LINKING ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT TO SURVIVOR EMPOWERMENT:
A MIXED METHODS STUDY
By
Nkiru Ada Nnawulezi

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Psychology—Doctor of Philosophy
2015

ABSTRACT
LINKING ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT TO SURVIVOR EMPOWERMENT:
A MIXED METHODS STUDY
By
Nkiru Ada Nnawulezi
Given the oppressive nature of abusive relationships, it is imperative that formalized
helping organizations promote survivors’ empowerment. Since its inception, domestic violence
shelter programs have trained employees to engage in survivor-centered, empowering practices.
Yet, few research studies have explored how shelter contexts actually influence employee
practices, and subsequently, survivor empowerment. This dissertation tests a conceptual model
linking program theory, organizational culture, organizational structure, employee behavior, and
survivor empowerment. A transformative, multi-level, exploratory-sequential mixed-methods
design was employed to answer the research questions. This two phase methodological study
was implemented in an urban domestic violence residential program. The first phase involved an
inductive, exploratory thematic analysis of organizational documents and 12 semi-structured
employee interviews. The second phase of the study was a deductive, quantitative analysis of 33
structured interviews with residents who received program services.
Qualitative findings revealed five behavioral expectations embedded within the
organizational documents. Formal policies required that employees promote survivors’ rights
and support their decisions by (a) using inclusive service delivery approaches, (b) implementing
the organizational philosophy, (c) creating and sustaining partnerships, (d) encouraging survivor
safety, and (e) building capacities of direct service employees. These expectations were also
reflected in the five organizational culture themes that arose from an analysis of the employee
interviews. Specifically, employees stated the DASH was (a) highly autonomous yet (b)

relational. The cultural norms also required employees engage in service provision that (c)
prioritized survivors and (d) utilized the DASH model. Employees had a shared assumption that
DASH was (e) distinct from all other formal helping organizations. Two structural components
influenced the practice of survivor-centered, empowering service provision. First, across the
organizational hierarchy, employees described (a) flexibility in the procedures of the
organization, and the (b) management structure, initially designed to support advocates in
providing survivor-centered care, had mixed results. A majority of employees accurately defined
the organization’s principles and reported engaging in practices that were in alignment with the
organizational philosophy.
Quantitative results showed a small, but significant, positive association between
voluntary services approaches, survivor empowerment and empowerment-related safety.
Multivariate analysis revealed that the practices associated with the organizational philosophy
were significantly positively associated with survivor empowerment and empowerment-related
safety. In sum, results suggested that, when a philosophy is reflected and deeply embedded
within the organizational context, employees report practices that are in alignment with that
philosophy. Consequently, the greater use of practices that align with the organizational
philosophy, the more likely clients report the organization’s intended outcomes. Study
implications call for future research that integrates organizational theory to explore shelter
conditions that necessitate survivor-centered, empowering practice with survivors.

Copyright by
NKIRU ADA NNAWULEZI
2015

For my little brothers, Chuma and Jisike

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I come from a family of visionaries, intellectuals, and fierce advocates for justice. It is with this
understanding that I begin my acknowledgements by giving thanks to my ancestors. Their
activism in service of personal and community liberation nurtured my own. This is especially
true of my mother, Karen Lynn Tibbs-Nnawulezi, whose love I have felt throughout every step of
this process.
I am truly grateful for my family, those whom I was born to and those whom I have cultivated
over the years:
My dad, Chuma Nnawulezi, taught me how important it was to maintain familial connections and
make short-term sacrifices while in pursuit of a long-term goal. It is very likely that I would not
have made it through this dissertation without relying on both. Thank you for these lessons.
My brothers, Chuma and Jisike Nnawulezi, are wise beyond their years. Thanks for the insight,
compassion, and jokes. No matter how our relationship shifts over the years, I am so proud to be
your big sister.
My sisterfriends, Joy Thomas, Erica Oberhand, Clare Bresnahan, Tamara (Mayers) Williams,
Liz Camacho, Christina Campbell, Ashlee Barnes, Tara Scott, Lauren Spencer, Meeta Banerjee
and Joy Onifade. Thank you for being the sisters I have always wanted. I appreciate your phone
calls, your celebration of my accomplishments, your words, and your laughter. I feel blessed to
have you in my life.

vi

I want to give thanks to many people who have mentored me into everything I hoped to become
at the end of this journey:
Cris Sullivan, my mentor and guru. Thank you for being a guiding light. Thank you for always
finding ways to turn my visions into realities. Thank you for teaching me how to negotiate
academia with grace and integrity. Thank you for supporting my evolution. You have been on
my team since the beginning. Thank you for being down for the cause and encouraging me to
maintain that part of my being. I will probably never have enough words to express my immense
gratitude and appreciation for you. So, just thank you.
The Multiple Intersecting Identities Lab, especially Isis Settles and NiCole Buchanan. For the
past seven years, you created a safe space for me to become aware, stumble and grow into a
scholar. Thank you both for serving on my thesis, comps, and dissertation committees
throughout my time at MSU. Thank you for all of the time, care, and energy that you spent
listening, reflecting, guiding and supporting my research and my being. I aspire to be like you
both when I grow up.
Sheryl Kubiak, thank you for your sustained compassion and support. Thank you for providing
opportunities to cultivate skills during my first year of graduate school. I still use them to this
day. I appreciate you.
My dear colleagues-friends, Adrienne Adams, Nidal Karim, Echo Rivera, and Katie Gregory. I
feel like I owe one million and a half thank you’s. Thank you for helping me get through
graduate school, continuously reminding me that there was an end in sight, and that I had the
ability to actually make it. In particular, Adrienne, thank you for your patience, compassion,
wisdom, and always reminding me that I had something important to say to the world.

vii

Ann Marie Ryan and DeBrenna Agbenyiga, my committee members and academic role models.
Thank you for your commitment to this project, and investment in my ideas. Our conversations
stuck with me, and profoundly influenced how I go through the world. Thank you for sharing
your wisdom with me.
Carmen Gear, I feel like you earned this Ph.D. with me. You were a source of great hope, joy,
and light throughout my graduate school career. There is no way I would have made it through
PhD school without you.
My AGEP family, especially Tony Nunez, Steven Thomas, and Julius Jackson who have
provided sustained support throughout my entire graduate school career.
Thank you to Carmel Martin-Fairy, Ivan Wu, and Alexandra Gelbard, who made my writing
slightly less boring/scary/frustrating/annoying/anxiety-provoking. This dissertation would not
have been written without you sitting across from me in numerous coffee shops. Thank you!
District Alliance for Safe Housing, the focus of this dissertation. If it was not for you, this project
would not have been possible. Thank for welcoming me into your organization, and being so
open. I loved my time with you.
Last but not least, thank you to the survivors that participated in this study. This research could
not have happened without their deep wisdom and expertise. Thank you for sharing with me.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... xiii
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... xvi
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................ 4
Dynamics of Intimate Partner Violence ...................................................................................... 5
Help Seeking from Domestic Violence Shelters ........................................................................ 6
Empowerment Theory ................................................................................................................ 8
Human Service Settings and the Promotion of Empowerment .............................................. 9
Applying Empowerment Theory to Domestic Violence Shelters............................................. 10
The Empowerment Process Model in Domestic Violence Shelter Programs........................... 11
Setting Meaningful Goals ..................................................................................................... 11
Self-efficacy .......................................................................................................................... 12
Knowledge ............................................................................................................................ 12
Competence........................................................................................................................... 14
Action .................................................................................................................................... 14
Organizational Support of Employee Knowledge, Competencies, and Behavior .................... 15
The Social Context of Domestic Violence Organizations ........................................................ 16
Organizational Culture .......................................................................................................... 16
Organizational Structure ....................................................................................................... 18
Organizational Practices That Are Disempowering ............................................................. 20
Relationship between Program Theory and Organizational Behavior ..................................... 23
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 24
Research Questions and Hypotheses ........................................................................................ 25
CHAPTER 2: METHODS ............................................................................................................ 27
Organizational Context ............................................................................................................. 27
Organizational Philosophy: The DASH Model ........................................................................ 28
Sovereignty. .......................................................................................................................... 29
Empowerment. ...................................................................................................................... 29
Accountability/Professionalism ............................................................................................ 29
Partnerships ........................................................................................................................... 30
Compassion ........................................................................................................................... 30
Integrity ................................................................................................................................. 30
(Re)centering/Adaptability ................................................................................................... 30
DASH Structure ........................................................................................................................ 31
DASH’s Service Delivery Approach ........................................................................................ 32
Overview of the Mixed Method Research Design .................................................................... 32
Transformative ...................................................................................................................... 33
Multilevel .............................................................................................................................. 34
Exploratory-Sequential Mixed Method Design .................................................................... 34
ix

Step 1: Establish study goals..................................................................................................... 37
Step 2: Determine research objectives ...................................................................................... 37
Step 3. Determine the mixing rationale .................................................................................... 37
Step 4. Establish the research/mixing purpose ......................................................................... 38
Step 5. Introduce the research questions ................................................................................... 38
Step 6. Selecting the sampling design....................................................................................... 39
Step 7. Decide on a mixed-methods research design ................................................................ 40
Data Collection (Step 8) and Data Analysis (Step 9) ............................................................... 40
Steps 11-13. Data Interpretation, Data Reporting, & Research Question Reformulation ........ 42
Procedures ................................................................................................................................. 43
Participatory Meeting 1: Introduction ....................................................................................... 43
Phase 1, Stage 1: DASH Document Review ............................................................................ 44
Document Sample ................................................................................................................. 44
Document Review Data Analysis ......................................................................................... 45
Establishing Trustworthiness ................................................................................................ 47
Phase 1, Stage 2: DASH Employee Interviews ........................................................................ 47
Research Question 3 ............................................................................................................. 47
Participatory Meeting 2: Item Generation for Staff Interviews ................................................ 48
Staff Interview Guide ............................................................................................................ 49
Conducting Staff Interviews ................................................................................................. 49
Protecting Staff Confidentiality ............................................................................................ 50
Data Analysis of Staff Interviews ......................................................................................... 51
Staff Behavior Analysis ........................................................................................................ 51
Organizational Culture Analyses .......................................................................................... 52
Organizational Structure Analysis ........................................................................................ 52
Data Analysis Integration & Establishing Trustworthiness .................................................. 53
Participatory Meeting 3: Member Check Session and Developing Survivor Interviews ......... 53
Phase 2: Survivor Interviews .................................................................................................... 54
Hypothesis 1.......................................................................................................................... 54
Hypothesis 2.......................................................................................................................... 55
Survivor Interview Guide ..................................................................................................... 55
Demographics ....................................................................................................................... 55
Level of Participation in DASH............................................................................................ 55
DASH Model Practices ......................................................................................................... 55
Voluntary Services ................................................................................................................ 57
Survivor Empowerment ........................................................................................................ 57
Empowerment-Related Safety .............................................................................................. 58
Open-Ended Qualitative Questions....................................................................................... 58
Survivor Sampling and Procedures ....................................................................................... 58
Survivor Interview Data Analysis ......................................................................................... 59
Hypothesis 1.......................................................................................................................... 60
Hypothesis 2.......................................................................................................................... 60
Survivor Qualitative Analysis ............................................................................................... 66
Participatory Staff Meeting 4: Review of Findings .................................................................. 67
Survivor Member Check Session.............................................................................................. 67

x

CHAPTER 3: RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 69
Phase 1, Stage 1: Document Review ........................................................................................ 69
Expectation One: Use Approaches that Promote Inclusive Access to Safe Housing ........... 69
Expectation Two: DASH Model’s Seven Principles Should Inform Practice with Survivors
............................................................................................................................................... 70
Accountability/Professionalism ............................................................................................ 70
Compassion ........................................................................................................................... 71
Empowerment ....................................................................................................................... 71
Integrity ................................................................................................................................. 72
(Re)centering/Adaptability ................................................................................................... 72
Sovereignty ........................................................................................................................... 73
Expectation Three: Importance for Employees to Create and Sustain Partnerships ............ 73
Expectation Four: Survivor Safety........................................................................................ 74
Client Termination Policy ..................................................................................................... 74
Expectation Five: Emphasis on Advocates Learning Requisite Knowledge and Skills ....... 74
Inferences from the Document Review .................................................................................... 75
Phase 1, Stage 2: Staff Interviews............................................................................................. 76
Cultural Components Identified by Staff as Defining the Organization............................... 76
DASH is Autonomous .......................................................................................................... 77
DASH is Relational............................................................................................................... 78
Explicit Investment in the DASH model .............................................................................. 80
DASH is Survivor Centered.................................................................................................. 82
DASH is Distinct From Other Helping Organizations ......................................................... 83
How DASH Program Theory is Reflected in the Organizational Culture ................................ 84
Staff Perceptions of How the DASH Structure Impacts Their Work ....................................... 85
Mixed Effectiveness of the Technical Assistance Team ...................................................... 86
Procedures Support Advocate Autonomy and Flexibility .................................................... 88
Phase 2: Survivor Interviews .................................................................................................... 89
Survivor Demographic Information ...................................................................................... 89
Descriptive Survivor Analysis .............................................................................................. 91
Relationship between Voluntary Services and Empowerment ................................................. 99
Bayesian Confirmatory Factor Analysis of DASH Model Practices and Survivor
Empowerment Scales .............................................................................................................. 100
The Impact of DASH Practices on Survivor Empowerment .................................................. 102
Sovereignty’s Impact on Empowerment ............................................................................. 104
Empowering Practice’s Impact on Empowerment ............................................................. 105
Accountability’s Impact on Empowerment ........................................................................ 105
Partnerships’ Impact on Empowerment .............................................................................. 106
Compassion’s Impact on Empowerment ............................................................................ 107
Integrity’s Impact on Empowerment .................................................................................. 108
Recentering Practices’ Impact on Empowerment ............................................................... 109
The Impact of DASH Practices on Empowerment-Related Safety ........................................ 110
Sovereignty Practices Impact on Empowerment-Related Safety ....................................... 110
Empowering Practices Impact on Empowerment-Related Safety ...................................... 111
Accountability Practices Impact on Empowerment-Related Safety ................................... 112
Partnerships Practices Impact on Empowerment-Related Safety ....................................... 113
xi

