7. How many other adults are in the same home you're in?

8. How many children are in the same home you're in?

Now I’d just like to ask you some questions about your

 

 

contact with since you left the
shelter.
9. Are you currently living with ?
NO........................ ....... 1
GO TO #14 YES.............................. 2
10. How often have you seen over the last

 

five weeks?
NEVER....................... l
ONCE OR TWICE............... 2
THREE OR FOUR TIMES......... 3
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK........ 4
THREE OR FOUR TIMES A WEEK.. 5
MORE THAN FOUR TIMES A WEEK. 6

11. How often have you talked on the phone with him over
the last five weeks?

NEVER................. ...... 1
ONCE OR TWICE............... 2
THREE OR FOUR TIMES......... 3
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK........ 4

THREE OR FOUR TIMES A WEEK.. 5

MORE THAN FOUR TIMES A WEEK. 6

 

12.

13.

ASK

YOU

14.

YOU

15.

177

Are you curently in a relationship with
?

 

No. . . . . . 0 . . . . O . . O . O ....... 1
Go To #14 YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O 2
Separating from someone is sometimes a difficult

process. About how many times since leaving CADA would
you say you've seriously considered getting back

 

together with ?

EACH ONLY IF NEVER.......................... I

NEED TO PROBE ONCE OR TWICE.................. 2
THREE OR FOUR TIMES... ......... 3
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK...... ..... 4

THREE OR FOUR TIMES A WEEK..... 5
MORE THAN FOUR TIMES A WEEK.... 6

How many times in the last five weeks has
threatened you in any way?

 

EACH ONLY IF NEVER............. ............ 1
NEED TO PROBE ONCE OR TWICE.......... ....... 2
THREE OR FOUR TIMES...... ..... 3

ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK.......... 4
THREE OR FOUR TIMES A WEEK.... 5
MORE THAN FOUR TIMES A WEEK... 6

How many times in the last five weeks has
physically harmed you?

 

GO TO #22 NEVER................. ....... l
ONCE OR TWICE................ 2
THREE OR FOUR TIMES.......... 3
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK......... 4
THREE OR FOUR TIMES A WEEK... 5

MORE THAN FOUR TIMES A WEEK..

0)

16. In what ways has he harmed you in the last five weeks?

178

(CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

SHOW CARD AND

ASK EACH

PULLED YOUR HAIR...................
BROKE GLASSES/TORE CLOTHING........
PUSHED, SHOVED, GRABBED YOU........
SLAPPED WITH OPEN HAND.............
KICKED, BIT OR HIT WITH FIST.......
THREW SOMETHING AT YOU.............
HIT OR TRIED TO HIT WITH OBJECT....
CHOKED YOU.........................
BURNED YOU.........................
TIED UP, PHYSICALLY RESTRAINED.....
FORCED SEXUAL ACTIVITY....... ......
THREATENED WITH GUN OR KNIFE.......

USED GUN OR KNIFE..................

17. Did you sustain any of the following injuries?

SHOW CARD AND

ASK EACH

CUTS/SCRAPES/BRUISES...............
SORENESS WITHOUT BRUISINGH.. ......
BURNS..............................
LOOSE OR BROKEN TEETH..............
BROKEN BONES/FRACTURES.............
INTERNAL INJURIES..................
STRAINED/SPRAINED JOINTS... ........
DISLOCATED JOINTS..................
PREGNANCY COMPLICATIONS....... .....

KNIFE OR GUNSHOT WOUND.............

YES NO
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2

YES NO
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
l 2
1 2

179

18. Who did you tell about the assaultxs)? (CHECK ALL)
YES NO
PROBE NO ONEOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1 2

CADAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1 2

RELATIVE........... ...... 1 2
FRIEND................... I 2
POLICE................... 1 2
DOCTOR/NURSE..... ........ 1 2
OTHER .. 1 2

 

19. How many times since leaving the shelter did you seek
medical treatment because of injuries
from ?

(INDICATE EXACT NUMBER)........

20. How many times since leaving the shelter do you think
you required medical attention because of such injuries
but didn’t receive it?

(INDICATE EXACT NUMBER)........

21. In general, how typical was the violence since leaving
the shelter compared to the violence throughout your

 

relationship?
ASK EACH MUCH LESS SEVERE................. 1
LESS SEVERE................ ...... 2
ABOUT THE SAME..... .............. 3
MORE SEVERE............ .......... 4
MUCH MORE SEVERE................. 5
22. How many times since leaving the shelter have you
called the police because of 's violence or
threats?

(INDICATE ExACT NUMBER)........

23. How many times since leaving the shelter have you
called CADA because of his violence or threats?

(INDICATE EXACT NUMBER).. ......

180
Thanks for answering all of those questions. Now'IVd just
like to ask you questions about your life in general.
24. Do you feel there is someone in your life who could
generally be counted on to: YES NO
WATCH YOUR CHILD(REN)......... 1 2

TAKE YOU PLACES (PROVIDE
TRANSPORTATION............... 1 2

LEND YOUMONEYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1 2

GIVE YOU A PLACE TO STAY IN
mMRGENCYOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOO 1 2

mYOUAFAVOROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1 2
GIVE YOU GOOD ADVICE.......... 1 2

LISTEN TO YOU WHEN YOU
NEED To TALKOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOO 1 2

25» ZHow would you say you feel about your life in general?
SHOW CARD, AND EXTREMELY PLEASED................ 1
ASK EACH PLEASED..................... ..... 2

MOSTLY SATISFIED................. 3

MIXED (EQUALLY SATISFIED AND
UNSATISFIED)......OOOOOOOOOOOOOO 4

MOSTLY DISSATISFIED.............. 5
UNHAPPY O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 6
TERRIBLE O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 7

26. How many other women do you know who are participating
in this program?
(INDICATE EXACT NUMBER)........

26a. How many of them have advocates?

(INDICATE EXACT NUMBER) ........
Thank you very much for answering all of these questions.
Is there anything else you’d like to mention or talk about
right now? (USE BACK)

Time interview ended:

Length of interview:

181

Appendix G: Post Interview for Experimental Group

Interviewer ID#

 

Respondent ID#

 

Time Interview Started:

The CAP Termination Interview

17d like to remind you again that anything you say here will
be held in the strictest confidence. Also, your advocate
will never know what has been said here today so please feel
free to say how you really feel. Now, 17d like to begin by
asking you some questions about what you and

have been doing since the beginning of the

 

program.

1. About how many hours a week did you spend with
in person?

 

LESS THAN ONE....... ...... 1
ONE OR TWO................ 2
THREE OR FOUR............. 3
FIVE OR SIX............... 4
SEVEN OR EIGHT....... ..... 5
MORE THAN EIGHT........... 6

2. How many times a week did you see her?
(INDICATE EXACT NUMBER).

3. About how many hours a week did you spend with
on the telephone?

 

LESS THAN ONE............. 1
ONE OR TWO........ ........ 2
THREE OR FOUR..... ........ 3
FIVE OR SIX.... ........... 4
SEVEN OR EIGHT... ........ . 5

MORE THAN EIGHT........... 6

4.

a.
b.

C.

i.

l.

182

Now'IVd like to ask you some questions about what you

 

 

and had decided to work on together.
(PROBE)

YES NO
Had you decided to work on any housing issues? 1 2
Had you decided to work on any education issues? 1 2
Had you decided to work on transportation? 1 2
Had you decided to work on employment issues? 1 2
Had you decided to work on any legal issues? 1 2
Had you decided to work on any health issues? 1 2
Had you decided to work on any childcare issues? 1 2
Had you decided to work on getting more social
support, or ways of making friends? 1 2
Had you decided to work on any financial issues,
or ways of getting money other than employment? 1 2
Had you decided to work on getting material goods
or services, such as furniture, toys, clothes,
a plumber? 1 2
Had you decided to work on any issues regarding
your children, such as schooling, extra
activities, etc{? 1 2
Is there anything else you and
decided to work on that I havenft'mentioned? 1 2

If yes, what specifically?

 

 

FOR EVERY OPTION WHICH THE RESPONDENT ANSWERED "YES" TO,
ASK THE APPROPRIATE QUESTIONS BEGINNING ON THE NEXT

PAGE.

183

IF HOUSING WAS CHOSEN,.ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

5. In the area of housing, what all have you and
done together?

 

YES NO
ASK EACH DISCUSSED OPTIONS. ......... 1 2
MADE PHONE CALLS... ........ 1 2

LOOKED IN PERSON........... 1 2
OBTAINED WRITTEN MATERIALS. 1 2
CHECKED NEWSPAPERS......... 1 2
CONTACTED AGENCY,AGENCIES.. 1 2
OTHER 1 2
6. How much time have you two spent in the last ten weeks

looking for housing?
(WRITE EXACT NUMBER OF HOURS)

7. Have you found housing yet?

 

NO................ ........... 1
PROBABLY YES.... ............. 2
DEFINITELY YES............... 3
8. How satisfied are you with what has
done with and for you in the area of housing?
ASK EACH VERY DISSATISFIED............ 1
SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED........ 2
SOMEWHAT SATISFIED...... ..... 3

VERY SATISFIED......... ...... 4

184

IF EDUCATION WAS CHOSEN, ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
9. In the area of education, what type of schooling were
you interested in pursuing?
OBTAIN GED/FINISH HIGH SCHOOL .... 1
ATTEND JUNIOR/COMMUNITY COLLEGE... 2
ATTEND COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY......... 3

ATTEND GRAD./PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL.. 4

 

 

ATTEND TRADE SCHOOL.......... ..... 5
OTHER ... 6
10. What all have you and done in this area?
YES NO
ASK EACH DISCUSSED OPTIONS.............. 1 2
MADE PHONE CALLS......... ...... 1 2

LOOKED IN PERSON............... I 2
OBTAINED WRITTEN MATERIALS..... 1 2
APPLIED OR ENROLLED....... ..... 1 2
OTHER 1 2

11. How many hours have you two spent in the last ten weeks
looking into educational options?

(WRITE EXACT NUMBER OF HOURS)

12. How effective have your efforts been in accomplishing
your goal (s) ?

 

NOT EFFECTIVE AT ALL. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 1
ASK EACH
NOT VERY EFFECTIVE... ............. 2
SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE..... ........... 3
VERY EFFECTIVE......... ........... 4
13. How satisfied are you with what has
done with and for you in this area?
ASK EACH VERY DISSATISFIED......... ........ 1
SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED....... ...... 2
SOMEWHAT SATISFIED......... ....... 3

VERY SATISFIED............. ....... 4

185

IF TRANSPORTATION WAS CHOSEN, ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

14. In the area of transportation, what had you decided to

work on?

LEARNING BUS ROUTES...... ..... 1
BUYING A CAR......... ..... ....2
FIXING HER CAR........... ..... 3
GETTING BUS PASS......... ..... 4
OTHER ...5

 

15. ‘What all have you two done together in this area?

ASK EACH

YES NO
DISCUSSED OPTIONS.......... 1 2
PHONE CALLS................ 1 2
GOT WRITTEN MATERIALS...... 1 2
LOOKED IN PERSON........... I 2
OTHER . 1 2

 

16. How much time have you two spent in the last 10 weeks
looking into transportation?

(WRITE EXACT NUMBER OF HOURS)

17; How effective have your efforts been in accomplishing

your goals?

ASK EACH NOT EFFECTIVE AT ALL ......... 1
NOT VERY EFFECTIVE........... 2
SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE.... ..... .. 3
VERY EFFECTIVE............... 4
18. How satisfied are you with what has done

 

with and for you in this area?

ASK EACH

VERY DISSATISFIED...... ...... 1

SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED........ 2

SOMEWHAT SATISFIED........... 3

VERY SATISFIED............... 4

 

 

 

Slfnlli,‘ . GA

 

186

IF EMPLOYMENT WAS CHOSEN, ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
19. In the area of employment, what all have you two done
together?
YES NO
ASK EACH DISCUSSED OPTIONS.............. l 2
PHONE CALLS.................... 1 2
LOOKED IN PERSON............... 1 2
GOT WRITTEN MATERIAL........... 1 2
POSTED FLYERS.................. 1 2
PRACTICE APPLICATIONS.......... 1 2
ACTUAL APPLICATIONS............ 1 2
MADE RESUME.................... 1 2
ROLEPLAYED INTERVIEWING........ 1 2
NEWSPAPER ADS.................. 1 2
CONTACTED AGENCY,AGENCIES...... 1 2
OTHER .... l 2
20. How much time have you two spent in the last 10 weeks

working on employment?
- (WRITE EXACT NUMBER OF HOURS)

21. Have you gotten a job yet from your efforts?

NOOCCOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.... 1

 

PROBABLY YES.......... .......... 2
YES............ ..... ............ 3
22. How satisfied are you with what has done
with and for you in this area?
ASK EACH VERY DISSATISFIED............... 1
SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED...... ..... 2
SOMEWHAT SATISFIED.............. 3

VERY SATISFIED.....OOOOOOOOO.... 4

187

IF LEGAL ASSISTANCE WAS CHOSEN,.ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

23. In the area of legal issues, what had you decided to

'work.on?
YES NO
INJUNCTION/RESTRAINING ORDER....... 1 2
LEGAL SEPARATION/DIVORCE........... 1 2
ALIMONY/CHILD SUPPORT......... ..... 1 2
OTHER ( ).. 1 2

 

24. In the area of legal issues, what all have you two
done together?
YES NO

ASK EACH DISCUSSED OPTIONS.......... 1 2
PHONE CALISOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1 2
LOOKED IN PERSON...... ..... 1 2
GOT WRITTEN MATERIALS...... 1 2
APPLIED FOR LEGAL AID...... 1 2

GOT RESTRAINING ORDER OR
INJUNCTION (OR SIMILAR)... 1 2

MET WITH LAWYER...... ...... 1 2
WENT To COURT 0 O O O O O O O O O O C O O 1 2
OTHER 1 2

25. How many hours have you spent in the last 10 weeks
looking into legal issues?

(WRITE EXACT NUMBER OF HOURS)

26. How effective have your efforts been in this area so

far?
ASK EACH NOT EFFECTIVE AT ALL. ....... 1
NOT VERY EFFECTIVE.......... 2
SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE. ......... 3

VERY EFFECTIVE.... .......... 4

188
27. How satisfied are you with what has done
with and for you in this area?
ASK EACH VERY DISSATISFIED.... ....... 1
SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED....... 2
SOMEWHAT SATISFIED.......... 3

VERY SATISFIED.............. 4

189

IF HEALTH ISSUES WAS CHOSEN, ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

28. In the area of health, what specifically were you
interested in looking into?

MEDICARE/MEDICAID...........
FIND HEALTH INFORMATION.....
GET (PRIVATE) INSURANCE.....
FIND DOCTOR/CLINIC..... .....
GET MEDICATION..............
OTHER ..
29. What all have you two done together in this area?
DISCUSSED OPTIONS..........YES
ASK EACH
PHONE CALLS................ l
LOOKED IN PERSON........... 1
GOT WRITTEN MATERIAL....... l
PHONE BOOK/NEWSPAPER.. ..... 1

OTHER .. 1

2

2

30. How many hours have you two spent in the last 10 weeks

looking into this area?
(WRITE EXACT NUMBER OF HOURS)

31. How effective have your efforts been in this area?

 

NOT EFFECTIVE AT ALL... ...... ... 1
ASK EACH

NOT VERY EFFECTIVE... ........... 2

SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE. ..... . ....... 3

VERY EFFECTIVE... ........ . ...... 4
32. How satisfied are you with what has done

 

with and for you in this area?

VERY DISSATISFIED...........
ASK EACH

SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED.......

SOMEWHAT SATISFIED... .......

VERY SATISFIED....... .......

1

2

3

4

190

IF CHILDCARE WAS CHOSEN, ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

33. What all have you two done together in the area of

childcare?

ASK EACH

YES
DISCUSSED OPTIONS.......... 1

PHONE CALLS................ 1
GOT WRITTEN MATERIAL....... 1
NEWSPAPER.................. 1
WENT TO AGENCY/AGENCIES.... 1
ADVERTISED................. 1

OTHER . 1

34. How many hours have you spent in the last 10 weeks
looking into finding childcare?

(WRITE EXACT NUMBER OF HOURS)

35. Have you achieved your goal yet?

NOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOO ...........

PROBABLY YES........... .....

YES.....OOOOOOOOOO ..........

36. How satisfied are you with what has
done with and for you in this area?

ASK EACH

VERY DISSATISFIED...... .....

SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED.......

SOMEWHAT SATISFIED... .......

VERY SATISFIED..............

1

2

3

1

2

3

4

191

IF SOCIAL SUPPORT WAS CHOSEN,.ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
37. In the area of social support, or making new friends,
what all have you two done together?
YES NO

ASK EACH DISCUSSED OPTIONS.......... 1 2
MADE PHONE CALLS........... 1 2

GONE TO GATHERINGS......... 1 2

NEWSPAPER/PHONE BOOK....... 1 2

GOT WRITTEN MATERIALS...... 1 2

OTHER ... l 2

38. How many hours have you two spent in the last 10 weeks
looking into finding some social support?

(WRITE EXACT NUMBER OF HOURS)

39. How effective have your efforts been in getting you
some social support?

ASK EACH NOT EFFECTIVE AT ALL....... 1
NOT VERY EFFECTIVE.... ..... 2
SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE. ........ 3
VERY EFFECTIVE........ ..... 4

40. How satisfied have been with what has done

 

with and for you in this area?

VERY DISSATISFIED..... ..... 1
ASK EACH

SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED...... 2

SOMEWHAT SATISFIED......... 3

VERY SATISFIED........ ..... 4

192
IF FINANCIAL (OTHER THAN EMPLOYMENT) WAS CHOSEN, ASK THE
FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
41. In the area of getting money, other than employment,
what had.you decided specifically to work on?
YES
GOVERNMENT AID............. 1
BORROW FROM INSTITUTION.... 1
BORROW FROM FRIEND/RELATIVE 1

42. What all have you two done together in the area of

finances?
YES
ASK EACH DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES.... 1
DISCUSSED OPTIONS.......... 1
PHONE CMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1
CONTACT BANKS IN PERSON.... 1

LENDING AGENCIES IN PERSON. 1
ASKED FRIEND/RELATIVE...... 1

OTHER . 1

2

2

43. How many hours have you two spent in the last 10 weeks

looking into getting money?
(WRITE EXACT NUMBER OF HOURS)
44. How effective have your efforts been?
ASK EACH NOT EFFECTIVE AT ALL... .....
NOT VERY EFFECTIVE.. ........
SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE. .........
VERY EFFECTIVE..............

45. How satisfied are you with what has done
with and for you in this area?

 

VERY DISSATISFIED...........

SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED.. .....

SOMEWHAT SATISFIED..... .....

VERY SATISFIED..............