Compassion Practices Impact on Empowerment-Related Safety ....................................... 114
Integrity Practices Impact on Empowerment-Related Safety ............................................. 115
Recentering Practices Impact on Empowerment-Related Safety ....................................... 116
Quantitative Results Summary ............................................................................................... 117
Survivor Qualitative Findings ................................................................................................. 117
Freedom in the DASH Environment................................................................................... 118
Receipt of Helpful Practical and Emotional Resources ...................................................... 119
Summary of Entire Study Findings......................................................................................... 120
Research Question 1 ........................................................................................................... 121
Research Question 2 ........................................................................................................... 121
Research Question 3 ........................................................................................................... 121
Hypothesis 1........................................................................................................................ 122
Hypothesis 2........................................................................................................................ 123
CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION...................................................................................................... 125
Strengths and Limitations of the Study................................................................................... 130
Implications for Theory and Research .................................................................................... 132
Implications for Human Service Practice ............................................................................... 135
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 137
APPENDIX A: DASH Organizational Chart FY 2014 .......................................................... 138
APPENDIX B: Document Review Mind Map ....................................................................... 139
APPENDIX C: Document Review Themes ........................................................................... 140
APPENDIX D: DASH Staff Interview Guide ........................................................................ 141
APPENDIX E: Organizational Culture Mind Map ................................................................ 150
APPENDIX F: Organizational Structure Mind Map .............................................................. 151
APPENDIX G: Staff Perceptions of DASH Model ................................................................ 152
APPENDIX H: DASH Resident Interview Guide .................................................................. 166
APPENDIX I: Survivor Focus Group Protocol ...................................................................... 179
APPENDIX J: Bayesian CFA Factor Loadings for DASH Model Practices Subscales ........ 182
APPENDIX K: Bayesian CFA Factor Loadings for Survivor Empowerment Subscale ........ 185
APPENDIX L: Staff Member Recruitment Email.................................................................. 188
APPENDIX M: Survivor Recruitment Form .......................................................................... 189
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 190

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Final List of Documents Analyzed for Exploratory Document Review………….

45

Table 2: Cornerstone Resident Demographics (N = 33)…………………………………...

90

Table 3: Descriptives for Voluntary Services Questions (N = 33)…………………………

92

Table 4: Descriptives for DASH Model Practices Subscales (N = 33)…………………….

92

Table 5: Descriptives for Survivor Empowerment Subscales (N = 33)……………………

95

Table 6: Descriptives for MOVERS Subscales (N = 33)…………………………………..

97

Table 7: Model Fit Indices for DASH Model Practices Subscales and Survivor
Empowerment Subscales…………………………………………………………………...

100

Table 8: Reliability of the DASH Model Practices Subscales, Survivor Empowerment
Subscales, and MOVERS Subscales……………………………………………………….

101

Table 9: Correlations Among DASH Model Practices Subscales, Survivor Empowerment
Subscales, and MOVERS Subscales……………………………………………………….

103

Table 10: Multivariate Results for Total Survivor Empowerment Subscales Regressed on
Sovereignty Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay……...

104

Table 11: Univariate Results for Total Survivor Empowerment Subscales Regressed on
Sovereignty Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay……...

104

Table 12: Multivariate Results for Total Survivor Empowerment Subscales Regressed on
Empowerment Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay…..

105

Table 13: Univariate Results for Total Survivor Empowerment Subscales Regressed on
Empowerment Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay…..

105

Table 14: Multivariate Results for Total Survivor Empowerment Subscales Regressed on
Accountability Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay…..

106

Table 15: Univariate Results for Total Survivor Empowerment Subscales Regressed on
Accountability Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay…..

106

Table 16: Multivariate Results for Total Survivor Empowerment Subscales Regressed on
Partnership Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay………..

107

xiii

Table 17: Univariate Results for Total Survivor Empowerment Subscales Regressed on
Partnership Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay………..

107

Table 18: Multivariate Results for Total Survivor Empowerment Subscales Regressed on
Compassion Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay………. 108
Table 19: Univariate Results for Total Survivor Empowerment Subscales Regressed on
Compassion Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay………. 108
Table 20: Multivariate Results for Total Survivor Empowerment Subscales Regressed on
Integrity Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay…………... 109
Table 21: Univariate Results for Total Survivor Empowerment Subscales Regressed on
Integrity Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay…………... 109
Table 22: Multivariate Results for Total Survivor Empowerment Subscales Regressed on
Recentering Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay……...

110

Table 23: Univariate Results for Total Survivor Empowerment Subscales Regressed on
Recentering Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay……...

110

Table 24: Multivariate Results for Total MOVERS Subscales Regressed on Sovereignty
Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of
Stay…………………………………………………………………………………………... 111
Table 25: Univariate Results for Total MOVERS Subscales Regressed on Sovereignty
Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of
Stay…………………………………………………………………………………………... 111
Table 26: Multivariate Results for Total MOVERS Subscales Regressed on Empowerment
Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of
Stay……………………………………………………………………………....................... 112
Table 27: Univariate Results for Total MOVERS Subscales Regressed on Empowerment
Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of
Stay……………………………………………………………………………....................... 112
Table 28: Multivariate Results for Total MOVERS Subscales Regressed on Accountability
Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of
Stay……………………………………………………………………………....................... 112
Table 29: Univariate Results for Total MOVERS Subscales Regressed on Accountability
Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay…………………….

xiv

113

Table 30: Multivariate Results for Total MOVERS Subscales Regressed on Partnerships
113
Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of
Stay…………………………………………………………………………………………...
Table 31: Univariate Results for Total MOVERS Subscales Regressed on Partnerships
Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay…………………….

114

Table 32: Multivariate Results for Total MOVERS Subscales Regressed on Compassion
Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of
Stay…………………………………………………………………………………………... 114
Table 33: Univariate Results for Total MOVERS Subscales Regressed on Compassion
Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of
Stay…………………………………………………………………………………………... 115
Table 34: Multivariate Results for Total MOVERS Subscales Regressed on Integrity
Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of
Stay………………………………………………………………………………………...

115

Table 35: Univariate Results for Total MOVERS Subscales Regressed on Integrity Model
Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of
Stay…………………………………………………………………………………………

116

Table 36: Multivariate Results for Total MOVERS Subscales Regressed on Recentering
Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of
Stay…………………………………………………………………………………………... 116
Table 37: Univariate Results for Total MOVERS Subscales Regressed on Recentering
Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of
Stay…………………………………………………………………………………………... 117
Table 38: Document Review Themes……………………………………………………….. 140
Table 39: Staff Perceptions of DASH Model………………………………………………..

152

Table 40: Posterior Means and Posterior Standardized Deviations for DASH Model
Practices……………………………………………………………………………………...

182

Table 41: Posterior Standardized Deviations for Survivor Empowerment………………….. 185

xv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Organizational Model Illustrating the Hypothesized Relationship Between
Organizational Structures and Survivor Outcomes…………………………………………. 25
Figure 2: DASH Organizational Philosophy………………………………………………..

28

Figure 3: Transformative, Multi-level, Exploratory-Sequential (QUAL quan), Mixed
Method Design………………………………………………………………………………

34

Figure 4: 2014 DASH Organizational Context……………………………………………... 138
Figure 5: Document Review Mind Map…………………………………………………….

139

Figure 6: Organizational Culture Mind Map………………………………………………..

150

Figure 7: Organizational Structure Mind Map……………………………………………… 151
Figure 8: Survivor Recruitment Flyer …………………………………………....................

xvi

189

INTRODUCTION

In 2011, findings from a national study of intimate partner violence revealed that an
estimated 42.4 million (35.6%) women reported rape, physical violence or stalking by a partner
within the context of an intimate relationship. Reported rates of violence were higher among
Black, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Multiracial women with rates of 36.8%, 45.3%,
and 38.8%, respectively. The definition of intimate partner violence (IPV) varies greatly across
disciplines but is broadly defined as sexual, physical, psychological, and/or economic abuse by
an intimate partner. It can also include threats of violence and stalking (Black et al, 2011).
Additionally, researchers and activists who utilize a feminist theoretical framework have
demonstrated that IPV is a gendered phenomenon, meaning it is a consequence of a larger
system of gender inequity and sexist discrimination that privileges males and masculinity and
oppresses females and femininity (for review on gender asymmetry in IPV, see Kimmel, 2002).
In the most recent National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, 28.8% of
women with abusive partners reported that the abuse had a significant negative impact on their
lives (Black et al., 2011). Women most commonly reported feeling fearful (25.7%) and
concerned about their safety (22.2%). In addition, the violence perpetrated by an intimate partner
resulted in 22.3% of the women having at least one PTSD symptom. Women who report a
history of IPV also have higher negative physical health symptoms when compared to women
who do not report a history of IPV (Coker et al, 2002; Lacey et al, 2013; Schollenberger et al,
2003). Overall, women with abusive partners have reported chronic physical and mental illness,
suicidality, psychological distress, depression and use of substances or alcohol (Coker et al,
2002; Fowler & Hill, 2004; Lacey et al, 2013; Thompson et al, 2000).

1

Researchers and activists in the movement to end gender-based violence seek to mitigate
the negative impact of IPV on survivors and to promote their well-being. Empowerment is
posited as a theoretical model that supports these aims (Cattaneo & Goodman, 2015). According
to Gutiérrez and Lewis (1999), empowerment involves gaining a critical awareness of the social
structures reinforcing marginalization, discrimination, and oppression. Within domestic violence
programs there is also a focus on building upon the survivor’s current strengths, enhancing social
connections, increasing access to social resources, and encouraging survivors’ self-efficacy.
How can staff at domestic violence organizations promote survivor empowerment?
Broadly, providers are expected to work with clients in a collaborative manner that fosters their
personal and interpersonal power. Specifically, providers help identify survivors’ strengths and
use tools to build upon those strengths. Providers are expected to raise survivors’ awareness
about community resources and increase access to these resources. Within an empowerment
theoretical framework, providers would also assist survivors in identifying people within their
personal networks who may serve as supports, as well as help survivors build new relationships
supportive to their overall goals (Cattaneo & Goodman, 2015; Gutiérrez & Lewis, 1999).
It is expected that, as a result of receiving services, survivors will be knowledgeable
about their own strengths and be able to utilize them to reach their goals. They would know
about, and have access to, community resources that could be mobilized when they are in need of
material and emotional support (Gutiérrez & Lewis, 1999). Ideally, they would be conscious of
how experiences of racism, classism, and sexism intersect to make it difficult for them to get the
support and resources they might need. Likewise, they would express hope in their ability to
attain the necessary tools and experiences that they need to achieve their goals.

2

While the majority of domestic violence organizations across the country claim to be
guided by the empowerment model in their organizational philosophy and values, some scholars
and practitioners have found variability in the extent to which empowering practices are actually
occurring in line with this philosophy (D’Enbeau & Kunkel, 2013; McDermott & Garogalo,
2004). Researchers who study organizational behavior suggest that employee behaviors are
largely influenced by the organizational context (e.g., culture and structure) in which they work
(Ford, Wildersom, & Caparella, 2008; Williams & Glisson, 2014; Odom, Boxx, & Dunn, 1990;
Woo, 2002). According to organizational culture theory, the disempowering practices that some
survivors report (e.g., being bombarded by rules or practices of discrimination) could potentially
be an outcome of a work culture that impedes empowering practices (D’Enbeau & Kunkel,
2013). Little empirical research has been conducted about the impact of culture, structure,
program theory, and organizational alignment on provider empowerment practice, and
subsequently, survivor empowerment. How might organizational context influence the
provider’s ability to engage in empowering practice with survivors? Do these practices result in
an increase of survivors’ empowerment?
In this dissertation, I explored the relationships among (1) program theory, (2)
organizational culture and structure, (3) staff behavior, and (4) client perceptions of their
empowerment in one large domestic violence program in an urban setting. Specifically, I
explored the alignment between the organization’s mission, staff behavior toward clients, and
positive client outcomes. In understand to explore these relationships in depth, I employed a
transformative, multi-level, exploratory-sequential mixed methods design (Creswell, Plano
Clark, Gutmann, & Hanson, 2003).

3

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

Over forty million women in the United States have reported physical violence, sexual
violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner over the course of their lifetime. The negative
impact of violence has a resounding short- and long-term impact on every aspect of survivors’
lives including their physical health, financial stability, and psychological well-being (Black et
al, 2011). Multiple theories have been developed to discuss the etiology of intimate partner
violence (Johnson, 1995; Heise, 1998). Some theorists assert that intimate partner violence (IPV)
can be violent extension of an argument or fight between a couple (i.e., common couple
violence; Johnson, 1995), while others assert that the violence that survivors experience within
relationships is a result of living in a sexist and patriarchal society that privileges men and
subordinates women (Dobash & Dobash, 2003). As a result, more women than men are likely to
report experiencing severe or controlling violence in the relationship and more men than women
are likely to be perpetrators of IPV (Melton & Belknap, 2003).
In the 1970s, feminist movements seeking to end IPV created domestic violence (DV)
shelter programs where survivors could go to find safety, support, and regain power (Roberts &
Lewis, 2000; Sullivan, 2012; Sullivan & Gillum, 2001). There is limited evidence available
about the short- and long-term effectiveness of shelters. Self-report data from survivors and
providers suggest that shelters provide life-saving practical resources (e.g., safe housing) and
emotional support (Sullivan et al, 2008; Zosky, 2011). However, some studies also suggest that
survivors who occupy marginalized and/or stigmatized identities report experiences of
disempowerment and discrimination (Gillum, 2009).