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

193

IF MATERIAL GOODS WAS CHOSEN, ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

46. In the area of obtaining material goods or services,
such as food, furniture, clothing, toys, a plumber,

 

etc., what all have you and done together?
YES NO
ASK EACH DISCUSSED OPTIONS.......... 1 2
MADE PHONE CALLS........... 1 2
LOOKEIN PERSON........... 1 2

GOT WRITTEN MATERIAL....... 1 2
PHONEBOOK/NEWSPAPER........ 1 2
CONTACTED AGENCY/AGENCIES.. 1 2
ADVERTISED................. 1 2
OTHER .... 1 2

47. How many hours have you two spent in the last 10 weeks
looking into this area?

(WRITE EXACT NUMBER OF HOURS)

48. How effective have your efforts been in this area?

 

ASK EACH NOT EFFECTIVE AT ALL........ 1
NOT VERY EFFECTIVE..... ..... 2

SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE.......... 3

VERY EFFECTIVE.............. 4
49. How satisfied are you with 's efforts in this

area?

.ASK EACH VERY DISSATISFIED........... l
SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED....... 2

SOMEWHAT SATISFIED.......... 3

VERY SATISFIED.....COOOOOOOO 4

194
IF ISSUES REGARDING CHILDREN (EXCLUDING CHILDCARE) WAS
CHOSEN, ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

50. In the area of advocacy services for your children,
what specifically did you choose to work on?

SCHOOL ISSUES............... 1
EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES.. 2
COUNSELING SERVICES......... 3
EMPLOYMENT ISSUES........... 4
GETTING THE CHILD(REN)
MATERIAL GOOD(S) LIKE TOYS,
BIKES, ACCESSORIES.......... 5
OTHER . 6
51. What all has the advocate and you and/or the child(ren)
done in this area?
YES NO
ASK EACH DISCUSSED OPTIONS.......... 1 2
PHONE CALISOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1 2
LOOKED IN PERSON........... 1 2
GOT WRITTEN MATERIAL....... 1 2
PHONEBOOK/NEWSPAPER........ 1 2
CONTACTED AGENCY/AGENCIES.. 1 2
OTHER .. 1 2

52. How many hours have you two spent in the last 10 weeks
looking into this area?

(WRITE EXACT NUMBER OF HOURS)

195

53. How effective have these efforts been?

NOT EFFECTIVE AT ALL........

 

ASK EACH
NOT VERY EFFECTIVE..........
SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE..... .....
VERY EFFEflIVEOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
54. How satisfied are you with 's efforts?
VERY DISSATISFIED...........
ASK EACH

SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED.. .....

SOMEWHAT SATISFIED..........

VERY SATISFIED...... ..... ...

196

IF (OTHER) WAS CHOSEN, ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
55. In the area of , what all have
you two done?
YES
DISCUSSED OPTIONS.......... 1
PHONE CALIBOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOO 1
moan IN PERSONOOOOOOOOOO. 1
GOT WRITTEN MATERIALS...... 1
PHONEBOOK/NEWSPAPERS....... 1
OTHER . 1

56. How many hours have you two spent in the last 10 week
looking into this area?

(WRITE EXACT NUMBER OF HOURS)
57. How effective have your efforts been?
ASK EACH NOT EFFECTIVE AT ALL........
NOT VERY EFFECTIVE..........
SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE..........
VERY EFFECTIVE..............

58. How satisfied are you with 's efforts in
this area?

 

ASK EACH VERY DISSATISFIED...........
SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED.......
SOMEWHAT SATISFIED.... ......

VERY SATISFIED..............

2

2

S

197

ASK ALL RESPONDENTS THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS
59. Now I’d like to ask you some questions about the
program in general. How satisfied have you been with
the program?
ASK EACH VERY DISSATISFIED........... 1
SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED....... 2
SOMEWHAT SATISFIED.......... 3

VERY SATISFIED.....OOOOOOOOO 4

 

60. How satisfied are you with the effort put
in toward the goals you’ve chosen?

ASK EACH VERY DISSATISFIED........... l

SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED....... 2

SOMEWHAT SATISFIED.......... 3
VERY SATISFIED.............. 4

61. How satisfied are you with the amount of time you spent

 

with a weik?
ASK EACH NOT ENOUGH TIME............. 1
SATISFIED................... 2
SPENT TOO MUCH TIME......... 3

62. How many hours a week would you have liked to spend
withher?
LESS THANONE.............. 1
ONE OR TWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 2
THREE OR FOUR............... 3
FIVE OR SIX........ ........ . 4
SEVEN OR EIGHT.............. 5

MORE THAN EIGHT (SPECIFY )

O)

198

63. Now if you don't mind I'd like to ask you a few
questions about your home life. At the last interview
you said that ___ children were living with you. How
many children are living with you now?

(WRITE EXACT NUMBER)...........___

63a. What are their ages? (INDICATE NUMBER IN EACH AGE
RANGE)
UNDER FIVE YEARS OLD

5 TO 12 YEARS OLD

13 TO 18 YEARS OLD

OVER 18 YEARS OLD

 

64. Since you left the shelter, have you been employed?
YES.............. ........... 1
NO.................... ...... 2
65. Are you employed right now?
YES................... ...... 1

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ..... 2
IF'YES:

65a. What type of work do you do?
CLERICAL.......... .......... 1
DOMESTIC/CHILDCARE. . ........ 2
SALES/WAITRESS.............. 3
MANAGERIAL.................. 4
FACTORY..................... 5
HUMAN SERVICES... ........... 6

OTHER ( ). 7

199

IF SHE WORKS NOW:

65b. Do you work part-time, full-time, or sporadically
(off and on, temporary)?

PART-TIME................... l

FULL-TIME................... 2

SPORADICALLY................ 3
66. Are you a student?

YES.....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.... l

NOCOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.000...... 2

IF‘YES:

66b. iPart-time or full-time?
PART-TIME.............. ..... l
FULL-TIME................... 2

67. Are you receiving any governmental assistance? (food
stamps, General Assistance, ADC, etc.)

YES......................... 1
NO.......................... 2

68. Where are you living right now? Are you:
ASK EACH STAYING WITH FRIENDS/RELATIVES... l
RENT HOUSE OR APARTMENT.......... 2
OWN HOUSE OR APARTMENT........... 3
OTHER( ).... 4

69. How many other adults are in the same home you're in?

70. How many children are in the same home you’re in?

200

Now 17d just like to ask you some questions about your

 

 

contact with since you left the
shelter.
71. Are you currently living with ?
NO..........................
GO TO #76 YES.........................
72. How often have you seen over the

 

last five weeks?
NEVER.......................
ONCE OR TWICE...............
THREE OR FOUR TIMES.........
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK........
THREE OR FOUR TIMES A WEEK..
MORE THAN FOUR TIMES A WEEK.

73. How often have you talked on the phone with him over
the last five weeks?

NEVER.......................
ONCE OR TWICE...............
THREE OR FOUR TIMES.........
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK........
THREE OR FOUR TIMES A WEEK..
MORE THAN FOUR TIMES A WEEK.

74. Are you currently in a relationships with
‘2

 

NOCCOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.0.0...O

Go To #76 YES.....OOOOOOOOOO00......0O

201

75. Separating from someone is sometimes a difficult
process. About how many times in the last 5 weeks
would you say you’ ve seriously considered getting back
together with ?

ASK EACH ONLY IF NEVER.......................... 1
YOU NEED TO PROBE ONCE OR TWICE.................. 2
THREE OR FOUR TIMES... ......... 3
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK........... 4

THREE OR FOUR TIMES A WEEK..... 5
MORE THAN FOUR TIMES A WEEK.... 6

76. How many times in the last five weeks has
threatened you in any way?

 

ASK EACH ONLY IF NEVER......................... 1
YOU NEED TO PROBE ONCE OR TWICE........ ......... 2
THREE OR FOUR TIMES........... 3
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK.......... 4

THREE OR FOUR TIMES A WEEK.... 5
MORE THAN FOUR TIMES A WEEK... 6

77. How many times in the last five weeks has
physically harmed you?

 

GO TO #81 NEVER........................ l
ONCE OR TWICE................ 2
THREE OR FOUR TIMES... ....... 3
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK......... 4
THREE OR FOUR TIMES A WEEK... 5

MORE THAN FOUR TIMES A WEEK.. 6

202

77a. In what ways has he harmed you in the last 5
weeks? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

SHOW CARD, AND

ASK EACH

SHOW CARD, AND

ASK EACH

YES NO
PULLED YOUR HAIR................... l 2
BROKE GLASSES/TORE CLOTHING........ l 2
PUSHED, SHOVED, GRABBED YOU........ 1 2
SLAPPED WITH OPEN HAND............. 1 2
KICKED, BIT OR HIT WITH FIST....... 1 2
THREW SOMETHING AT YOU............. 1 2
HIT OR TRIED TO HIT WITH OBJECT.... 1 2
CHOKED YOU......................... 1 2
BURNED YOU......................... 1 2
TIED UP, PHYSICALLY RESTRAINED..... l 2
FORCED SEXUAL ACTIVITY............. 1 2
THREATENED WITH GUN OR KNIFE....... 1 2
USED GUN OR KNIFE.................. 1 2

77b. Did you sustain any of the following injuries?

YES NO
CUTS/SCRAPES/BRUISES............... 1 2
SORENESS WITHOUT BRUISING.......... l 2
BURNS.............................. l 2
LOOSE OR BROKEN TEETH.............. 1 2
BROKEN BONES/FRACTURES............. l 2
INTERNAL INJURIES.................. 1 2
STRAINED/SPRAINED JOINTS........... 1 2
DISLOCATED JOINTS.................. 1 2

PREGNANCY COMPLICATIONS............ 1

KNIFE OR GUNSHOT WOUND............. 1

203

77c. Who did you tell about the assault(s)? (CHECK ALL)

YES NO

PROBE NO ONE...... ............ . 1 2
VOLUNTEER................ 1 2

CADA............. ........ 1 2

RELATIVE....... .......... 1 2

FRIENDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1 2

 

 

 

POLICE........ ........... 1 2
DOCTOR/NURSE........ ..... 1 2
OTHER .. 1 2

78. How many times since leaving the shelter did you seek

medical treatment because of injuries from ?
(INDICATE EXACT NUMBER)........

79. How many times since leaving the shelter do you think
you required medical attention because of such injuries
but didn't receive it?

(INDICATE EXACT NUMBER)........

80. In general, how typical was the violence since leaving
the shelter compared to the violence throughout your
relationship?

ASK EACH MUCH LESS SEVERE.. .......... 1
LESS SEVERE.... ............. 2
ABOUT THE SAME... ........... 3
MORE SEVERE.....OOOOOO 000000 4
MUCH MORE SEVERE............ 5

81. How many times since leaving the shelter have you
called the police because of 's violence or
threats?

(INDICATE EXACT NUMBER) ___

82. How many times since leaving the shelter have you

called CADA because of his violence or threats?

(INDICATE EXACT NUMBER)........

204

Thanks for answering all of those questions. Now 17d just
like to ask you questions about your life in general.
83. Do you feel there is someone in your life (other than

your volunteer) who could generally be counted on

and is available to:

YES NO
WATCH YOUR CHILD(REN)....... l 2

TAKE YOU PLACES (PROVIDE
TRANSPORTATION............. 1 2

END YOUMONEYOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1 2

GIVE YOU A PLACE TO STAY IN
”EMERGENCYOOOOOCOOOOOOOOO 1 2

WYOUAFAVOROCCIOOOOOOOOOO 1 2
GIVE YOU GOOD ADVICE... ..... 1 2

LISTEN TO YOU WHEN YOU
NEEDTO TALK............... 1 2

84. How often did you and talk about
?

 

NEVEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ......... 1

ONCE ORTWICEOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOO... 2

THREE OR FOUR TIMES.............. 3

ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK............. 4

THREE OR FOUR TIMES A WEEK....... 5

MORE THAN 4 TIMES A WEEK......... 6

 

84am How helpful was it for you to talk to
?

 

about
ASK EACH VERY UNHELPFUL......... .......... 1
SOMEWHAT UNHELPFUL............... 2
NEITHER HELPFUL OR UNHELPFUL..... 3
SOMEWHAT HELPFUL......... ...... .. 4

VERYHELPNLOCOOOOOO0.00.0000...O 5

205

85. If a friend of yours wanted to get a job and didnH:
know how to go about getting one, what all would you
advise her to do to find one?

(PROBE: "IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE?”)

 

 

86. If she followed your advice, how successful do you
think she’d be in getting a job?

DEFINITELY UNSUCCESSFUL........... l
PROBABLY UNSUCCESSFUL.. ........... 2
PROBABLY SUCCESSFUL............... 3
DEFINITELY SUCCESSFUL............. 4
87. If you were to decide in a couple of months to move,

what all could you do to find a place?
(PROBE: "ANYTHING ELSE?")

 

 

88. How successful do you think you'd be in finding a new

place?
DEFINITELY UNSUCCESSFUL.......... 1
PROBABLY UNSUCCESSFUL...... ...... 2
PROBABLY SUCCESSFUL......... ..... 3

DEFINITELY SUCCESSFUL............ 4

89. If a friend of yours asked your advice on how she could
find some cheap furniture-~she has very little money—-
what all would you advise her or do?

(PROBE: "ANYTHING ELSE?")

 

 

90.

91.

92.

206

If your friend from that example followed your advice,
how successful do you think she'd be in getting
furniture?
DEFINITELY UNSUCCESSFUL.......... l
PROBABLY UNSUCCESSFUL............ 2
PROBABLY SUCCESSFUL...... ........ 3
DEFINITELY SUCCESSFUL............ 4

How would you say you feel about your life in general?

SHOW CARD, AND EXTREMELY PLEASED.. ............. l
ASK EACH PLEASED.....OOOOOOOOO ........... 2
MOSTLY SATISFIED................ 3

MIXED (EQUALLY SATISFIED AND
DISSATISFIED................... 4

MOSTLY DISSATISFIED............. 5
UNHAPPY......................... 6
TERRIBLE................. ....... 7
How many other women do you know who are participating

in this program?
(INDICATE EXACT NUMBER).......

IF ANY:

92a. How many of them have advocates?

(INDICATE EXACT NUMBER).......

 

207

93. Thank you very much for answering all of these
questions. Your answers will help us improve this
program to better meet the needs of women who want
advocates. How helpful would you say this project has
been in helping you gain independence from

NOT AT ALL HELPFUL......... ..... 1
ASK EACH

ALINLIE HELPWLOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOO 2

SOMEWHAT HELPFUL................ 3

VERY HELPFULOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0 4

94. Is there anything else you’d like to say about the
program? Can you think of ways in which it could be
improved?

 

 

(Use back if necessary)

(THANK THE RESPONDENT FOR HER TIME AND INPUT. TALK TO HER
ABOUT ANYTHING SHE MAY WANT TO TALK ABOUT AT THIS TIME)

Time interview ended:

Length of interview:

208

Appendix H: Post Interview for Control Group

Interviewer ID#

 

Respondent ID#

 

Time Interview Started:

The CAP Third Interview

17d like to remind you again that anything you say here will
be held in the strictest confidence. I'd just like to ask
you some questions about how your life has been going since
the last interviewu At the last interview you said that ___
of your children were living with you.

1. How many of your children are living with you now?
(WRITE EXACT NUMBER).............

1a. What are their ages? (INDICATE NUMBER IN EACH AGE
RANGE)

UNDER FIVE YEARS OLD
5 TO 12 YEARS OLD
13 TO 17 YEARS OLD

18 OR OLDER

 

2. Since you left the shelter, have you been employed?
YES................ ..... ......... 1
NO............................... 2

3. Are you employed right now?

YES.....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 0000000000 1

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO......OOOOOOOOOO 2

209

IF SHE IS EMPLOYED NOW:
3a. What type of work do you do?
CLERICAL......................... l
DOMESTIC/CHILDCARE...... ......... 2
SALES/WAITRESS.............. ..... 3
MANAGERIAL....................... 4
FACTORY.......................... 5
HUMAN SERVICES............ ....... 6
OTHER .... 7

3b. Do you work part-time, full-time, or sporadically
(off and on, temporary)?

PART-TIME.................. ...... l
FULL-TIME........................ 2
SPORADICALLY..................... 3
4. Are you a student?
YES..................... ......... 1
NO. ..... ....... .................. 2
IF SHE IS A STUDENT:
4b. {Part-time or full-time?
PART-TIME........................ 1
FULL-TIME........................ 2
5. Are you receiving any governmental assistance? (food
stamps, General Assistance, ADC, etc.)

YES.....C... OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO... ....... 2

210

Now'IVd like to ask you some questions about how things
have been going for you and things you may have been
trying to improve since leaving the shelter. Since
leaving the shelter, have any of the following areas
been areas that you wanted to improve or change?

YES NO
housing issues.................................. 1 2
education........ ............................... 1 2
transportation issues.. ...... . .................. 1 2
employment...................................... 1 2
legal issues......... ..... 1 2
health issues.n.u ..... . ...... u ............... l 2
childcare issues.......... ..... ............. 1 2
getting social support, making friends.”. ...... 1 2
finances, or ways of getting money other than
through employment?............................. 1 2
material goods or services, such as furniture,
toys, a plumber................................. 1 2
issues for your children, such as schooling,
extra activities, etc 1 2
Is there anything else that I havenft'mentioned
3?. .‘C‘f‘f'f’f.7???.‘i‘f.‘."‘??..i."1‘i’f‘.".’?‘.“i“.‘i .‘i’f f1...” 1 2

If yes, what specifically?

 

 

FOR EVERY OPTION WHICH THE RESPONDENT ANSWERED "YES" TO,
ASK THE APPROPRIATE QUESTIONS BEGINNING ON THE NEXT
PAGE. FOR THOSE AREAS NOT CHOSEN, MARK "(DOES NOT
APPLY)” ON THE APPROPRIATE PAGE.

EVERY ANSWER, THEN, SHOULD BE MARKED.

211

IF HOUSING WAS CHOSEN, ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
7. In the area of housing, what all have you done to
accomplish your goals?
YES NO
ASK EACH MADE PHONE CALLS........... 1 2
WKED IN PERSONOOOOOOOOOOO 1 2
OBTAINED WRITTEN MATERIALS. 1 2
CHECKED NEWSPAPERS......... 1 2
CONTACTED AGENCY,AGENCIES.. 1 2
OTHER 1 2
8. How much time have you spent in the last ten weeks
looking for housing?
(WRITE EXACT NUMBER OF HOURS)
9. Have you found housing yet?
NOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOO00.0.00. 1

PROBABLY YES........... ...... 2

DEFINITELY YES............... 3

212

IF EDUCATION WAS CHOSEN,.ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
10. In the area of education, what type of schooling were
you interested in pursuing?
OBTAIN GED/FINISH HIGH SCHOOL .... 1
ATTEND JUNIOR/COMMUNITY COLLEGE... 2
ATTEND COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY......... 3

ATTEND GRAD./PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL.. 4

 

ATTEND TRADE SCHOOL............... 5
OTHER ... 6
11. ‘What all have you done in this area to accomplish your
goals?
YES NO
ASK EACH MADE PHONE CALLS............... 1 2

LOOKED IN PERSON............... 1 2
OBTAINED WRITTEN MATERIALS..... 1 2
APPLIED OR ENROLLED............ 1 2
OTHER 1 2

12. How many hours have you spent in the last ten weeks
looking into educational options?

(WRITE EXACT NUMBER OF HOURS)

13. How effective have your efforts been in accomplishing
your goal (s) ?

NOT EFFECTIVE AT ALL.............. 1
ASK EACH

NOT VERY EFFECTIVE................ 2

SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE........... ..... 3

VERY EFFECTIVE.................... 4

IF TRANSPORTATION WAS CHOSEN,.ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

213

14. In the area of transportation, what had you decided to

work.on?