4

Domestic violence shelters often purport empowerment as their organizational
philosophy. Leadership of DV shelters use empowerment to inform their program theory and to
guide organizational programming. In this review, I describe a conceptual model asserting how
survivor empowerment can be achieved by creating an organizational context that supports
employees’ practice of survivor-centered, empowering service provision. The review begins
with a short overview on the dynamics of IPV, and the disempowering, violent relationship
context that necessitates an empowerment-based community intervention for survivors. A
discussion of empowerment theory follows. I apply the empowerment process model (Cattaneo
& Chapman, 2010) to explicate behavioral expectations for shelter employees who seek to
promote empowerment among survivors. Employees’ behavior, however, is often greatly
informed by their work context. Therefore, I introduce two contextual variables that have been
demonstrated to have significant effects on employee behavior: organizational culture and
organizational structure. I end the review with a discussion on the limitations of the empirical
research, and an overview of the current study.
Dynamics of Intimate Partner Violence
Perpetrators impede on the ability of survivors to freely make decisions for themselves
and their children by using patterned threats of violence, and/or actual violence, to create and
maintain dominance in a relationship (see Sugarman & Frankel, 1996 for review). Many
scholars have demonstrated the types of physical (Black et al, 2011), psychological (Lacey et al,
2013), sexual and economic abuse (Adams, Sullivan, Bybee, & Greeson, 2008) that perpetrators
inflict among survivors. Such violence often results in severe repercussions in survivors’ lives.
For example, compared to women who have never experienced IPV, Black and colleagues found
that survivors of IPV have lower general physical health (Black et al, 2011). Numerous studies

5

have also shown that survivors are more likely to have depressive symptoms or PTSD compared
to non-abused women (Coker et al., 2002; Helfrich, Fujura, & Rutowski-Kmitta, 2008; Lacey et
al, 2013), which can impede their social and emotional functioning (Helfrich, Fujura, &
Rutowski-Kmitta, 2008).
Help Seeking from Domestic Violence Shelters
Survivors use a multitude of strategies to keep themselves and their children safe from
abuse. Women often report using strategies such as avoiding the abuser, talking to family and
friends, or creating safety plans. Survivors are much less likely to reach out to formal helping
organizations for support (Goodkind, Sullivan, & Bybee, 2004). Henning and Klesges (2002)
surveyed 1,700 survivors who recently had a partner arrested for domestic violence and found
that less than 15% had reached out for any formal services, and only one-third of these formal
help seekers actually utilized local domestic violence services.
A national survey of domestic violence shelters found that an estimated 48,000 survivors
reached out to domestic violence shelters for support in one 24-hour period (Iyengar, Sabik,
Southworth, Tucker, & Fraser, 2008). Many domestic violence shelters are small, and underresourced with limited budgets (Wathen, Harris, Ford-Gilboe, & Hansen, 2015). So even though
a relatively small percentage of women are seeking help from domestic violence shelters, the
need for services far outweighs the resources available. As a result, often survivors who are
seeking out support in a time of dire need are likely to have to make several attempts to
successfully get support, or might not be able to get their needs met (Iyengar & Sabik, 2009).
This is problematic and potentially dangerous as the act of leaving an abusive relationship can
potentially increase the risk of severe and/or lethal violence (Campbell et al, 2003).

6

However, for survivors who were able to get support, many have reported that the receipt
of domestic violence services was life-saving (Zosky, 2011). Domestic violence shelters were
developed to provide direct crisis housing services, support groups, counseling and legal
advocacy to all survivors (Macy, Giattina, Nontijo, & Ermentrout, 2010; Roberts & Lewis, 2000;
Sullivan & Gillum, 2001). The provision of free crisis housing, advocacy, and supportive
counseling is expected to encourage survivors’ personal decision making (Bennett, Riger,
Schewe, Howard, & Wasco, 2005), help them feel supported by their community, and receive
needed resources (Davis, Hagen, & Early, 1994; Srinivasan & Davis, 1991). The expected
benefits of shelter services in the short-term include the receipt of safe housing, emotional
support, and the attainment of practical resources (Zosky, 2011). Over time, researchers have
demonstrated numerous benefits such as a decrease in depression (Campbell, Sullivan, &
Davidson, 1995), victimization (Sullivan & Bybee, 1999) and an increase in maternal
functioning and resiliency (McFarlane et al, 2014).
The ability to seek out and to receive effective services from a domestic violence shelter
can also be connected to social identity status. For example, in one study, White women
survivors were three times more likely to reach out to formal supportive services compared to
Black women survivors (Henning & Klesges, 2002). Some survivors with marginalized and
stigmatized social identities related to race, culture, class, sexual and gender orientations, ability
status and/or survivors with severe mental illness and substance use issues or addictions, and the
providers who work with them, have reported barriers related to accessibility to shelters. These
have included the lack of transportation, lack of diverse staff, language barriers, and previous
negative experiences with helping professionals that make it difficult to reach out and sustain

7

connections with domestic violence services (Simmons, Farrar, Frazer, & Thompson, 2011;
Zweig, Schlichter, & Burt, 2002).
In sum, the act of reaching out to domestic violence shelters for support is exceptionally
challenging. For all survivors, abusive partners are a formidable barrier to maintaining safety.
Additional barriers related to accessibility and discrimination are present for survivors with
certain marginalized and stigmatized identity statuses. When a survivor is able to successfully
connect with services, it is imperative for her to receive services that meet her immediate
concerns and long-term desires, and to enhance her well-being and sense of autonomy and
control. Empowerment provides the theoretical framework to meet these expectations, and is
described next.
Empowerment Theory
Empowerment is widely theorized as both a process and an outcome, and involves
increasing the personal, interpersonal and social power of oppressed groups (Cattaneo &
Chapman, 2010; Gutiérrez & Lewis, 1995; Kasturirangan, 2008; Rappaport, 1987). Cattaneo and
Chapman (2010) define empowerment as “an interactive process in which a person who lacks
power sets a personally meaningful goal orientated toward increasing social power, takes action
toward that goal, and observes and reflects on the impact of this action, drawing on his or her
evolving self-efficacy, knowledge and competence related to the goal” (p.647 ). Empowerment
theory requires researchers to understand that certain groups of people are afforded less
interpersonal and social power, and as a result, experience limited access to social resources that
have the potential to improve their quality of life (Gutiérrez, DeLois & GlenMaye, 1995;
Cattaneo & Chapman, 2010). Empowerment is distinct from coping (Guiterrez, 1995) or
resilience (Brodsky & Cattaneo, 2013) because it is not simply a reactive process in response to

8

negative outcomes related to a system of oppression. Instead, empowerment focuses on how to
challenge and change contexts (Gutiérrez, 1995; Schulz, Israel, Zimmerman, & Chechoway,
1995).
Many scholars have identified what is required for the process of an oppressed group to
actualize power (e.g., Guiterrez, 1995, Rappaport, 1987). Self-efficacy and sense of control are
the most widely agreed upon components of empowerment (Cattaneo & Chapman, 2010;
Peterson & Zimmerman, 2004; Rappaport, 1987; Schulz, Israel, Zimmerman, & Chechoway,
1995). They are, at times, tested simultaneously as empowerment itself (see Roth & Crane-Ross,
2002). However, empowerment is more than simply feeling and believing that one has control
over their situation, but also includes a critical consciousness—knowing that one’s life
experiences are connected to larger systems of power, privilege and oppression, which has
impacted their access to social resources and opportunities (Cattaneo, Calton, & Brodsky, 2014;
Guiterrez, 1999).
Empowerment is also a multilevel construct that can be applied to individuals as well as
contexts such as organizations or neighborhoods (Rappaport, 1987). An empowering domestic
violence shelter program, for example, would espouse beliefs and values that emphasize the
strengths not only of survivors, but of their employees. It would encourage and promote
employees’ skills and offer opportunities for growth in the environment. The work environment
would be a relational one where employees feel mutually supported, and where key staff
members have strong leadership skills (Maton & Salem, 1995).
Human Service Settings and the Promotion of Empowerment
Practices that promote empowerment support overall client well-being (Cattaneo &
Goodman, 2015; Sullivan, 2012). Perez and colleagues (2012) found that empowerment

9

mitigated the negative impact of PTSD for survivors of intimate partner violence. In one study,
more empowered consumers were significantly more likely to perceive that they got services that
met their needs (Roth & Crane-Ross, 2002). These met needs were positively associated with an
increase in consumers’ quality of life. The number of services they received did not actually
make a difference in the feeling of having their needs met.
Applying Empowerment Theory to Domestic Violence Shelters
Service providers have identified the adoption of empowerment within DV program
theory as an organizational strength (Roberts & Lewis, 2000), and a feature that distinguishes
their services from other human service organizations (Collins & Dressler, 2008; Epstein,
Russell & Silvern, 1988). An empowerment approach suggests that survivors who have sought
out support from shelters will gain power by (1) being able to do more things on their own, (2)
knowing more about the dynamics of domestic violence, (3) gaining more access to community
resources, and (4) feeling like they have established meaningful relationships with other
survivors and/or others in the community (Busch & Valentine, 2000; Sullivan, 2012).
Survivors across various studies have reported that DV organizations promote different
aspects of the empowerment process. For example, when employees encourage survivors’
personal decisions this can lead to improved self-confidence (Sullivan et al, 2008; Davis &
Srinivasan, 1995). Providing survivors with useful information can support their larger goals
(Sullivan et al, 2008). Furthermore, Goodkind, Sullivan, and Bybee (2004) found that staying at
a DV shelter increased the likelihood that women had an escape plan. Women have also reported
that residing at a DV shelter increased their access to community resources and facilitated
beneficial connections with other IPV survivors (Tutty, Weaver, & Rothery, 1999).

10

The Empowerment Process Model in Domestic Violence Shelter Programs
Cattaneo and Chapman (2010) theorized that empowering practice with individuals
would involve six steps. The first is setting goals which require that individuals set goals that are
important to them, and also seek to shift and/or increase power. Helping clients believe that they
can accomplish these meaningful goals or, self-efficacy, is the second component. The third
component, knowledge, requires that an individual develop an understanding about the social
context and its relationship to the larger systems of oppression and privilege. Knowledge about
resources and how to attain them would also be included in this step. Competence is having the
skills to accomplish goals, while action is practically applying these skills to reach the goal. The
sixth component, impact, focuses on the measurement of the action resulting in the desired
change. This model describes a process of empowerment that is testable and specific, while also
incorporating the importance of social context and social power. It differs from other theoretical
assertions about empowerment because of its emphasis on goal setting and evaluating impact. A
description of how programs can achieve the first five of these components (leading to the sixth:
impact) is detailed in the sections below.
Setting Meaningful Goals
Employees at domestic violence organizations engaging in empowering practice with
survivors often begin their work simply asking survivors what they need. The commonly
accepted belief among mental health practitioners, social workers, and advocates is that survivors
come to formalized helping systems with different needs to maintain their safety and to promote
their well-being (Nichols, 2013). Employees work in partnership with survivors in order to
identify these needs, and support survivors in setting short- and long-term goals that align with
their personal needs and desires (Sullivan, 2012).

11

Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy contributes to the attainment of personal power. It is a person’s belief or
conviction that they have the capability to accomplish their goals. Repeated successes strengthen
self-efficacy, and repeated failures weaken it. Generally, a highly self-efficacious person will
engage in multiple efforts to persevere despite negative setbacks (Bandura, 1977).
DV shelter employees use many strategies to support identifying and building upon a
survivor’s capabilities. These strategies reinforce to the survivor that s/he has the ability to make
changes and accomplish their meaningful goals in their own life using skills that they already
have in their possession. Employees support the survivor when s/he does encounter barriers
navigating an oppressive system. Issues with disempowerment, discrimination, and lack of
accessibility to resources can also be identified and strategized with survivors (Nichols, 2013;
Zweig, Schlichter, & Burt, 2002).
Knowledge
Individual, deficit-focused ideologies permeate American society and, as a result,
problems and subsequent solutions are typically believed to be located within individuals (Baran
et al, 2013). Empowerment theory counters this ideology. An application of this theory would
assert that people with marginalized social identities are embedded within a larger social context
that prohibits and restricts choices. The process of empowerment involves understanding how
unjust social power structures operate to constrain individual lives— often referred to as ‘critical
consciousness’ (Watts, Diemer, & Voight, 2011). Critical consciousness aligns with
empowerment theory because its foundation is based on the idea that particular groups have
limited social power due to larger social injustices. The process of educating people about these
injustices will in turn support them to act on these processes (Watts, Diemer, & Voight, 2011).

12

Human services workers have explicitly articulated that they develop critical awareness around
social issues in order to “reduce self-blame as well as advocate for social change” (Guiterrez,
DeLois, & GlenMaye, 1995, p. 538).
Within the context of intimate partner violence, survivors with a critical awareness would
be conscious of how IPV is connected to larger systems of sexism, racism, classism and
patriarchy (Lehrner & Allen, 2009). Kasturirangan (2008) recommends that programs utilize
multiple practices in an effort to raise survivors’ critical consciousness, including many
consciousness-raising practices that focus on increasing knowledge about the dynamics and
complexities of intimate partner violence. Advocates can discuss with survivors how IPV is
rooted in sexism and patriarchy, as well as work to dispel popular myths about the causes of
violence and the prevalence of IPV perpetration across various identity groups in society. In
addition, advocates have an understanding of how multiple social structures make it difficult for
people to obtain the resources they need to maintain safety, and accomplish their life goals
(Zweig, Schlichter, & Burt, 2002). This knowledge-sharing can occur in individual conversations
with survivors, in support groups, or in counseling sessions. Overall, the goal is to provide
information in order to reduce/eliminate individual attributions for domestic violence and
increase survivors’ structural attributions for IPV.
Chronister and McWhirter (2006) used an experimental design to test the differences
between survivors who received a career intervention that also integrated critical consciousness
versus an intervention that did not. Survivors in the critical consciousness group reported more
health-related and skill-building goals, and were more likely to progress with accomplishing
those goals at the 5-week follow-up. These findings suggest that critical consciousness can be an
important component in accomplishing goals.

13

Competence
Cattaneo and Chapman (2010) described the importance of people having the skills
necessary to accomplish their goals. They asserted that knowing what is needed to accomplish a
goal is different from actually having the tools and skills to accomplish that goal. For example,
an advocate might work with a survivor seeking employment. While working with her
individually, the advocate notices that the survivor is particularly good with numbers and
organizing information. The advocate, then, is expected to tell the survivor that they have noticed
this strength, and to suggest the possibility of seeking out employment opportunities that are
particularly related to accounting or bookkeeping. An advocate would also identify the skills that
the survivor would want to learn during their time at shelter, and engage in skill-building
activities around these areas. These activities could range from helping integrate new coping
techniques in response to triggers to contacting governmental or community-based services with
survivors to ensure they receive needed resources. The hope is that when advocates help identify
strengths, encourage the use of these strengths to support goals and aspirations, and build
competencies, survivors will feel more equipped to cope with the repeated oppression that occurs
in their lives both at an interpersonal level (e.g., abusive partner) and the community level (e.g.,
discriminatory legal systems).
Action
Forming meaningful relationships with others can increase survivors’ access to resources
and support the development of new emotional and practical strategies (Gutiérrez & Lewis,
1999). Advocates are expected to form partnerships with survivors in order to support their
acquisition of power. This relationship between worker and survivor is to be based on trust and
mutual respect, which requires that the worker have strong communication skills (Guiterrez &

14

Lewis, 1999). Advocates and survivors also collectively brainstorm ways to reconnect,
strengthen or build upon the survivors’ natural support networks. An increase in natural social
support networks would ideally decrease feelings and experiences of isolation that occur as a
result of IPV. In addition, workers are expected to establish and use their own social connections
to mobilize resources for the survivors’ benefit (Nichols, 2013)
Organizational Support of Employee Knowledge, Competencies, and Behavior
Employees at human service and community-based organizations are the primary
mechanism by which the organizational mission and values are translated to clients (Agbenyiga,
2011; Glisson, 2002; Gruys et al, 2008). The amount and type of services provided to clients is
largely dependent upon an employee’s characteristics, including individual knowledge, beliefs
about need, access to resources (Stiffman et al, 2001), and perceived skills (Boehm & Yoels,
2009). A study conducted with youth service workers reported that fifty-five percent of the
variation found in the type of services provided to youth was attributed to providers’ perceptions
of youth data, compared to only 24% of the variation being attributed to the actual youth data
(Stiffman et al, 2001). In other words, what providers thought about what youth needed, the
amount of knowledge and resources providers had in the community, and individual feelings
about the burden of their job were greater predictors of the services youth received than actual
need indicators by youth. Another study demonstrated that the more knowledgeable and
competent social workers felt, the more they believed that they promoted clients’ empowerment
(Boehm & Yoels, 2009).
The following sections describe how organizations can promote and influence staff
knowledge and competencies through two components of organizational context: culture and
structure.

15

The Social Context of Domestic Violence Organizations
All organizations have a unique set of values, theories, and norms, climates, policies,
procedures, and leadership styles. This is broadly understood as the organizational social context
(Glisson, 2002). Organizational researchers have studied the impact of these contextual variables
on employee perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors. Numerous scholars have demonstrated a link
between organizational structure (hierarchy and collaborative decision making) and culture
(Ford, Wilderom, & Caparella, 2008), culture and staff attitudes and behaviors (Chen, 2004;
Chow & Lui, 2009; Glisson et al, 2008), climate and work attitudes (Glisson & James, 2002) and
culture and client outcomes (Williams & Glisson, 2014). A more recent multilevel study
examining organizational, provider, and client-level data found that the combination of culture,
climate, and other organizational level factors explained 70% of the agency variance in client
outcomes (Williams & Glisson, 2014). Overall, evidence suggests that how employees behave
with clients is related to the context of where they do the work, the opportunities available in that
context, and their individual perceptions about that context. Yet there is limited empirical
research that explores the social context of domestic violence shelters (Wies, 2008; D’Enbeau &
Kunkel, 2013). In this section, I specifically focus on two components of the domestic violence
organizational social context: culture and structure.
Organizational Culture
Organizational culture is the deeply embedded shared assumptions, values, beliefs, and
artifacts held by members of an organization (Cooke & Rousseau, 1988; Denison & Spreitzer,
1991; Glisson, 2007; Schein, 2010; Schnieder, Ekrhart, & Macey, 2013; Wallach, 1983). Schein
(2010) asserts that there are three levels of organizational culture: artifacts, espoused beliefs and
values, and basic assumptions. Artifacts are the manifestations of culture which are visible when

16

one enters into the organization, including physical (e.g., technology, clothing) and behavioral
artifacts (e.g., rituals). Espoused beliefs and values are the ideologies often stated by those in
leadership positions and become what people within the organizational context operate within
and refer to for guidance and moral functioning. Basic assumptions are the “taken-for-granted”
beliefs and values that hold a group together.
Glisson (2002) posits that culture sets the behavioral expectations of employees within
organizations. Agbenyiga (2011) found that service providers in a child-welfare agency had
internalized the organizational mission, and used these values to guide their own practices. It is
possible for employees to enact expectations of the organization even if they are not in alignment
with their individual beliefs. In other words, employees who do not hold the same beliefs as the
organization will still behave in alignment with the organization’s mission if the culture aligns
with the mission. Nichols (2013) also found this to be true in a qualitative study of domestic
violence employees across eleven different organizations. Those who did not identify as feminist
still reported practicing survivor-defined feminist-based advocacy with survivors. These findings
suggest that the feminist organizational values and norms set expectations that non-feminist
employees should behave with survivors in ways that align with a feminist philosophy.
Organizational culture is significantly positively related to organizational effectiveness
(see Hartnell, Ou, & Kinicki, 2011, for review). Specifically, culture is positively associated
with employee job satisfaction (O’Reilly, Chatman, & Calwell, 1991; Zeitlin, Augsberger,
Auerbach, & McGowan, 2014). Across multiple studies, clan (or group) culture—a culture that
emphasizes human relationships and cohesion, teamwork, flexibility, and trust— is most
significantly associated with more satisfied and highly committed employees (Hartnell , Ou, &
Kinicki, 2011, Lund, 2003, Odom, Box, & Dunn, 1990). Other studies have shown that

17

supportive organizational cultures contribute to less staff turnover (Chow & Lui, 2009), and
increased work-group cohesion (Odom, Box, & Dunn, 1990). Bell Kulkarni, and Dalton (2003)
also recommend this culture type to help employees who work with trauma survivors normalize
the interactional nature of trauma when providing services. Empirical evidence and informed
recommendations suggest that organizational cultures that emphasize teamwork, human
relationship, and interconnection create a satisfying work context.
Organizational climate is the shared perceptions of the policies and procedures, and the
reward structures of the organization. Climate is embedded within culture (Schein, 2010), but is
also a distinct construct. Ostroff, Kinicki, and Muhammad (2012) argue that climate and culture
overlap in the shared perceptions of artifacts, yet differ because climate is more mutable
compared to culture and is examined almost exclusively quantitatively. Empirically, climate and
culture each predict different outcomes. Glisson and colleagues (2008) found that organizational
culture predicted whether new programs would be able to sustain in a particular space, while
climate predicted therapist turnover. In a later study, Williams and Glisson (2014) found that
culture moderates client outcomes through the climate of the organization. In this dissertation,
culture was explored because (a) it provides a more expansive view of the organization, not
simply the perceptions of the policies and procedures of artifacts and (b) it can and has been
studied qualitatively in other domestic violence organizations.
Organizational Structure
The culture and structure of organizations are interconnected (Cooke & Rousseau, 1988;
Denison & Spreitzer, 1991). Culture is the set of deeply embedded values of the organization;
structure is the manifestation of these values in the policies, procedures, reward structures,
communication channels and hierarchal divisions within the organization (Glisson, 2002). Cooke

18

and Rousseau (1988) describe structures as the “culture bearing mechanisms within the
organization” (p. 246). An examination of an organizational structure can provide some
information about the culture of the organization, but structure is also a distinct construct within
the organizational context. Simply put, structure includes the procedural and management
mechanisms that organizations create to support how employees carry out the mission of the
organization.
In one organizational study specifically connecting community-based organizations to
empowerment theory, Guiterrez, GlenMaye andDeLois (1995) explored how the organizational
structure can either support or hinder the ability to provide empowering practice within six
human service organizations. They found that extra-organizational factors such as prohibitive
funding mechanisms create barriers to empowerment practice for workers. Structural support for
empowerment practice includes training and ability to learn new skills, and the ability to engage
in activities that align with their own interests and ideas. Researchers identified this as having an
entrepreneurial spirit. Study participants suggested that organizations interested in empowerment
practice should offer employees opportunities for advancement, and create an environment that
supports employee self-care. It was also important to create an intra-organizational environment
where employees felt like they were working together as a team, and that they had strong
relationships with others in the organization.
Few studies have examined the organizational structure of domestic violence
organizations (exceptions include D’Enbeau & Kunkel, 2013; Epstein, Russell, & Silvern, 1988;
Ferraro, 1983; Nichols, 2011; Panzer, Philip, & Hayward, 2000; Rodriguez, 1988; Srinivasan &
Davis, 1991; Vaughn & Stamp, 2003; Weis, 2008). When domestic violence organizations were
initially constructed in the 1970s and 1980s, they typically utilized feminist, empowerment-

19

based ideologies to inform their organizational structures. This manifested in advocates
constructing spaces that differed drastically from traditional social services, often typified in the
use of empowerment-based feminist ideologies (Srinivasan & Davis, 1991) and consensus-based
organizational decision making (Rodriguez,1988).
More recent studies have examined how aspects of DV agencies’ organizational
structures can serve as a mechanism to improve employees’ experiences. For example, Slattery
and Goodman (2009) found that decision-making within domestic violence organizations was
significantly negatively associated with secondary traumatic stress. Practitioners at a domestic
violence organization in New York worked to create an anti-oppressive shelter by shifting their
structure to a flattened hierarchy in order to mitigate the negative impact of power dynamics on
employees (Blitz & Illidge, 2006).
Organizational Practices That Are Disempowering
Some scholars have noted that the institutionalization of the domestic violence movement
brought a clinical orientation that strongly influenced the structure of domestic violence
organizations (Ferraro, 1983; Srinivasan & Davis, 1991). For example, Ferraro (1983) conducted
a participant observation about one shelter’s transition from a structure that emphasized shared
power among all shelter stakeholders (including survivors) to a hierarchal, bureaucratic structure
that valued and prioritized professional clinical expertise. That shift in the structure resulted in a
shift in organizational roles, as many workers at the shelter without advanced therapeutic degrees
were perceived as less capable of providing professional services to survivors. This shift also
impacted survivors’ lives because the organization initiated screening and service provision
practices that required women to have to prove during intake, and throughout their time at
shelter, that they were “deserving” of help.

20

Srinivasan and Davis (1991) found that while employees still made decisions by
consensus within a flexible and informal environment, survivors were expected to conform to
strict formalized guidelines. If survivors did not adhere to or questioned, the rules, they were
identified by staff as undeserving clients and generally asked to leave the shelter. Hence,
researchers found that shelter rules were used as a mechanism to assert control over survivors
and their families.
A similar trend was apparent in a recent study of a domestic violence shelter that shifted
toward bureaucratic structures. D’Enbeau and Kunkel (2013) conducted a qualitative case study
within a domestic violence organization to understand the extent to which empowerment
philosophy was practiced within the organization. The organization shifted from consensus
decision-making to a hierarchal decision-making because the former organizational processes
were deemed ineffective, and leadership did not seem to be accurately fulfilling the full scope of
their responsibilities. However, advocates believed that this shift in organizational structure
resulted in a culture of disempowerment among employees and survivors. There was also a lack
of clarity about what constituted empowerment practice, which researchers identified as the
“paradox of transparency.” However, researchers observed that in response to the ambiguity
surrounding empowerment practice within the organization, employees held individual
perceptions of survivors that were victim blaming. Employees also reported behaving with
survivors in ways that were disempowering.
Along with the adoption of a bureaucratic structure, other components of a clinical
orientation are deeply embedded within some present-day shelter practices. For example, Macy
and colleagues (2010) interviewed shelter directors who stated that not all survivors can equally
access, or have similar experiences with, care in North Carolina. They shared how certain

21

screening assessments were used to exclude survivors with complex needs such as serious
mental illness or substance abuse issues. Shelter directors felt that advocates did not have the
competencies or resources to create more inclusive services (Macy, Giattina, Notijo, &
Ermentrout, 2010). Another consequence of utilizing a clinical orientation was that domestic
violence employees were expected to maintain strict boundaries with residents in order to be
seen as professional. In addition, advocates who did not have a college degree were not seen as
favorably, and residents were no longer considered experts of their own lives (Wies, 2008). This
is the foundation of disempowering practice. McDermott and Garofalo (2004) stated:
“How might a battered woman experience disempowerment? Rather than finding
that her influence is extended, she finds that it is limited; rather than being
confident in her knowledge of herself and her social world, others tell her what is
in her own best interest; rather than having faith in the validity of her story, she is
counseled to retell the incident to make it more sustainable for the criminal
justice process; and rather than respecting her decisions on how to run her life,
her life is filled with intrusions from outsiders including fairly coercive practices
that force her to act against her will” (p. 1250 – 1251)
An examination of social identity, culture, and privilege within domestic violence
shelters has revealed inconsistencies between empowerment philosophy and practice within
some organizations (Donnelly, Cook, & Wilson, 1999; Donnelly, Cook, van Ausdale, & Foley,
2005; Kasturirangan, Krishnan, & Riger, 2004). Institutional initiatives that push back against
the clinical orientation and bureaucratic structures within domestic violence organizations
context primarily center their analysis on the necessity of focusing on the complex needs of
survivors with marginalized and stigmatized identities (Smyth, Goodman, & Glen, 2006).