LEARNING BUS ROUTES..........
BUYING A CAR.................
FIXING HER CAR...............
GETTING BUS PASS.............

OTHER ...

15. What all have you done in this area?

ASK EACH

YES
PHONE CALLS................ I
GOT WRITTEN MATERIALS...... 1
LOOKED IN PERSON... ........ 1

OTHER . 1

16. How much time have you spent in the last ten weeks
looking into transportation?

.1

.2

.3

(WRITE EXACT NUMBER OF HOURS)

17. How effective have your efforts been in accomplishing

your goals?

ASK EACH

NOT EFFECTIVE AT ALL.........
NOT VERY EFFECTIVE...........
SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE.. .........

VERY EFFECTIVE..... ..........

1

2

3

4

214

IF EMPLOYMENT WAS CHOSEN, ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

18. In the area of employment, what all have you done?
YES NO

PHONE CALLS.................... 1 2
ASK EACH
LOOKED IN PERSON............... I 2
GOT WRITTEN MATERIAL........... 1 2
POSTED FLYERS.................. 1 2
PRACTICE APPLICATIONS.......... 1 2
ACTUAL APPLICATIONS............ 1 2
MADE RESUME.................... 1 2
ROLEPLAYED INTERVIEWING........ 1 2
NEWSPAPER ADS.................. 1 2
CONTACTED AGENCY,AGENCIES...... 1 2

OTHER .... 1 2

 

19. How much time have you spent in the last ten weeks
looking for employment?

(WRITE EXACT NUMBER OF HOURS)
20. Have you gotten a job yet from your efforts?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0... 000000 1

PROBABLY YES.....OOOOOOOOO ...... 2

YES.....OOOOOOOOOOOOOO0........0 3

 

215

IF LEGAL ISSUES WAS CHOSEN,.ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

21. In the area of legal issues, what had you decided to

work on?

YES

INJUNCTION/RESTRAINING ORDER....... 1

LEGAL SEPARATION/DIVORCE........... 1

ALIMONY/CHILD SUPPORT.............. 1

OTHER

 

22. In the area of legal issues, what all have you

done?

ASK EACH

YES
PHONE CALLS................ 1
LOOKED IN PERSON........... 1
GOT WRITTEN MATERIALS...... 1
APPLIED FOR LEGAL AID...... 1

GOT RESTRAINING ORDER OR
INJUNCTION (OR SIMILAR)... 1

“TWITH HWYEROOOOOOOOOOOO 1
WENT To COURTOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1

OTHER 1

23. How many hours have you spent in the last ten weeks
looking into legal issues?

(WRITE EXACT NUMBER OF HOURS)

24. How effective have your efforts been in this area?

ASK EACH

NOT EFFECTIVE AT ALL.......
NOT VERY EFFECTIVE.........
SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE.........

VERY EFFEflIVEOCOOOOOOOOOOO

NO

NO

216

IF HEALTH ISSUES WAS CHOSEN} ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

25. In the area of health, what specifically were you
interested in looking into?

MEDICARE/MEDICAID...........
FIND HEALTH INFORMATION.....
GET (PRIVATE) INSURANCE.....
FIND DOCTOR/CLINIC..........
GET MEDICATION..............

OTHER

 

26. What all have you done in this area?
YES

PHONE CALLS................ 1
ASK EACH LOOKED IN PERSON........... 1
GOT WRITTEN MATERIAL....... 1
PHONE BOOK/NEWSPAPER....... 1
OTHER .. 1

27. How many hours have you spent in the last ten weeks
looking into this area?

(WRITE EXACT NUMBER OF HOURS)

28. How effective have your efforts been in this area?

ASK EACH NOT EFFECTIVE AT ALL...... ......
NOT VERY EFFECTIVE..............
SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE..............

VERY EFFECTIVE............ ......

NO

1

2

3

4

 

217

IF CHILDCARE WAS CHOSEN,.ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

29. What all have you done in the area of childcare?
YES NO

PHONE GALE O C O O O C O C C O O O O O O O 1 2
ASK EACH

GOT WRITTEN MATERIAL....... 1 2

NEWSPAPER. O O O O C O O O O O C I O O O O O 1 2

WENT TO AGENCY/AGENCIES.... 1 2

ADVERTISED. . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 2

OTHER .. 1 2

30. How many hours have you spent in the last ten weeks
looking into finding childcare?

(WRITE EXACT NUMBER OF HOURS)
31. Have you achieved your goal yet?
NO..................... ..... l
PROBABLY YES........... ..... 2

YES.....OOOOOO... ........... 3

218

IF SOCIAL SUPPORT WAS CHOSEN} ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

32. In the area of social support, or making new friends,
what all have you done?

YES NO

ASK EACH MADE PHONE CALLS........... 1 2
GONE TO GATHERINGS......... 1 2
NEWSPAPER/PHONE BOOK....... 1 2
GOT WRITTEN HATERIALS...... 1 2
OTHER ... 1 2

33. How many hours have you spent in the last ten weeks
looking into finding some social support?

(WRITE EXACT NUMBER OF HOURS)

34. How effective have your efforts been in getting you
some social support?

ASK EACH NOT EFFECTIVE AT ALL....... 1
NOT VERY EFFECTIVE......... 2
SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE... ...... 3

VERY EFFECTIVE...... ....... 4

 

219
IF FINANCIAL (OTHER THAN EMPLOYMENT) WAS CHOSEN, ASK THE
FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
35. In the area of money, other than employment, what had
you decided specifically to work on?
YES NO
GOVEMMAIDOOIOOOOOOOOOO 1 2
BORROW FROM INSTITUTION. . . . l 2
BORROW FROM FRIEND/RELATIVE 1 2
36. What all have you done in the area of finances?
YES NO
DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES . . . . 1 2
ASK EACH
PHONE CAMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1 2
CONTACT BANKS IN PERSON. . . . 1 2
LENDING AGENCIES IN PERSON. 1 2
ASKED FRIEND/RELATIVE. . . . . . 1 2
OTHER . . 1 2

37. How many hours have you spent in the last ten weeks
looking into getting money?

(WRITE EXACT NUMBER 01'" HOURS)

38. How effective have your efforts been?

ASK EACH NOT EFFECTIVE AT ALL. . . . . . . . 1
NOTVERY EFFECTIVE.......... 2
SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE.......... 3

VERY EFFECTIVE.............. 4

 

220

IF MATERIAL GOODS WAS CHOSEN, ASKITHE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

39. In the area of obtaining material goods or services,
such as food, furniture, clothing, toys, a plumber,

etc., what all have you done to accomplish your goals?

YES NO

ASK EACH MADE PHONE CALLS........... 1 2

LOOKED IN PERSONOOOOOOOOOOO 1 2

GOT WRITTEN MATERIAL....... 1 2

PHONEBOOK/NEWSPAPER........ 1 2

CONTACTED AGENCY/AGENCIES.. 1 2

ADVERTISEDOOOOOOO0.00...... 1 2

OTHER .... 1 2

40. How many hours have you spent in the last ten weeks
looking into this area?

(WRITE EXACT NUMBER OF HOURS)

41. How effective have your efforts been in this area?

 

NOT EFFECTIVE AT ALL. . . . . . . . 1
ASK EACH

NOT VERY EFFECTIVE.......... 2

SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE. . . . . ..... 3

VERY EFFECTIVE.............. 4

 

221
IF ISSUES REGARDING CHILDREN (EXCLUDING CHILDCARE) WAS
CHOSEN, ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

42. In the area of advocacy services for your children,
what specifically did you choose to work on?

SCHOOL ISSUES...............
EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES..
COUNSELING SERVICES.........
EMPLOYMENT ISSUES...........
GETTING THE CHILD(REN)

MATERIAL GOOD(S) LIKE TOYS,
BIKES, ACCESSORIES).........

 

OTHER .
43. What all have you and/or the child(ren) done in this
area?
YES
ASKEACH PHONE MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1

LOOKED IN PERSON........... 1
GOT WRITTEN MATERIAL....... 1
PHONEBOOK/NEWSPAPER........ 1
CONTACTED AGENCY/AGENCIES.. 1
OTHER .. 1
44. How many hours have you spent in the last ten weeks
looking into this area?
(WRITE EXACT NUMBER OF HOURS)
45. How effective have these efforts been?
ASK EACH NOT EFFECTIVE AT ALL........
NOT VERY EFFECTIVE..........
SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE..........

VERY EFFECTIVE..............

 

222

IF (OTHER) WAS CHOSEN, ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
46. In the area of , what all have
you done?
YES NO
PHONE CALEOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. 1 2
ASK EACH

LOOKED IN PERSON........... I 2
GOT WRITTEN MATERIALS...... 1 2
PHONEBOOK/NEWSPAPERS....... 1 2
OTHER . 1 2

47. How many hours have you spent in the last ten weeks
looking into this area?

(WRITE EXACT NUMBER OF HOURS)

48. How effective have your efforts been?

ASK EACH NOT EFFECTIVE AT ALL........ 1
NOT VERY EFFECTIVE.......... 2
SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE.......... 3

VERY EFFECTIVE.....OOOOOOOOO 4

223

Now if you don't mind I’d like to ask you a few questions

about your home life.