22

Overall, prior research suggests that organizational cultures and structures operate in
tandem to create implicit and explicit behavioral expectations for employees. Highly relational
cultures where employees have a deeply embedded set of shared espoused values and basic
assumptions that center and seek to promote survivors’ well-being will potentially contribute to
also utilizing survivor-centered, empowering practices, despite employees’ individual beliefs. A
structure that has flexible policies and procedures, participatory decision making that solicits
survivor input, and opportunities for employee skill building could also support empowering
practice. However, culture and structure are components of a larger organizational social context.
This context is largely informed by the organizational mission, philosophy, and espoused values,
otherwise known as the program theory.
Relationship between Program Theory and Organizational Behavior
Program theory, also known as the organizational philosophy, operates as the foundation
of the organization, and is intended to guide all organizational behavior. Organizations strive to
have a consistent alignment between organizational philosophy, formal policies and procedures
and staff behavior (Semler, 1997). For example, Chow and Lui (2009) examined the
relationships among HR business strategic approaches, organizational culture, and organizational
effectiveness. They found HR business strategies and organizational culture both significantly
predicted performance outcomes. They also found that the interaction between a highly
supportive culture and a particular business strategy emphasizing cooperation predicted lower
staff turnover. In another qualitative study on organizational culture, researchers explored how
one hotel company purposely shaped a culture to directly put into practice the organizational
mission and philosophies. They explored how a manager created hiring protocols that aligned
with reaching the goals of the organization, implemented communication systems that carried

23

messages that reinforced the mission, and integrated rituals and celebrations for staff that
celebrated their ability to actualize the hotel’s mission and philosophy. As a result, the alignment
between the mission and philosophies, organizational formal policies, and organizational culture
resulted in employees working at the hotel coherently and effectively (Ford, Wilderom, &
Caparella, 2008). Other studies have shown that supportive organizational cultures contribute to
less staff turnover (Chen & Lui, 2009), greater job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and
work-group cohesion (Odom, Box, & Dunn, 1990).
The integration of the empowerment philosophy into domestic violence programs’
organizational culture has been identified by service providers as an organizational strength
(Roberts & Lewis, 2000), and a component that distinguishes their services from other human
services organizations. However, in cases where DV organizations do not have an organizational
culture consistent with their empowerment philosophy, one would expect to see staff engaging in
behaviors inconsistent with empowerment philosophy.
Summary
There is limited evidence to suggest a potential relationship in domestic violence
organizations among (1) formal and informal organizational policies, (2) organizational culture,
(3) staff behavior, and (4) client perceptions of their empowerment. Ideally, the empowerment
philosophy should guide the construction of both formal structures and an organizational culture
that influence the empowerment practices that staff engage in with IPV survivors in order to
promote survivor empowerment. While there is some evidence across other literatures to support
parts of this hypothesized relationship, no studies to date have examined all of these relationships
specifically around empowering practices within a domestic violence organization. As illustrated
in Figure 1, the current study used an organizational case study design to explore how

24

organizational formal structure and organizational culture influenced survivor empowerment
through staff behavior. The organization that agreed to participate in this study was the District
Alliance for Safe Housing (DASH), a large organization in Washington, DC that works primarily
with women surviving IPV, sexual assault, torture, or sex trafficking.
Figure 1: Organizational Model Illustrating the Hypothesized Relationship Between
Organizational Structures and Survivor Outcomes

Program Theory
Culture
Structure

Staff Knowledge &
Competencies

Staff Behavior

Survivor Empowerment

Research Questions and Hypotheses
The overarching research question for this study was: How does organizational structure and
organizational culture influence survivor empowerment through staff behaviors? The following
research questions and hypotheses, which build on each other, were explored:
1. Research Question 1: How do the formal policies guiding DASH reflect the
organization’s mission to provide low barrier, voluntary, empowering services to clients?
2. Research Question 2: In what ways, if at all, are DASH policies and procedures reflected
in the organizational culture and structure?

25

3. Research Question 3: How does DASH’s organizational culture and structure contribute
to the specific ways that DASH employees’ are able to provide low barrier, voluntary,
empowering services to clients?
4. Hypothesis 1: DASH clients will describe specific ways that advocates’ behaviors
reflected:
a. The voluntary services model
b. An empowering philosophy
5. Hypothesis 2: DASH clients will describe specific ways that advocates’ behaviors
contributed to their increased empowerment.
a. Where clients describe advocate behavior that was unhelpful to them or
disempowering, they will describe behaviors that are not in alignment with
DASH’s organizational philosophy

26

CHAPTER 2: METHODS

Organizational Context
The District Alliance for Safe Housing is a large community-based housing organization
that works primarily with women surviving IPV, sexual assault, torture, or sex trafficking. The
organization is one of three major non-profit organizations in the Washington, D.C. area that is
specifically focused on providing safe housing to survivors of gender-based violence. DASH
receives diverse governmental and nongovernmental grants to fund organization programming.
Examples of funding mechanisms include the Office of Victim Services (OVS), DC Department
of Mental Health, DC Department of Human Services, and Freddie Mac. The flexibility of
funding mechanisms allows DASH the opportunity to provide innovative programming tailored
to meet the needs of women and their families.
DASH has four main programs: the Empowerment Project, Community Housing
Resource Program, Survivor Resilience Fund, and Cornerstone Housing Program. The
Empowerment Project is a scattered-site transitional housing program. Survivors choose an
apartment in DC, and receive financial assistance to support their housing costs for a period of
two years. A majority of DASH’s community outreach happens at the Community Housing
Resource Center. Survivors can visit the center to get support with finding and securing housing
in the District. The Survivor Resilience Fund (SRF) is a flexible funding mechanism designed to
help survivors sustain permanent housing. The focus of this dissertation research study is the
Cornerstone Housing Program, which provides emergency and transitional housing to survivors
and their children. There are 42 studio and one-bedroom apartments available for survivors and
their children, all located in the same building as DASH staff offices. All residents are provided

27

with access to direct advocacy services, support groups, access to mental health counseling,
substance abuse counseling, children’s services, and parenting classes. DASH also has
relationships with multiple community partners that offer a variety of fitness, wellness, and
nutrition programming for residents.
Organizational Philosophy: The DASH Model
The DASH model is designed to guide organizational decision making and employees’
interactions with survivors. Employees at every level of the organizational hierarchy are
expected to use the DASH model to implement the housing-first mission of the organization. The
DASH model includes seven principles that work in tandem to ensure that survivors receive
optimum services. They are: (1) Sovereignty, (2) Empowerment, (3) Accountability/
Professionalism, (4) Partnerships, (5) Compassion, (6) Integrity, and (7) Re-centering/
Adaptability (see Figure 2). Each of these principles is described next.
Figure 2: DASH Organizational Philosophy

SOVEREIGNTY

INTEGRITY

EMPOWERMENT
(RE-)
CENTERING

PROFESSIONALISM

COMPASSION

PARTNERSHIPS

28

Sovereignty. DASH defines sovereignty as “having the freedom and responsibility to
determine what is right for you and be self-governing” (District Alliance for Safe Housing, 2013,
p. 4). Advocates encourage survivors to make their own decisions about what they need for their
lives and to maintain safety. Survivors are encouraged to set personal goals and are expected to
receive ongoing, nonjudgmental support from advocates to reach those goals.
Empowerment. Empowerment is closely related to sovereignty, and emphasizes the role
of voice and knowledge in order to access personal power. DASH states that it is the “process of
giving voice to your own power, and providing the tools to help others recognize and access their
power” (District Alliance for Safe Housing, 2013, p. 4). Employees who provide direct service to
survivors are expected to validate strengths and encourage personal decision-making. Direct
service providers are expected to be knowledgeable about internal and external resources, and be
able to effectively pass knowledge and resources on to the survivor. They could also situate
intimate partner violence and subsequent help-seeking within the context of larger societal
oppression.
Accountability/Professionalism. The accountability component of the model requires all
DASH staff to be “accountable to a set of standards, keeping clear boundaries between yourself
and your work” (District Alliance for Safe Housing, 2013, p. 4). Professionalism as a component
of the model conveys to advocates that they must behave ethically and within the bounds of
human service practice. For example, they should be committed to constantly expanding their
knowledge and building their capacities and skill sets. At an organizational level, DASH seeks to
establish community accountability by developing relationships with community organizations
that have specialized services that could directly benefit the lives of survivors.

29

Partnerships. DASH defines partnerships as “having a mutually cooperative and
respectful relationship with all who are doing the work, including program residents, service
providers, investors and the community” (District Alliance for Safe Housing, 2013, p. 4). The
relationship between the advocate and the survivor is, at its core, a partnership that is survivordriven. The advocate uses multiple techniques to build trust and be in solidarity with survivors
and the decisions they make for themselves. At an organizational level, an example of
partnership is bringing together the Care Team (clinical director, substance abuse counselor, and
an advocate) to develop collaborative strategies that will help a survivor move toward their longterm goals while coping with a mental illness or substance abuse.
Compassion. Compassion is defined as empathy, and cultivating the desire to help those
in need. Advocates work to “alleviate the suffering of women” and use survivor-driven practices
in order to help women, no matter the circumstances (District Alliance for Safe Housing, 2013,
p. 4).
Integrity. Integrity reflects the synergy between self-proclaimed values and behaviors.
DASH employees are encouraged to “behave consistently with the values you promote; striving
to know yourself and behaving authentically” (District Alliance for Safe Housing, 2013, p. 4).
Advocates are encouraged to resist imposing their own value system onto women during service
provision. Instead, advocates encourage survivors’ self-awareness and support them in making
life decisions that are congruent with survivors’ personal value systems.
(Re)centering/Adaptability. This is a central component of the model and assumes that
there can be tension in implementing specific principles. It encourages a self-reflection process
to help employees understand their own behavior in relationship to the survivor. The main value
within (re)centering is reflectivity. DASH defines (re)centering as “finding the clarity, focus and

30

wherewithal to balance competing demands and pressures” (District Alliance for Safe Housing,
2012, p. 2). Adaptability requires that advocates stay committed to the mission, yet remain
flexible to changing circumstances.
DASH Structure
The structure of the organization is similar in many ways to other organizations that offer
residential services and support programs to survivors of violence. There are program directors,
advocates, a property manager, an administrative manager, and a development specialist. DASH
also has MSW interns from local universities completing practicum projects. While DASH has
some similarities to other DV organizations, they also have some unique elements within their
structure. Broadly, they intend to function within an upside-down management model, which
means that a majority of the organizational resources are focused on those who are providing
direct service work within the organization.
DASH founders intentionally sought to build an organization whose resources were
primarily focused on advocates providing direct service work to survivors. As a result, the
Technical Assistance (TA) Team is the internal capacity building specialist team within the
organization. The primary role of the TA team is to provide support and supervision to DASH
advocates. They have specialized knowledge about substance abuse, children’s services and
mental illness and can work with advocates to combat compassion fatigue (District Alliance for
Safe Housing, 2009). At the time of this dissertation, the TA team included a clinical director, an
addiction specialist, and a children’s program director. The clinical director oversees all of the
TA activities, and the entire TA team works closely with the Cornerstone program director.

31

DASH’s Service Delivery Approach
The service delivery approach of DASH is comprised of two main components: (1) low
barrier access to service and (2) voluntary services. First, a low-barrier approach requires that all
survivors seeking support will be considered for housing services regardless of circumstances
that might make them ineligible to receive services from others. These circumstances include,
but are not limited to, people with chemical addictions or mental illnesses, people with same-sex
abusers, male-bodied and male-identified people, large families, and those with undocumented
immigrant status.
Second, DASH uses a voluntary services approach to service provision. Broadly, this
means that survivors’ ability to receive and maintain housing services at DASH are not
contingent upon having to participate in any programs or services offered at DASH. In 2010, the
office that disburses governmental funds through the Family Violence Prevention and Safety Act
mandated all domestic violence programs that received governmental funding implement a
voluntary services approach within their organization. Within the voluntary services model,
DASH will only terminate residents if they are violent, engage in illegal behaviors on DASH
property, or abandon their units.
Overview of the Mixed Method Research Design
Case study methods are an ideal way to test and refine hypotheses about organizational
behavior (Woodside, 2010). Some scholars have argued for the importance of case studies in the
role of building as well as testing theory (Flyvberg, 2006). This mixed methods organizational
case study is designed to test and refine a conceptual model describing the relationships among
organizational context, employee behavior, and client outcomes.

32

The practice of mixing quantitative and qualitative research methods has been
commonplace within the discipline of psychology, and in the larger field of social science.
However, the recent conceptualization of mixed methods as a third research paradigm has
generated innovative ways to explore and explain patterns across methods (Johnson &
Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Teddlie & Tashkkorri, 2003). In this study I employed a transformative,
multi-level, exploratory-sequential mixed methods design (see Figure 3). I define each
component below.
Transformative
Using the transformative-emancipatory paradigm, I integrated a consciousness of social
power into the ontological, epistemological, and methodological decisions that I made
throughout this study in hopes of lessening the impact of oppression and discrimination in
service of social justice for survivors of gender-based violence (Mertens, 2012). This metaframework emphasizes researcher self-reflectivity and relationship building with community
members. Generally, transformative research focuses on a research question that addresses an
imbalance of power within a setting. Specifically, the emphasis on social power requires that
transformative researchers engage with communities in culturally appropriate ways. They take
the time to understand localized knowledge, and establish honest, mutually beneficial
relationships built on trust with community members. Methodological decisions are typically
made in partnership with the community, and joint analysis can be utilized in order to promote
change within the setting. Transformative research studies are diverse in research scope, study
aim, level of community involvement, data collection techniques, generally cyclical in nature,
and can be long- or short-term.

33

Mertens (2012) identifies data collection strategies which center on community
involvement throughout the research and evaluation process. This means that researchers are
encouraged to create an intentional plan to engage with the community at the beginning of the
study. Any instruments used to collect data should be pilot tested with members of the
community, and the team of community members and researchers should agree upon subsequent
data collection and group analysis and interpretation processes. All of these processes were
followed in the implementation of the current study.
Multilevel
This study is multilevel in that I collected and analyzed study variables at an
organizational level, and an individual level. Specifically, I examined organization documents
and interviewed employees to assess the organizational culture and structure. Then, I also
analyzed employee data at an individual level to understand their behaviors. Program residents
were also interviewed to assess outcomes of the employee practices. Meta-inferences across both
levels were reported in the Results chapter.
Exploratory-Sequential Mixed Method Design
An exploratory, sequential mixed method design describes a two-phase (or more)
empirical study. In this study, the first phase was qualitative (exploratory) and described
organizational context using inductive methods including document review and semi-structured
interviews. The second phase of the design was quantitative (explanatory) and sought to test
relationships developed from the exploratory phase. I utilized a structured interview guide to
understand the impact of staff behavior on survivor empowerment. In essence, the second phase
built upon the first to answer the research questions.