49. Where are you living right now? Are you:

ASK EACH STAYING WITH FRIENDS/RELATIVES... 1
RENT HOUSE OR APARTMENT.......... 2
OWN HOUSE OR APARTMENT........... 3
OTHER ( ). 4

50. How many other adults are in the same home you’re in?

 

51. How many children are in the same home you're in?

NOW'IVd just like to ask you some questions about your

 

 

contact with since you left the shelter.
52. Are you currently living with ?
NO.............. ............ 1
(GO TO #57) YES.................... ..... 2
53. How often have you seen over the last

 

five weeks?

NEVER.................. ..... 1
ONCE OR TWICE.......... ..... 2
THREE OR FOUR TIMES... ...... 3
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK... ..... 4

THREE OR FOUR TIMES A WEEK.. 5

MORE THAN FOUR TIMES A WEEK. 6

 

224
54. How often have you talked on the phone with him over
the last gigg weeks?
NEVER.......................
ONCE OR TWICE...............
THREE OR FOUR TIMES.........
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK........
THREE OR FOUR TIMES A WEEK..
MORE THAN FOUR TIMES A WEEK.

55. Are you currently in a relationship with
?

 

NOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0....0.0

GOTO #57 YES.....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0

56. Separating from someone is sometimes a difficult
process. About how many times in the last 5 weeks
would you say you've seriously considered getting back

 

together with ?
NEVERCCOOOOOOOOOO00.0.0000...O. l
ASK EACH ONLY IF
ONCE OR TWICE.................. 2
YOU NEED TO PROBE
THREE OR FOUR TIMES............ 3
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK........... 4
THREE OR FOUR TIMES A WEEK..... 5
MORE THAN FOUR TIMES A WEEK.... 6

57. How many times in the last five weeks has
threatened you in any way?

 

ASK EACH ONLY IF NEVER......................... 1
YOU NEED TO PROBE ONCE OR TWICE................. 2
THREE OR FOUR TIMES..... ...... 3
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK.......... 4
THREE OR FOUR TIMES A WEEK.... 5

MORE THAN FOUR TIMES A WEEK... 6

225

58. How many times in the last five weeks has

physically harmed you?

 

59. In what ways has he harmed you in the last 5 weeks?

(GO TO #65) NEVER.................. ......
ONCE OR TWICE................
THREE OR FOUR TIMES..........
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK.........
THREE OR FOUR TIMES A WEEK...

MORE THAN FOUR TIMES A WEEK..

(CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

SHOW CARD AND

ASK EACH

PULLED YOUR HAIR...................
BROKE GLASSES/TORE CLOTHING... .....
PUSHED, SHOVED, GRABBED YOU........
SLAPPED WITH OPEN HAND.............
KICKED, BIT OR HIT WITH FIST.......
THREW SOMETHING AT YOU.............
HIT OR TRIED TO HIT WITH OBJECT....
CHOKED YOU.........................
BURNED YOU.........................
TIED UP, PHYSICALLY RESTRAINED.....
FORCED SEXUAL ACTIVITY.............
THREATENED WITH GUN OR KNIFE.......

USED GUN OR KNIFE..................

1

YES NO

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

226

60. Did you sustain any of the following injuries?

YES NO

SHOW CARD AND CUTS/SCRAPES/BRUISES............... 1 2
ASK EACH SORENESS WITHOUT BRUISING.......... 1 2
BURNSOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.000... 1 2

LOOSE OR BROKEN TEETH.............. l 2
BROKEN BONES/FRACTURES............. 1 2
INTERNAL INJURIES.................. 1 2
STRAINED/SPRAINED JOINTS........... 1 2
DISLOCATED JOINTS......... ..... .... 1 2
PREGNANCY COMPLICATIONS............ l 2
KNIFE OR GUNSHOT WOUND............. 1 2
61. Who did you tell about the assault(s)? (CHECK ALL)
YES NO
PROBE NO ONE................... 1 2
CADA..................... 1 2
RELATIVE......... ........ 1 2
FRIEND... ................ 1 2
POLICE................... 1 2
DOCTOR/NURSE............. 1 2
OTHER .. 1 2

62. How many times since leaving the shelter did you seek
medical treatment because of injuries from ?

 

(INDICATE EXACT NUMBER)........
63. How many times since leaving the shelter do you think
you required medical attention because of such injuries
but didn’t receive it?
(INDICATE EXACT NUMBER)........

 

 

227

64. In general, how typical was the violence since leaving
the shelter compared to the violence throughout your

relationship?
ASK EACH MUCH LESS SEVERE.............. 1
LESS SEVERE................... 2
ABOUT THE SAME................ 3

MORE SEVERE.....OOOOOOOOOOOOOO 4
MUCH MORE SEVERE.............. 5

65. How many times since leaving the shelter have you
called the police because of ’s violence or
threats?

(INDICATE EXACT NUMBER)”.H.H

66. How many times since leaving the shelter have you
called CADA because of his violence or threats?

(INDICATE EXACT NUMBER) 0 O O O O O O 0

Thanks for answering all of those questions. Now 17d just
like to ask you questions about your life in general.

67. Do you feel there is someone in your life who could
generally be counted on and is available to:
YES NO
WATCH YOUR CHILD(REN)....... 1 2

TAKE YOU PLACES (PROVIDE
TRANSPORTATION............. 1 2

LEND YOUMONEYCCOCOOOOOCOOOO l 2

GIVE YOU A PLACE TO STAY IN
“EMERGENCYOCOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1 2

DO YOU A FAVOR.............. 1 2
GIVE YOU GOOD ADVICE........ 1 2

LISTEN TO YOU WHEN YOU
NEED TO TALK............... 1 2

228

If a friend of yours wanted to find a job and didnfi:
knowfihow to go about finding one, what all could you
advise her to do to find one? (PROBE: "IS THERE
ANYTHING ELSE?")

 

 

If she followed your advice, how successful do you
think she’d be in getting a job?

DEFINITELY UNSUCCESSFUL...... ..... 1
PROBABLY UNSUCCESSFUL............. 2
PROBABLY SUCCESSFUL.... ........... 3
DEFINITELY SUCCESSFUL............. 4

If you were to decide in a couple of months to move,
what all could you do to find a new place?
(PROBE: "ANYTHING ELSE?”)

 

 

How successful do you think you'd be in finding a new
place?

DEFINITELY UNSUCCESSFUL.......... 1
PROBABLY UNSUCCESSFUL............ 2
PROBABLY SUCCESSFUL.............. 3
DEFINITELY SUCCESSFUL............ 4

If a friend of yours asked your advice on how she could
find some cheap furniture--she has very little money--
what all would you advise her or do?

(PROBE: "ANYTHING ELSE?”)

 

 

 

229

73. If your friend from the above example followed your
advice, how successful do you think she'd be in
getting furniture?

DEFINITELY UNSUCCESSFUL... ....... 1
PROBABLY UNSUCCESSFUL..... ....... 2
PROBABLY SUCCESSFUL.............. 3
DEFINITELY SUCCESSFUL............ 4

74. Thank you very much for answering all of these
questions. How would you say you feel about your
life in general?

SHOW CARD, AND EXTREMELY PLEASED......... ...... 1
ASK EACH PLEASED......................... 2
MOSTLY SATISFIED................ 3

MIXED (EQUALLY SATISFIED AND
DISSATISFIED................... 4
MOSTLY DISSATISFIED............. 5
UNHAPPY......................... 6

TERRIBI‘EOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOO..0...OI 7

75. How many other women do you know who are participating
in this program?
(INDICATE EXACT NUMBER)....... __
75a. How many of them have advocates?
(INDICATE EXACT NUMBER).......
(THANK THE RESPONDENT FOR HER TIME AND INPUT. TALK TO HER
ABOUT ANYTHING SHE MAY WANT TO TALK ABOUT AT THIS TIME)

Time interview ended:

Length of interview:

230

Appendix I: Followup Interview

Interviewer ID#

 

Respondent ID#

 

Time Interview Started:

THE COMMUNITY ADVOCACY PROJECT
FOLLOWUP INTERVIEW
17d like to remind you that anything you say here will be

held in the strictest confidence. 17d just like to ask you

some questions about how your life has been going in the
last 10 weeks.

1. You indicated in a previous interview that you had
children living with you. How many children are living
with you now?

(WRITE EXACT NUMBER)........

1a. What are their ages? (INDICATE NUMBER IN EACH AGE
RANGE)

UNDER FIVE YEARS OLD
5 TO 12 YEARS OLD
13 TO 18 YEARS OLD

OVER 18 YEARS OLD

2. Within the last 10 weeks, have you been employed?

YES............ ................. 1
NO.............................. 2

3. Are you employed now?
YES............................. 1
NO.............................. 2

 

231

IF SHE IS EMPLOYED NOW:

3a. What type of work do you do?
CLERICAL........................ 1
DOMESTIC/CHILDCARE.............. 2
SALES/WAITRESS....... ...... ..... 3
MANAGERIAL.............. ........ 4
FACTORY.................... ..... 5
HUMAN SERVICES.................. 6
OTHER ( ). . . . . 7

3b. Do you work part-time, full-time, or sporadically

(off and on, temporary)?

PART-TIME....................... 1
FULL-TIME....................... 2

stADICALLYOOOOOO......OOOOO0.0 3

Are you a student?

YES.....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00...... 1

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0......O. 2

IF‘YES:

4a. Part-time or full-time?
PART-TIME....................... l
FULL-TIME....................... 2

Are you receiving any governmental assistance? (food

stamps, General Assistance, ADC, etc.)

YES.....OOOOOOOOOO ...... O ....... 1

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ........ 2

 

232

6. Where are you living right now? Are you:

ASK EACH STAYING WITH FRIENDS/RELATIVES.. 1
RENT HOUSE OR APARTMENT... ...... 2
OWN HOUSE OR APARTMENT... ....... 3
OTHER ( ).... 4

 

7. How many other adults are in the same home you're in?
8. How many children are in the same home you're in?

9. Are you currently living with assailant?
NO................... ........... 1
GO TO #14 YES............................. 2
10. How often have you seen over the last
10 weeks?
NEVER........................... 1
ONCE OR TWICE................... 2
THREE OR FOUR TIMES............. 3
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK............ 4
THREE OR FOUR TIMES A WEEK...... 5
MORE THAN FOUR TIMES A WEEK..... 6

11. How often have you talked on the phone with him over
the last 10 weeks?

NEVEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.00.....0 1
ONCE OR TWICE........... ........ 2
THREE OR FOUR TIMES...... ....... 3

ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK............ 4

THREE OR FOUR TIMES A WEEK...... 5

MORE THAN FOUR TIMES A WEEK ..... 6

 

233

12. Are you currently in a relationship with
O

 

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO... ....... 1

Go To #14 YES.....OOOOOOIOO000......O..0.0 2

13. Separating from someone is sometimes a difficult
process. About how many times in the last 10 weeks
would you say you’ve seriously considered getting back
together with ?

NEVERCOCOCCOCOOOOOOOOOOOO ....... l
ASK EACH ONLY IF

ONCE ORWICEOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 2
YOU NEED TO PROBE

THREE OR FOUR TIMES........ ..... 3

ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK............ 4

THREE OR FOUR TIMES A WEEK...... 5

MORE THAN FOUR TIMES A WEEK..... 6

14. How many times in the last 10 weeks has
threatened you in any way?

 

ASK EACH ONLY IF NEVER.................... ....... 1
YOU NEED TO PROBE ONCE OR TWICE................... 2
THREE OR FOUR TIMES... .......... 3
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK............ 4
THREE OR FOUR TIMES A WEEK...... 5

MORE THAN FOUR TIMES A WEEK..... 6

15. How many times in the last 10 weeks has
physically harmed you?

 

GO TO #22 NEVER........................... 1
ONCE OR TWICE................... 2
THREE OR FOUR TIMES...... ....... 3
ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK............ 4
THREE OR FOUR TIMES A WEEK...... 5

MORE THAN FOUR TIMES A WEEK..... 6

 

16

SHC

AS}

16. In what ways has he harmed you in the last 12 weeks?

SHOW CARD AND

ASK EACH

234

PULLED YOUR HAIR..............
BROKE CLASSES/TORE CLOTHES....
PUSHED,SHOVED,GRABBED YOU.....
SLAPPED WITH OPEN HANO........
KICKEO,BIT,OR HIT WITH FIST...
THREW OBJECT AT YOU...........
HIT (OR TRIED TO) WITH OBJECT.
CHOKED YOU....................
BURNED YOU....................
TIEO,PHYSICALLY RESTRAINED....
FORCED SEXUAL ACTIVITY........
THREATENED WITH GUN/KNIFE.....

USED GUN OR KNIFE.............

YES

1

1

17. Did you sustain any of the following injuries?

SHOW CARD AND

ASK EACH

CUTS/SCRAPES/BRUISES..........
SORENESS WITHOUT BRUISES......
BURNS.........................
LOOSE OR BROKEN TEETH.........
BROKEN BONES/FRACTURES........
INTERNAL INJURIES.............
STRAINS/STRAINEO JOINTS.......
DISLOCATED JOINTS.............
PREGNANCY COMPLICATIONS.......

KNIFE OR GUNSHOT WOUND. . . . . . . .

YES
1

1

NO

235

18. Who did you tell about the assault(sr?

YES NO
PROBE NO ONE.......... ......... 1 2
Ex-VOLUNTEER............. 1 2
RELATIVE................. 1 2
FRIEND................... I 2
POLICE................... 1 2
DOCTOR/NURSE............. 1 2
OTHER ... 1 2

 

19. How many times in the last 10 weeks did you seek
medical attention because of injuries sustained
from ?

INDICATE EXACT NUMBER......

 

20. How many times in the last 10 weeks do you think you
required medical attention because of such injuries but
didn't receive it?

INDICATE EXACT NUMBER......

 

21. In general, how typical was the violence in the last 10
weeks compared to the violence throughout your

relationship?
ASK EACH MUCH LESS SEVERE.. .......... 1
LESS SEVERE........... ...... 2
ABOUT THE SAME.. ............ 3
MORE SEVERE................. 4

MUCH MORE SEVERE............ 5

22. How many times in the last 10 weeks have you called the
police because of his violence or threats toward you?

(INDICATE EXACT NUMBER)....

23. How many times in the last 10 weeks have you called
CADA because of his violence or threats?

(INDICATE EXACT NUMBER)....

 

236

Thanks for anwering all of those questions. Now 17d just
like to ask you questions about your life in general.

24. Do you feel there is someone in your life who could
generally be counted on to:
YES
WATCH YOUR CHILD(REN)......... 1

NZ
0

TAKE YOU PLACES (PROVIDE
TRANSPORTATION)00000000000000 l 2

LEND YOU MONEY................ 1 2

GIVE YOU A PLACE TO STAY IN
ANMRGENCYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1 2

mYOUAFAVOROCOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1 2
GIVE YOU GOOD ADVICE.......... 1 2

LISTEN TO YOU WHEN YOU NEED
To TAHCOCCOOOCOICOOO00...... 1 2

25. If a friend of yours wanted to get a job and didnfi:
know how to go about getting one, what all would you
advise her to do to find one?

(PROBE: "IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE?")

 

 

26. If she followed your advice, how successful do you
think she'd be in getting a job?

DEFINITELY UNSUCCESSFUL........... 1
PROBABLY UNSUCCESSFUL............. 2
PROBABLY SUCCESSFUL............... 3
DEFINITELY SUCCESSFUL............. 4
27. If you were to decide in a couple of months to move,

what all could you do to find a place?
(PROBE: "ANYTHING ELSE?”)

 

 

 

237

28. How successful do you think you'd be in finding a new

place?
DEFINITELY UNSUCCESSFUL........... 1
PROBABLY UNSUCCESSFUL............. 2
PROBABLY SUCCESSFUL............... 3
DEFINITELY SUCCESSFUL............. 4

29. If a friend of yours asked your advice on how she could
find some cheap furniture--she has very little money—-
what all would you advise her to do?

(PROBE: "ANYTHING ELSE?“)

 

 

30. If your friend from the above example followed your
advice, how successful do you think she'd be in
getting furniture?

DEFINITELY UNSUCCESSFUL........... 1
PROBABLY UNSUCCESSFUL............. 2
PROBABLY SUCCESSFUL............... 3
DEFINITELY SUCCESSFUL............. 4

31, .How would you say you feel about your life in general?

SHOW CARD, AND EXTREMELY PLEASED................. 1
ASK EACH PLEASED........................... 2
MOSTLY SATISFIED.................. 3

MIXED (EQUALLY SATISFIED AND
UNSATISFIED)..................... 4
MOSTLY DISSATISFIED............... 5

UNHAPPYOOOOOO......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 6
TERRIBLEOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0......0.0 7
Thank you very much for answering all of these questions.
Is there anything else you’d like to mention or talk about
right now? (TALK TO HER ABOUT ANYTHING SHE MAY WANT TO TALK
ABOUT AT THIS TIME)

Time Interview Ended:

 

Length of Interview:

 

LIST OF REFERENCES

 

238

LIST OF REFERENCES

Aguirre, B. E. (1985). Why do they return? Abused wives in
shelters. Social Work, 32, 350-354.

Allen, C. M. & Straus, M. A. (1980). Resources, power, and
husband-wife violence. In M.A. Straus & G.T. Hotaling
(Eds). The Social Causes 2f Husband-Wife Violence.
Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.

Andrews, F. & Withey, S. (1976). Social Indicators o_f_ Well-
Being: Americans' Perceptions 2f Life Quality. NY:
Plenum Press.

 

Ball, M. (1977). Issues of violence in family casework.
Social Casework, 5_8_,(4),3-12.

 

Barry, K. (1979). Female Sexual Slavery. NJ: Prentice-
Hall. 1

Bass, D. & Rice, J. (1979). Agency responses to the abused
wife. Social Casework, Q46), 338-342.

Bell, D. J. (1985). A multiyear study of Ohio urban,
suburban, and rural police dispositions of domestic
disputes. Victimology: An International Journal,
19,(1-4), 301-310.

Belsky, J. (1980). Child maltreatment: an ecological
analysis. American Psychologist, 3;, 320-335.

Bowker, L. H. (1981). Wife beating. In L.H. Bowker (Ed.),
Women and Crime in America. NY: MacMillan.

Bowker, L. H. (1984). Coping with wife abuse: personal and
social networks. In Roberts, A.R. (Ed.), Battered
Women and Their Families: Intervention Strategies and
Treatment Programs. NY: Springer Publishing CO.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology °_f Human
Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Campbell, D. T. & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and
discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod
matrix. Psychological Bulletin, §_6_, 81-103.

Carlson, B. E. (1977). Battered women and their assailants.
Social Work, gg,(6), 455-460.

Carlson, B. E. (1984). Causes and maintenance of domestic
violence: an ecological analysis. Social Service
Review, £44), 569-587.