34

I present a mixed-method analytic plan in accordance with Collins, Onwuegbuzie and
Sutton (2006) and elaborated upon by Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2006. Collins and colleagues
(2006) report a 13-step process to describe mixed methods research: “(1) determining the goal of
the study, (2) formulating the research objective(s), (3) determining the research/mixing
rationale(s), (4) determining the research/mixing purpose(s), (5) determining the research
question(s), (6) selecting the sampling design, (7) selecting the mixed-methods research design,
(8) collecting the data, (9) analyzing the data, (10) validating/legitimating the data and data
interpretations, (11) interpreting the data, (12) writing the final report, and (13) reformulating the
research question(s)” (p. 69-70). These steps are briefly described next.

35

Figure 3: Transformative, Multi-level, Exploratory-Sequential (QUAL

quan), Mixed Method Design

PAR

DOC REVIEW
COLLECT

DOC REVIEW
ANALYSIS

STAFF
COLLECT

STAFF
ANALYSIS

PAR

PAR
SURVIVOR
COLLECT

SURVIVOR MEMBER CHECK
SESSION

SURVIVOR
ANALYSIS

TOTAL
DATA
INTERPRET

DISSEMINATION

36

Step 1: Establish study goals
Newman and colleagues (2003) assert that all methodological decisions made in a
research study must be situated within a larger goal or purpose. The primary aim of this
dissertation study was to understand the connection between organizational context and survivor
empowerment. This study was designed with the intent to generate knowledge for the genderbased violence movements about the impact of larger contextual variables on promoting survivor
empowerment. In addition, I sought to understand how the purposeful construction of an
organizational context impacts employees who provide and survivors who receive services.
Step 2: Determine research objectives
Exploration was the primary objective for this dissertation in order to generate testable
hypotheses concerning the impact of services on survivors (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2006).
DASH had never engaged in a systematic evaluation of services, and much of its success has
been presumed based on anecdotal evidence. Explanation is the secondary research objective for
this dissertation (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2006). I collected data that explained the relationship
between staff practices that aligned with the seven DASH model principles and survivor
empowerment. Exploration and explanation research objectives supported the larger study goals
of connecting organizational context to survivor empowerment.
Step 3. Determine the mixing rationale
Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods aligns with the study’s larger purpose to
explore and nuance organizational context and determine correlates and predictors of survivor
empowerment. A mono-method quantitative study surveying survivors and simply assessing
employee practices and empowerment would limit our ability to understand the context in which
the services were being provided. Conversely, a qualitative study of organizational context

37

would provide a limited scope of the impact of services. The primary reason for mixing is to
provide sufficient information to validate and nuance significant findings. Collins, Onwuegbuzie,
and Sutton (2006) describe this rationale as a significance enhancement, which simply asserts
that mixing two methods enhances the findings from mono-methods research design.
Step 4. Establish the research/mixing purpose
This study has two distinct phases. The first was the inductive phase which involved a
document review (stage 1) and interviews with the organization’s employees (stage 2). The
second quantitative phase of the study included interviews with clients receiving services from
the organization. I chose to mix two research methods together to enhance the depth and breadth
of the empirical data collected from the DASH employees and survivors. The purpose of mixing
qualitative methods with quantitative method was expansion (Collins, Onwuegbuzie, & Sutton,
2006; Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989) and development. The quantitative phase of this
research study was designed to expand the findings from the qualitative phase and generate
insight about the role of organizational context in promoting survivor empowerment. In addition,
I also sought to test a conceptual model that linked DASH’s organizational context to survivor
empowerment.
Step 5. Introduce the research questions
The aim of this mixed method dissertation was to explore an organizational context and
its impact on staff behavior (exploratory), and determine how clients’ perceptions of staff
behavior impacted survivor empowerment (explanatory). I answered five questions in this
dissertation, three research qualitative questions and two quantitative hypotheses:
1. Research Question 1: How do the formal policies guiding DASH reflect the
organization’s mission to provide low barrier, voluntary, empowering services to clients?

38

2. Research Question 2: In what ways, if at all, are DASH policies and procedures reflected
in the organizational culture and structure?
3. Research Question 3: How does DASH’s organizational culture and structure contribute
to the specific ways that DASH employees’ are able to provide low barrier, voluntary,
empowering services to clients?
4. Hypothesis 1: DASH clients will describe specific ways that advocates’ behaviors
reflected:
a. The voluntary services model
b. An empowering philosophy
5. Hypothesis 2: DASH clients will describe specific ways that advocates’ behaviors
contributed to their increased empowerment.
a. Where clients describe advocate behavior that was unhelpful to them or
disempowering, they will describe behaviors that are not in alignment with
DASH’s organizational philosophy
Step 6. Selecting the sampling design
In order to answer the multiple research questions, I applied a purposive, multi-level
sampling design to this study. This approach is the most common form of sampling used among
researchers implementing sequential designs (Collins, Onwuegbuzie, & Jiao, 2006). Multi-level
sampling involves obtaining more than one set of samples from different parts of the study. Each
stage of the dissertation employed different types of purposive sampling that are described in the
data collection and analysis sections introduced later in this chapter.

39

Step 7. Decide on a mixed-methods research design
I chose a transformative, multi-level, exploratory sequential (QUAL

quan), mixed

method design to conduct this study. As described and justified earlier, I chose a transformative,
multilevel, exploratory-sequential design (see Figure 3).
Data Collection (Step 8) and Data Analysis (Step 9)
Detailed information about how data were collected and analyzed can be found in the
Procedures section.
Step 10. Study Legitimation
There are numerous ways to legitimate a mixed methods research study in addition to
establishing trustworthiness for qualitative research and testing validity for quantitative studies.
As a researcher undertaking a mixed-methods study, it is important to analyze and present data
both as an outsider (etic) and as an insider (emic). Given the dynamic context of social research,
multiple perspectives have to be understood and considered in the analytic and reporting stages
of the research study. This is called inside-outside legitimation (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2006).
I chose to integrate participatory meetings at every stage of data collection to ensure high
insider-outsider legitimation. Employee involvement in the design, interpretation and analysis
stages of the research study helped develop trust, glean insight into the organizational changes
that were occurring alongside the research study, and provide support when needed. I kept field
notes throughout the project, and asked explicit questions about organizational shifts and
changes. I also processed data with my chair to get feedback on my observations. Research
assistants who worked outside of DASH also worked on the study and were balanced in both
perspectives.

40

I applied the fundamental rule of mixed methods to attend to the weakness minimization
legitimization (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2006). This form of legitimation requires that the
research “carefully assess the extent to which the weaknesses from one approach can be
compensated by the strengths from the other approach, and then plan and design the study to
fulfill this potential; the research must also use this knowledge when combining, weighting, and
interpreting the results” (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2006, p. 58). Similarly, sequential
legitimation is an important component to sequential design because it asserts that findings could
be a result of the nature of the sequencing rather than the findings themselves. Therefore,
Onwuegbuzie and Johnson (2006) suggest that using a “multiple wave design in which the
quantitative and qualitative data collection and data analysis phases oscillate multiple times” is a
good mechanism to address this threat (p. 58). I was not able to oscillate multiple qualitative and
quantitative findings, but results from each stage went through a rigorous review process with
multiple coders both within and outside of the organization. In turn, the findings were
legitimated as being attributable to the data itself, rather than the sequential design of the study.
The paradigmatic mixing legitimation complements the incompatibility thesis which
states that there will be difficulty attempting to integrate methods from two different paradigms
in order to answer a particular research question. I chose to use the single-paradigm approach in
response to this validation. The transformative paradigm asserts that mixed methods is an
appropriate methodological technique in order to address power distribution and redistribution
within a social justice context (Mertens, 2008). The commensurability legitimation describes
“the extent to which the meta-inferences made reflect a mixed worldview based on the cognitive
process of gestalt switching and integration” (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2006, p. 57). It also
contributes to the extent to which researchers can vacillate between methods, and are able to

41

draw valid meta-inferences. I have been well-trained in both qualitative research methods and
quantitative research methods, and have successfully conducted research studies in both areas
(e.g., Kubiak, Nnawulezi, Karim, Sullivan & Beeble, 2012; Nnawulezi & Sullivan, 2013).
Multiple validities legitimation describes the extent to which validities within each study
are independently addressed. One common method of validation in qualitative designs is a
member check session. In order to establish trustworthiness, multiple coders checked the
document review results and staff interviews. In addition, results were presented to
organizational staff to determine accuracy of interpretation. Legitimation was established by
conducting a member check session with clients, having participatory meetings with staff about
the data, and having an expert in the field (dissertation chair) review the final list of codes.
Political legitimation “refers to the power and value tensions that come to the fore as a
result of combining qualitative and quantitative approaches” (p. 59). In order to attend to this
aspect of the study, I have utilized the transformative framework which privileges the voices of
those who are socially marginalized in the research process, and participatory frameworks which
ask researchers to facilitate environments and contexts where participants can bring their own
voice, personal power, and decision making to the research process.
Steps 11-13. Data Interpretation, Data Reporting, & Research Question Reformulation
Inferences and meta-inferences are reported in the Results chapter. This dissertation study
is a form of data reporting, and research question are reformulated in the participatory
component of the organization. Results from the study are presented in the subsequent chapter.

42

Procedures
Participatory Meeting 1: Introduction
The goal for my first meeting with DASH employees was to create buy-in for the study
and begin building trust. These two components have been identified as imperative in evaluation
and community-based research literature (Patton, 2008). In addition to building rapport with the
DASH staff, I also sought to understand organizational dynamics. Given the opportunity to
present at a staff meeting, I read organizational materials to get a sense of their overall mission. I
also met with the executive director, and used her insight about the organization to inform my
presentation. I created my presentation in alignment with my perception of their organizational
values. For example, the materials and conversations with the executive director suggested that
DASH used a more informal style and seemed to deeply value creative endeavors. Therefore, I
opted to use flipcharts and colorful designs for my presentation as opposed to Microsoft
PowerPoint. As hoped for, the reception to this style of presentation was extremely positive.
My presentation lasted one hour and took place during a regularly scheduled staff
meeting. I began by providing details about my background (e.g., how I came into the genderbased violence movement, my research interests) and also described why I was interested in
working with them. I showed them a picture of the study’s conceptual model (see Figure 1) and
described the research design that I planned to use to answer these questions. I asked employees
how engaged they would like to be in the study. Employees wanted to be engaged throughout the
process, but particularly with the analysis and action planning steps. They also mentioned that in
order to not add to their load and busy schedules, they wanted to have decisions about the
research process made during regularly scheduled organizational meetings.

43

Phase 1, Stage 1: DASH Document Review
Overall, phase one sought to explore the theory, culture and structure influencing staff
behavior. There were two stages within the first phase of this study. The first stage was the
document review, which sought to answer the first research question: How do the formal policies
guiding DASH reflect the organization’s mission to provide low barrier, voluntary, empowering
services to clients?
I systematically analyzed existing documents and developed an initial understanding of
the DASH context over time (Bowen, 2009; Johnson & Turner, 2003). This form of data
collection placed a limited burden on DASH, yet still unearthed important information about the
organizational social context.
The aim of the document review was to understand the formal policies and procedures
that guided employee behavior in the organization. I was specifically interested in exploring how
organizational policies and procedures and the seven DASH Model principles were expected to
be implemented by employees. The results from this document review were translated into
interview questions for the staff interviews that occurred in the second stage.
Document Sample
DASH’s Impact Analyst provided 166 documents that informed the organizational
hierarchy and employee and survivor expectation. Using a criterion-based sampling technique,
documents were excluded from analysis if they did not explicitly detail expectations for all
employee behavior. I excluded 52 funder reports, 47 board reports and corresponding minutes,
16 job descriptions, 14 screening documents, 11 miscellaneous draft documents, three financial
documents, six program descriptions, three policy reports on homelessness in DC, and three

44

forms about training examples. Ten documents (152 pages) were included in the final analysis.
The list of the documents and their corresponding purpose is listed in Table 1.
Table 1: Final List of Documents Analyzed for Exploratory Document Review
Document Title
1. Assessment Team
Review Process
2. DASH Model and
Mental Health
3. DASH Model and
Substance Abuse
4. DASH Participant
Handbook
5. Guidance for
Mental Health
Crisis
6. DASH Policy
Manual

7. Creating a
management
structure PPT
8. TA Role in
Evaluation

9. TA Team Grid

10. DASH Employee
Handbook

Document Purpose
To outline the specific steps and give a timeline about how to
conduct a ‘Holistic Assessment Review’ with a resident.
To explain how each component of the DASH model it is applied in
the resident who have a mental health issue, and how the advocate
is expected to behave with them.
To explain how each component of the model is applied to resident
who has substance use concerns, and how the employee is expected
to behave with them.
To detail the guidelines that residents agree to follow in order to
participate in the housing programs.
To provide guidance about how to do a psychosocial assessment,
and how to approach a resident who is in crisis.
To outline the main policies and procedures of the organization
such as confidentiality procedures, organizational operating
procedures with CPS, law enforcement, and expected behaviors
with residents
To describe structure of the organizational hierarchy and the
philosophy behind the structure
To describe the role of the TA management team, and to identify
how each member of the team supports advocates and evaluates
their performance. This seems to be written specifically for the
directors to better understand their role.
To guide the advocate in knowing the role of each of the director,
and how each of them contribute to the development and evaluation
of the advocate. This document, unlike the others, seems to be
written specifically for the advocate.
To explain employee benefits, employee status, leave policies,
work performances, standards of conduct, health and safety, etc.

Document Review Data Analysis
I chose an inductive content analysis for the ten selected documents. Data analysis was
conducted within Dedoose, an online qualitative and mixed-methods data analysis tool. There
were three stages to conducting this inductive content analysis: preparation, organization, and

45

reporting (Elo & Kyngas, 2008). In the preparation phase, I read organizational documents
multiple times to familiarize myself with the data. Next, I organized the data by selecting
sentences and small paragraphs for my units of analysis. Broadly, I used open coding on
manifest and latent content to organize the data into manageable chunks and to generate findings.
I began with descriptive coding, a first cycle coding technique that is useful for summarizing
segments of the data (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014). I also used a simultaneous coding
technique to identify the overlap with document excerpts that contained multiple meanings
(Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014). I derived 24 codes using descriptive and simultaneous
coding techniques, from which I created a categorization matrix by grouping the codes under
larger categories. I went back to the data and re-coded the ten documents using the coding
matrix. The categorization matrix was refined and finalized after the third round of coding.
Once coding was completed, I described each code individually and detailed its
relationship with other codes in the dataset (derived from the simultaneous coding process). For
example, numerous excerpts were assigned the codes ‘flexibility’ and ‘survivor-centered.’ The
excerpts described both explicitly and implicitly how survivor-centered practice was actualized
in the employee’s ability to be flexible and adaptable to residents needs. Survivor-centered was
considered the main code, and flexibility was a sub code. This relationship was depicted visually
as an arrow from the main code (survivor-centered) to flexibility (sub code). I replicated this
process with 24 codes, and created a mind map to help visualize the interconnecting relationships
between codes. The codes that had the greatest amount of “influence,” or the greatest number of
arrows going to the code, were considered main codes. I moved related and conceptually sound
sub-codes underneath their respective main codes. Sub codes were then ranked by amount of
influence and number of connections relative to the main code and other sub codes. Sub codes

46

with greater connections to the main codes were ranked higher while codes with fewer
connections to the main codes were ranked lower. I conceptualized these codes as smaller ideas
that supported the larger constructs of the organization. Main codes eventually became themes
based on the conceptual groups with written corresponding descriptions. See Appendix B for the
codes and subcodes derived from the document review.
Establishing Trustworthiness
A trained research assistant coded 20% of the data using the inductively derived coding
scheme. The excerpts that she coded were compared to excerpts that I had originally coded, and
we discussed the code until the excerpts reached 75% agreement. Preliminary codes were
presented to my dissertation chair, as well as the executive director, director of programs, and
impact analyst at the organization as a form of member-checking. Their suggestions were
incorporated into the interpretations and the final themes are presented in the Results chapter.
Phase 1, Stage 2: DASH Employee Interviews
In-depth staff interviews were conducted to answer the next two research questions:
Research Question 2. In what ways, if at all, are DASH policies and procedures reflected in the
organizational culture and structure?
Research Question 3. How does DASH’s organizational culture and structure contribute to the
specific ways that DASH employees’ are able to provide low barrier, voluntary, empowering
services to clients?
Interviews are an ideal way to collect in-depth information about a particular
phenomenon by those who are directly affected by the constructs of interest. This approach also
allows researchers to collect in-depth information about context, and gain clarity about
constructs (Johnson & Turner, 2003). I specifically designed the second stage to explore the

47

organizational constructs of culture and structure, as well as to understand employees’
perceptions of how the seven DASH model principles are or are not put into practice with
survivors.
Participatory Meeting 2: Item Generation for Staff Interviews
Employees had established in our first meeting together that they wanted to be fully
involved in the formulation and interpretation stages of the study. I therefore planned two
follow-up meetings with employees in order to garner input on the staff interview guide. The
first meeting included advocates and interns; the second meeting was with upper administration.
I decided to meet with the two groups separately in order to alleviate the influence of power
differentials on the responses that were generated during discussion. At the beginning of each
meeting I introduced the meeting objectives and had the group establish conversation guidelines.
I conducted a sticky-wall activity to introduce four questions to each group: (a) What do you
expect (either advocates/upper administration) to know? (b) What skills do you expect
(advocates/upper administration) to have? (c) What do you expect (advocates/upper
administration) to be able to do? (d) What is happening at DASH that you believe supports these
expectations? I gave each person four note cards per question, and time to write down four
responses to each of the four questions. After they had completed writing, I instructed them to
rank the note cards. The responses that were the most important to ask about in the interview
guide were ranked from the highest (1) to the lowest (4). I facilitated a group conversation using
the sticky-wall activity to narrow down the main responses and identify the initial draft of
concepts that employees wanted me to ask of advocates and upper administration. These
concepts were incorporated into the staff interview guide. I drafted a copy of the interview guide

48

and sent it to the executive director and impact analyst for review. Their comments were
incorporated into the final version of the interview guide, which can be found in Appendix D.
Staff Interview Guide
Questions within the semi-structured interview guide were created based on the
document review, staff perceptions vocalized at two meetings, and literature on organizational
culture (Agbenyiga, 2011). The guide was divided into six parts. I first asked employees to
describe the philosophies of DASH, including the mission and seven principles of the DASH
model. In the second section, staff described the organizational structure, specifically their role in
organizational decision making, organizational communication, and how they perceived the
effectiveness of the TA model, voluntary services, and low barrier approach. Third, staff
described the organizational culture as they experienced it. I asked questions about the qualities
of a successful employee at DASH as well as their perceptions of leadership’s implementation of
the DASH model. Given the transformative focus of this study, I also asked employees to
explain how social power impacted the ways people engaged with one another, and how they
behaved with survivors at DASH. The interview guide ended with questions about the level of
commitment the employee had to the organization, and demographic questions.
Conducting Staff Interviews
I sampled staff using a purposive, theoretically-driven sampling technique. Onwuegbuzie
& Collins (2007) describe theory-based sampling as “choosing settings, groups and/or
individuals because their inclusion helps the researcher develop a theory” (p. 286). Since the
purpose of this stage was to develop an understanding of staff behaviors with residents, I chose
to interview people who would be best able to provide insight into these practices. The sampling
frame was developed across the following inclusion and exclusion criteria. Employees were

49

invited to participate in an interview if they (a) had provided direct services to survivors, or
provided direct supervision to employees who provided direction supervision to survivors, (b)
had been employed at DASH for at least two weeks, and (c) were currently employed at DASH
at the time of data collection. I excluded employees who were not officially on the organization’s
payroll (e.g., interns, volunteers). I presented the sampling frame to the impact analyst of the
organization to confirm that everyone selected fit within the criteria. There were a total of 26
employees at the organization, thirteen of whom were eligible for the study. Twelve of the
thirteen (92%) participated in the employee interviews. Six participants were direct service
providers and six participants were direct supervisors who agreed to participate in the interviews.
One person who had initially agreed to participate was ultimately unable to schedule a time to
complete the interview. Two employees who participated in the interview were also unable to
complete the entire interview. Interviews ranged from one hour and fifteen minutes to four hours,
with an average of two hours and thirty minutes. Participants were given the option to be
interviewed in a private location at DASH, or at an off-site location. Eight participants (67%)
chose to be interviewed on site, and four (33%) chose to be interviewed outside of DASH in
local coffee shops or restaurants. Each participant was informed that their interview would be
confidential, and that they had the option to stop the interview at any time. Every participant
gave permission for their interview to be recorded. Recordings were sent to an outside
transcriptionist. Employees were not compensated for their time. This stage of the study was
approved through the Michigan State University Human Research Protection Program.
Protecting Staff Confidentiality
As mentioned earlier, I told each employee that participation in the interview was
voluntary, and that our meetings were confidential. I gave each participant a unique identifier to

50

replace their name and position at the organization. The document with identifying linking
information between the unique identifier and name was kept separate from the interview data.
Data Analysis of Staff Interviews
I chose to conduct an inductive thematic analysis, a data-driven analytic approach that
explores a phenomenon without using a pre-existing coding scheme to analyze the data (Braun &
Clarke, 2006). Braun and Clarke (2006) outline a six-step process to complete an inductive
thematic analysis: data familiarization, code generation, theme search, theme review, defining
themes, and report writing. As suggested, I first read the transcripts from the staff interviews
multiple times. I then separately coded at each level of analysis for staff behavior, organizational
culture, and organizational structure. At each level, I completed two cycles of coding. Miles,
Huberman, and Saldana (2014) described first-cycle coding as the initial process of data
reduction that describes parts of the data. Second cycle coding uses the codes originally
generated from the first cycle codes to make inferences. The steps for each analysis are described
below.
Staff Behavior Analysis
The purpose of this analysis was to identify the specific behaviors that staff reported they
practiced with survivors, and to subsequently create scale items from the codes. I started
analysis with first cycle coding by using in vivo codes. These are “words or short phrases from
the participant’s own language in the data record” (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014, p. 74).
This form of coding allows for a description of practice that is firmly rooted in the actual
descriptions provided by participants. There were 76 initial codes.

51

Organizational Culture Analyses
The second set of analyses was implemented to explore the underlying assumptions,
values and behavioral expectations of DASH, or organizational culture. In vivo codes, as
mentioned earlier, and descriptive codes—nouns that summarize an excerpt—were the primary
coding techniques used in first cycle coding. These coding techniques are best when attempting
to understand microcultures, environments, and contexts (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014). I
completed first cycle coding on six direct service interviews, and grouped similar codes together.
I created an inductive coding scheme and then completed an iterative first cycle coding process. I
coded the remaining interviews using this coding scheme, as well as generated new codes based
on other codes that arose from the data. Then, I engaged in additional categorization of the
codes. Given that organizational culture represents a shared phenomenon among all employees
within a particular organizational context, the codes that had the greatest consensus across
employees were identified as organizational culture codes (Glisson & James, 2002).
Organizational Structure Analysis
The third set of analyses that I conducted focused specifically on organizational structure.
Organizational structure was conceptualized in this study as the procedural and management
mechanisms in place that are designed to help employees enact the organization’s philosophy.
Similar to the analysis on organizational culture, I conducted first cycle coding using descriptive
and in vivo codes. I began by coding the transcripts of six direct service providers and created an
inductive coding scheme. The coding scheme was then used to complete in vivo and descriptive
coding on the rest of the data. Second cycle coding was evaluation coding. Evaluation coding
“assigns judgments about the merit, worth or significance of programs or policy” (Miles,

52

Huberman, & Saldana, 2014, p. 75). I specifically used evaluation coding when attempting to
identify whether the TA model was operating effectively.
Data Analysis Integration & Establishing Trustworthiness
A research assistant separately coded 10% of the data using the coding scheme developed
through organizational culture and structure analysis. Then, we came together to check the codes
and determine our level of agreement. We discussed and refined themes until we came to at least
80% agreement across all of the themes.
I created separate sets of themes pertaining to employee behavior, culture, and structure.
Braun and Clarke (2006) suggest that researchers review themes and create a thematic map. I
used the thematic map to determine whether the themes fit the experiences of DASH employees.
The themes were revised and refined by either adding new data or rewording specific concepts.
The themes were finalized and descriptions were written for each theme. Themes generated from
each analysis were written with a thick description to allow for transparency. A preliminary draft
of the results was introduced to the executive director, director of operations, and impact analyst
as a form of member checking. Each set of themes are discussed separately in the results section
below. The organizational culture and organizational structure thematic maps are available in
Appendix E and Appendix F, respectively.
Participatory Meeting 3: Member Check Session and Developing Survivor Interviews
I facilitated two participatory staff meetings at the beginning of this confirmatory phase.
The aim of these meetings was to (a) validate DASH model practices and (b) determine the
outcomes they would expect survivor to attain if the model was followed. This information was
then used to create the interviews with Cornerstone residents. Direct service workers in the
organization participated in both meetings.

53

In the first meeting, I presented the preliminary codes from the employee behavior codes
in the form of items on a scale. I explained to the group that the codes were practices that staff
believed they engaged in with survivors and that embodied the seven DASH model principles.
Employees provided direct feedback about items that needed to be revised, and specific items
that needed to be added to the discussion. I then asked staff to what extent they wanted to
participate in further instrument development. Employees mentioned they would not be able to
participate in an intensive instrument development process, but could give feedback once the
survey was constructed. They stated that they trusted that I could make the final decisions about
the items to include on the guide that would clearly represent their work. My chair and I
constructed the first draft of the interview guide, and finalized it with input from direct service
providers and upper administration.
Phase 2: Survivor Interviews
In this exploratory sequential design, the second phase of the research study built upon
the qualitative phase, and sought to confirm the findings from the first phase of the study. In
other words, are the behaviors that staff reported they do with residents actually reported by
residents, and do these practices lead to empowerment? Specifically, I sought to test the
relationship between DASH model practices (i.e., the model-aligned behaviors that staff reported
practicing with survivors) and survivor empowerment. In-depth interviews with survivors were
conducted to test two study hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: DASH clients will describe specific ways that advocates’ behaviors reflected:
a. The voluntary services model
b. An empowering philosophy

54

Hypothesis 2: clients will describe specific ways that advocates’ behaviors contributed to their
increased empowerment.
a. Where clients describe advocate behavior that was unhelpful to them or
disempowering, they will describe behaviors that are not in alignment with
DASH’s organizational philosophy
Survivor Interview Guide
The instrument used for data collection was a structured interview guide with open-ended
questions. The final structure and content of the interview was developed in collaboration with
DASH staff, and built upon the individual behavior codes from the staff interviews as well as the
empirical literature on survivor empowerment (Guiterrez & Lewis, 1999, Sullivan, 2012). I first
piloted the instrument with a survivor who had recently left the Cornerstone housing program. I
incorporated feedback from the pilot interview, staff and research assistants, and finalized the
interview guide which is available in Appendix H. The interview guide included eleven sections,
which are described next.
Demographics. Basic demographic information was collected from residents including
race, age, gender, sexual orientation, current education level, country of origin, employment,
primary language, length of time at shelter, and level of financial stability. Participants were also
asked the extent to which they had a physical disability or mental health issue.
Level of Participation in DASH. In order to assess how often residents engaged in
DASH programming, each was asked, “How frequently do you participate in the services that
happen here at DASH?” The response scale ranged from 1 (rarely or never) to 5 (always).
DASH Model Practices. Seven subscales that aligned with the seven principles of the
DASH model were developed in order to assess the extent that the organizational philosophy was