 

 

239

Carsenat, G. (1975). Project Interval House research
submission #1. Unpublished manuscript. (Described in
D. Martin, Battered Wives. San Francisco: Glide, 1976).

Cowen, E. L., Zax, M., & Laird, J. D. (1966). A college
student volunteer program in the elementary school
setting. Community Mental Health Journal, 2, 319-328.

Cromwell, R. E. 8 Olson, D. H. (Eds.) (1975). £933; _i_g
Families. NY: Sage.

Dobash, R. E. & Dobash, R. (1979). Violence Against Wives.
NY: Free Press.

 

Donato, K. and Bowker, I» (1984). ‘Understanding the
helpseeking behavior of battered women: a comparison
of traditional service agencies and women's groups.
International Journal 9; Women's Studies, 1,(2),99-109.

Dutton, D. (1985). An ecologically nested theory of male
violence toward intimates. International Journal of
Women’s Studies, §_,(4), 404-413.

 

Eisenberg, S. E. and Micklow, P. L. (1977). The assaulted
wife: catch 22 revisited. Women’s Rights Law Reporter,
3-4, 138-161.

 

Field, M. H. & Field, H. F. (1973). Marital violence and
the criminal process: Neither justice or peace. The
Social Service Review, 51, 221-240.

Fields, M; (1978). Does this vow include wife beating?
Human Rights, 1, 40-45.

Finkelhor, D., Gelles, R., Hotaling, G., Straus, M. (1983).
The Dark Side 9; Families. CA: Sage.

Fleming, J. B. (1979). Stopping Wife Abuse: A Guide to the
Emotional, Psychological, and Legal Implications for
the Abused Woman £13 Those Helping §e_r. NY: Anchor
Press/Doubleday.

 

Flynn, J. P. (1977). Recent findings related to wife-abuse.
Social Casework, _5_8,(4),l3-20.

Freud, S. (1933). The psychology of women, lecture XXXIII.
New Introductory Letters 23 Psycho-analysis, 153.

 

Gayford, J. J. (1978). Battered wives. In J.P. Martin
(Ed.), Violence and the Family. Chichester, England:
John Wiley.

Gelles, R. J. (1972). The Violent Home: A Study _o_f Physical
Aggression Between Husbands and Wives. CA: Sage.

240

Gelles, R. J. (1976). Abused wives: why do they stay?
Journal 9; Marriage and the Family, g§,(4):659-668.

Gelles, R. J. (1979). Family Violence. CA: Sage.

Gillespie, D. L. (1971). Who has the power? The marital
struggle. Journal g; Marriage and the Family,
;;,(3), 445-458.

Goode, W. J. (1974). Force and violence in the family. In
S.K. Steinmetz & M.A. Straus (eds.), Violence in the
Family. NY: Harper 8 Row.

 

Gottlieb, N., Burden, D., McCormick, R., NiCarthy, G.
(1983). The distinctive attributes of feminist groups.
Social Work With Groug, _§_:3/4, Fall/Winter, 81-93.

Gruver, C. G. (1971). College students as therapeutic
agents. Psychological Bulletin, 19, 111-127.

Hilberman, E. & Munson, K. (1977-78). Sixty battered women.
Victimology: _A_n International Journal, 243-4), 460-
470.

Hofeller, K. H. (1982). Social, Psychologicaly and
Situational Factors in Wife Abuse. CA: R & E Research
Associates, Inc.

Kalmuss, D. S. & Straus, M. A. (1982). Wives' marital
dependency and wife abuse. Journal 2; Marriage and
the Family, 35, 277-286.

Kuhl, A. (1982). Community responses to battered women.
Victimology, 1,(1-4), 49-59.

Labell, L. S. (1979). Wife abuse: a sociological study of
battered women and their mates. Victimology, g,
(2): 258-267.

Langley, R. and Levy, R. (1977). Wife-Beating: The Silent
Crisis. NY: E.P. Dutton.

Martin, D. (1976). Battered Wives. San Francisco: Glide.

Martin, D. (1979). What keeps a woman captive in a violent
relationship? The social context of battering. In D.M.
Moore (Ed.), Battered Women. CA: Sage.

Melville, J. (1978). Women in refuge. In J. P. Martin
(Ed.) Violence and the Family. NY: Wiley.

 

241

Meyer, J. K. 8 T. D. Lorimer. (1977). Police Intervention
Data and Domestic Violence: Ayploratory Development and
Validation 9; Prediction Models. Report prepared
under grant #ROlMH279l8 from National Institute of
Mental Health. Kansas City, MO., Police Department.

 

 

Mills, T. (1985). The assault on the self: stages in coping
with battering husbands. Qualitative Sociology, §,(2),
103-123.

Mitchell, R. and Hodson, C. (1983). Coping with domestic
violence: social support and psychological health among
battered women. American Journal 9; Community
Psychology, _1_1, 629-654.

 

Moore, D. M. (1979). Battered Women. CA: Sage.

NiCarthy, G. (1982). Getting Free: A Handbook for Women _i_r_1_
Abusive Relationships. WA: Seal Press.

 

Okun, L. (1986). Woman Abuse: Facts Replacing Myths.
NY: State University of New York Press.

Pagelow, M. D. (1981a). Sex roles, power, and woman
battering. In L.H. Bowker (ed.), Women and Crime
_iA America. NY: Macmillan.

Pagelow, M. D. (1981b). Woman Batteriryq: Victims and Their
Experiences. CA: Sage.

Parker, B. 8 Schumacher, D. N. (1977). The battered wife
syndrome and violence in the nuclear family of origin:
a controlled pilot study. American Journal _gf Public
Health, fl, (8): 760-763.

Pfouts, J. H. (1978). Violent families: coping responses of
abused wives. Child Welfare, :11, 101-111.

Prescott, S. 8 Letko, C. (1977). Battered women: a social
psychological perspective. In Roy, M. (Ed.) Battered
Women: A Psychosociological Study _o_f Domestic Violence.
NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

 

Roberts, A. R. (Ed.) (1984). Battered Women and Their
Families: Intervention Strategies and Treatment
Programs. NY: Springer Publishing Company.

Rounsaville, B. J. (1978). Theories in marital violence:
Evidence study of battered women. Victimology,
;,(1-2), 11-31.

Roy, M. (1977). A current survey of 150 cases. In M. Roy
(Ed.), Battered Women: A Psychosociological Study 9;
Domestic Violence. NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

242

Sarason, S. B. (1976). Community psychology, networks, and
Mr. Everyman. American Psychologist, 2;, 317-328.

Schechter, S. (1982). ‘Women and Male Violence. Boston:
South End Press.

Schulman, M. A. (1979). A Survey 9; Spousal Violence
Against Women 1! Kentucky. KY: Kentucky Commission
on Women.

Seligman, S. E. 8 Hiroto, D. S. (1975). Generality of
learned helplessness in man. Journal 2; Personality
and Social Psychology, AA,(2), 311-327.

 

Snyder, D. K. and Fruchtman, L. A. (1981). Differential
patterns of wife abuse: a data-based typology. Journal
9; Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 32, 878-885.

Snyder, D. K. and Scheer, N. S. (1981). Predicting
adjustment following brief residence at a shelter for
battered women. American Journal 2; Community
Psychology, g, 559-566.

 

Stacey, W. A. 8 Shupe, A. (1983). The Family Secret:
Domestic Violence 12 America. MA: Beacon Press.

Stark, R. 8 McEvoy, J} (1970). Middle class violence.
Psychology Today, A, 52-65.

Steinmetz, S. K; (1977). The Cycle 9; Violence: Assertive,
Aggressive and Abusive Family Interaction. NY: Praeger.

Straus, M. A. (1977). A sociological perspective on the
prevention and treatment of wifebeating. In M. Roy
(Ed.), Battered Women: A Psychosociological Study 9;
Domestic Violence. NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Straus, M. A. (1978). Wife beating: how common and why?
Victimology, g,(3-4):443-458.

Straus, M; A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and
violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales. Journal 9g
Marriage and the Family, February, 75-88.

Straus, M. A., Gelles, R., Steinmetz, S. (1980). Behng
Closed Doors: Violence $2 the American Famil .
NY: Anchor Press.

Straus, M. A. 8 Gelles, R. J. (1986). Societal change and
change in family violence from 1975 to 1985 as
revealed by two national surveys. Journal 9; Marriage
and the Family, Ag, 465-479.

 

243

Strube, M. and Barbour, L. (1983). The decision to leave an
abusive relationship: economic dependence and
psychological commitment. Journal 9; Marriage and
Egg Family, November,785-793.

Strube, M. and Barbour, L. (1984). Factors related to the
decision to leave an abusive relationship. Journal 9;
Marriage and the Family, _4_6_, (4): 837-843.

Walker, L. E. (1977-78). Battered women and learned
helplessness. Victimology, g,(3-4), 525-534.

Walker, I. E. (1978). Treatment alternatives for battered
women. In J.R. Chapman and M. Gates (eds.), The
Victimization 9; Women. CA: Sage.

Walker, L. E. (1979a). The Battered Woman. NY: Harper 8
Row.

‘Walker, L. E. (1979b). How battering happens and how to
stop it. in D.M. Moore (Ed.), Battered Women.
CA: Sage.

Walker, L. E. (1983). The battered woman syndrome study.
In D. Finkelhor, R. Gelles, G. Hotaling, M. Straus
(Eds.), The Dark Side 9; Families. CA: Sage.

 

Wardell, L., Gillespie, D., 8 Leffler, A. (1983). Science
and violence against wives. In Finkelhor, D. et al.,
(Eds.) The Dark Side 2; Families. CA: Sage.