55

being practiced on the ground. As a reminder, the seven principles are sovereignty,
empowerment, accountability, partnerships, compassion, integrity, and recentering.
Respondents reported how true each statement was based whether employees engaged in specific
behaviors associated with each principle during their stay at Cornerstone. Sovereignty assessed
the extent to which survivors believed their own choices were valued and respected. There were
four items on this subscale. One example of an item from this subscale was “Staff respect the
choices that I make.” Residents were also asked to report the extent to which employees
supported survivors’ voice and provided learning opportunities. This was assessed by six items
on the Empowering Practice subscale. A sample item included “Staff provide me with the tools I
need to accomplish my goals.” Accountability included four items that assessed the extent to
which employees behaved in a way that is responsive to survivors’ needs within professional
boundaries. “Respond to my needs promptly” was a sample item for this scale. Partnerships
assessed the degree that employees were able to develop a mutually cooperative relationship
with survivors. There were four items in this subscale (sample item: “Staff make me feel like we
are working as a team”). The Compassion subscale was created to assess the extent that
employees were engaging in empathetic care for the survivor. Six items were associated with this
subscale (sample item: “Staff believe me when I share things about my life”). On the Integrity
subscale, three items assessed the extent to which employees were consistent in their behavior
with survivors. An example of an item on this scale was “Staff are consistent with me.” The last
subscale was Recentering. There were five items on this scale, and it assessed the extent that
employees worked with survivors to find and integrate balance into their lives. For example,
“Staff help me find ways to manage stress” was an item on this scale. Scale psychometrics are

56

reported in the following Results chapter. Respondents answered on a five-point response scale
ranging from 0 (Not at all) to 4 (Very true).
Voluntary Services. Residents were asked to answer two questions about the extent to
which they believed their engagement in services provided through DASH was voluntary. The
first question was “I chose what DASH program and services I wanted to participate in” and the
second question was “Staff made me feel like I had to meet with them whether I wanted to or
not.” Participants reported how true they felt each statement was based on a likert response scale
from 0 (Not at all true) to 4 (Very true).
Survivor Empowerment. This measure was developed in a previous study to
understand the extent to which survivors were able to increase their actual power by increasing
their beliefs in self-efficacy, actual competencies and skills, and awareness of the dynamics of
domestic violence (Sullivan et al, 2013). It contains three subscales which had 22 items in total.
The Confidence sub-scale contained 9 items (M=3.26, SD= 0.96, α =0.95). A sample item in this
sub-scale was “I have a greater understanding that I have the ability to make changes in my own
life.” Connections (4items; M=3.07, SD= 1.06, α = 0.85) describes the extent to which residents
felt connected to the people and/or resources in the larger community. Items within this sub-scale
included “I know more about the community resources that I need” and “I have a greater
understanding that if one organization cannot help me, there will be another than can.” The final
sub-scale, Consciousness, assessed participants’ knowledge of intimate partner violence
(M=3.11, SD= 0.96, α = 0.90). This eight-item scale includes question such as “I have a greater
understanding that I have the right to be angry about what I’ve experienced.” The response scale
ranged from 0 (not at all true) to 4 (very true).

57

Empowerment-Related Safety. The Measure of Victim Empowerment Related Safety
(MOVERS) was used to measure survivors’ empowerment as it relates to their ability to keep
themselves and their families safe from abuse (Goodman et al, 2014a). The measure included
three subscales. The first subscale, Internal Tools (M=4.30, SD= 0.70, α = 0.86), measured the
extent to which survivors believed they had the internal resources to support their safety. The
second subscale was Expectations of Support (M=3.95, SD=0.97, α =0.79). This subscale
assessed the extent to which survivors believed they had accessible and effective support
networks. Trade Offs (M=2.28, SD= 1.06, α = 0.57) was the third subscale. It assessed the extent
to which survivors perceived that choices they made to keep safe would present new problems
for them. The response scale for this item ranged from 1 (never true) to 5 (always true). Previous
studies reported acceptable alpha’s for these subscales ranging from 0.74 - 0.88 (Goodman et al,
2014a; Goodman et al, 2014b).
Open-Ended Qualitative Questions
Two open-ended questions were also included in the interview guide to understand
survivors’ experiences at DASH. Both questions were developed to explore residents’
experiences with DASH services in their own words. The questions on the interview guide
included: “Can you tell me about the specific ways that Cornerstone has impacted your life?”
and “How does DASH differ, if it does, from other organizations that you have received services
from?”
Survivor Sampling and Procedures
I used a criterion-based sampling technique to develop inclusion and exclusion criteria.
DASH residents were invited to participate if they were over the age of 18, receiving
Cornerstone Housing services and had been living at Cornerstone for at least two weeks. I

58

decided on a time period of two weeks because Cornerstone residents are strongly encouraged to
meet with their advocate within the first week of entering the program, and asked to schedule (at
least) weekly meetings. The two week time period also ensured that women would have enough
experiences with DASH to be able to answer the interview questions.
Thirty-nine residents resided at Cornerstone when recruitment began, and the number
increased to forty-one (the maximum capacity of the program) during the recruitment period.
The research assistants and I engaged in multiple strategies to recruit residents to participate in
the study with the intention of introducing the study to every resident who met the study criteria.
Staff members suggested different times during the day to conduct recruitment. We posted flyers
on every resident’s apartment door at the beginning and towards the end of the recruitment
period. We put additional flyers on bulletin boards, and loose flyers were left at the front desk.
We also attended all program events. As a result of these strategies, we recruited 37 people into
the study. Of the 37 women, 33 (80% of the eligible sample of 41) completed an interview.
We conducted all of the interviews in a location that the survivor identified as safe and
confidential. Despite our willingness to be flexible in location, all participants chose to be
interviewed at DASH either in their own apartments, or in a confidential room on-site. Every
survivor was compensated $25 in cash for their participation. The length of interviews ranged
from 34 minutes to 160 minutes with an average of 72 minutes. Thirty-two survivors gave
permission to audio record the interview, and responses from open-ended questions were
transcribed through an outside service.
Survivor Interview Data Analysis
I utilized multiple analyses to understand the extent whether voluntary services and the
seven DASH model principles were associated with survivor empowerment and empowerment-

59

related safety. Descriptive and correlational analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Version
20. Structural equation modeling was completed using AMOS Version 22.
Hypothesis 1. In order to test the first hypothesis, I examined the frequencies of
survivors’ responses about the extent to which staff used voluntary services approaches in their
service provision. The reported effect size was based on the mean of the responses to each
question.
Hypothesis 2. I began the preliminary analysis for the second hypothesis reviewing the
frequencies and distributional properties of the two voluntary services questions: “I chose what
DASH programs or services I wanted to participate in” had a significantly negative skew (-2.25)
and with a kurtosis of 4.66. The K-S test confirmed that this distribution was significantly nonnormal, D (33) = 0.42, p < 0.001. “Staff make me feel like I have to meet with them whether I
want to or not” was slightly positively skewed (0.14) and was kurtotic (-1.72). The K-S test
confirmed that this distribution was also significantly non-normal, D (33) = 0.25, p < 0.001.
I also reviewed the frequencies and distributional properties for survivor empowerment
and the empowerment-related safety subscales. Results for survivor environment showed that
Confidence (skewness = -1.82, kurtosis = 3.112; D (33) = 0.23), Connections (skewness= -1.28,
kurtosis = 1.22; D (33) =0.22) and Critical Consciousness (skewness = -1.56, kurtosis = 2.46; D
(33) = 0.18) were significantly non-normal at the p < 0.001. The three subscales for
empowerment-related safety also had a similar distribution. The Internal tools had a skewness of
-0.94, and was kurtotic (-0.12). K-S test revealed that the distribution was significantly nonnormal, D (33) = 0.26, p < 0.001. Trade-offs was positively skewed (0.78) and kurtotic (-0.64).
The K-S test also confirmed a significantly non-normal distribution, D (33) = 0.20, p < 0.001.

60

The final subscale, Expectations for Support, had a negative skew (-1.05) and a kurtosis of 1.13.
It was significantly non-normal, D (33) = 0.15.
Despite the non-normality of the data, some research has found that the t-test for Pearson
correlation coefficient is mostly robust to violations of normality at p = 0.05 level in heavily
skewed samples, and have little influence with samples above 15 with independent variables
(Edgell & Noon, 1984). Results suggested that the voluntary services questions were not
significantly related to one another (r = -0.16, ns). Given this, I conducted a Pearson’s correlation
analysis to explore the relationship between voluntary services, survivor empowerment, and
empowerment-related safety. I completed a simple bivariate regression analysis to follow up on
significant correlations.
I conducted a preliminary analysis to identify (a) the extent to which survivors reported
that staff engaged in practices that aligned with the DASH model, and (b) whether those
practices actually resulted in survivor empowerment and empowerment-related safety. The
items for the scales were developed using an iterative process. I used a deductive approach based
on DASH’s program theory. The first draft was developed based on the behavior codes from the
staff interviews. This included 76 codes. Staff then identified the items that they felt most
aligned with each of the seven DASH principles. Items based on the staff interview and program
theory were compared to check for consistency between the behavior codes and the program
theory. The dissertation chair reviewed the items to ensure that the items were properly
constructed. Items were removed if they were repetitive or did not distinctly align with the seven
model principle in order to create parsimonious subscales. After these changes, there were thirtyseven items that DASH staff, the Chair, and I theorized measured the seven DASH principles.
The scale was pretested with a client who recently left the Cornerstone housing program.

61

Wording and grammatical changes were made to the scale based on the feedback. The 37 items
were retained.
Once data were collected, frequencies and distributional properties for each of the model
practices were reviewed. Overall, results showed that the seven DASH Model principles were
significantly non-normal at p < 0.001, according to the K-S test. All practices were skewed
negatively (Sovereignty, skewness = -2.05, kurtosis, 4.54; Empowerment, skewness = -0.70,
kurtosis, -0.83; Accountability, skewness = -1.14, kurtosis, -0.17; Partnerships, skewness = 1.07, kurtosis, -0.04; Compassion, skewness = -1.31, kurtosis= -0.32; Integrity, skewness = 1.16, kurtosis, 0.04; Recentering, skewness = -0.82, kurtosis, -0.32). Review of the data indicated
that, on average, survivors reported that employees behaved with them in ways that aligned with
the DASH model at higher rates. The data were also screened for outliers. Missing data were
handled by pair-wise deletion.
Next, I conducted a correlation analysis including the seven DASH model practices, three
survivor empowerment subscales, and three empowerment-related safety subscales. The tradeoff scale was reverse coded for analysis. Smaller numbers meant having to make more
compromises for safety. Results showed that all of the DASH model practices subscales were
related. Specifically, results suggest that multicollinearity could be an issue among the DASH
model principles subscales. Specifically, Accountability and Empowerment were highly
significantly related (r = 0.91). Partnerships was significantly highly related to Sovereignty (r =
0.80), Empowerment (r = 0.80), and Accountability (r = 0.79). Compassion was significantly
highly associated with Sovereignty (r = 0.80), Empowerment (r = 0.73), Accountability (r =
0.70), and Partnerships (r = 0.88). Integrity was highly significantly associated with Partnerships
(r = 0.83) and Compassion (r = 0.83). Recentering was significantly and highly associated with

62

Empowerment (r = 0.79), Accountability (r =0.78), Partnerships (r = 0.85), Compassion (r=0.87)
and Integrity (r = 0.72). This suggests that, while each of these concepts may be distinct, the
scale items did not sufficiently differentiate one from another.
I chose to use confirmatory factor analysis to justify taking the mean of each subscale in
subsequent regression analysis. Some practices in instrument development recommend
conducting an exploratory factor analysis prior to conducting a confirmatory factor analysis.
However, given the limitations of the sample size, it was not possible to conduct a split-sample
test with exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic model separately. Additionally, I codeveloped the items based on the specific program theory (DASH Model). The confirmatory
factor analysis allowed me to examine whether the theorized practices actually fit the latent
construct.
Previous research that has specifically looked at organizational alignment and
organizational effectiveness has argued for the use of measures that reflect the specific
organizational context (Walter et al, 2013). Numerous community psychologists and domestic
violence researchers have discussed the importance of conceptualizing domestic violence as a
domain-specific construct (Peterson & Speer, 2000; Foster-Fishman & Keys, 1997; Cattaneo &
Goodman, 2015). My interest in understanding how each of the seven DASH Model principles
potentially contributes to survivor empowerment, as well as the small sample size, supported the
decision to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis separately for each of the subscales.
I took a Bayesian approach to conducting the confirmatory factor analysis. Bayesian can
be useful for small sample sizes and for non-normally distributed data (Feinberg & Gonzalez,
2012; Song & Lee, 2012). This approach was ideal given the significant negative skew of these
data, which are typical of samples from domestic violence shelters. Bayesian analysis has also

63

been shown to produce similar, if not more accurate, population estimates (Song & Lee, 2012;
Bryne, 2010). Bayesian approach to statistical inferences assumes that the true population is
unknown and random (Feinberg & Gonzalez, 2012; van de Schoot et al, 2013). Bayesian
analysis creates population parameter estimates based on prior information collected from
previous research (prior distribution) and the observed data. Computation of parameter estimates
are performed using the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling methods (Song & Lee,
2012). I chose a diffused or noninformative prior, meaning that priors were set between 0 and 1,
instead of setting a specific value (informative or strong prior) due to the exploratory nature of
this study and the limited amount of evidence quantitatively exploring empowerment within
domestic violence organizations.
I tested ten single-factor models for each of the DASH model principle subscales and
three survivor empowerment subscales. For each initial model, I set the scale for the latent
variable by setting one of the items to 1. The error variances for the observed variables were set
to 1 in order to scale the factors. Fit statistics were calculated using Bayesian estimation. Factor
loadings and the standardized residuals were reviewed and I modified the following models:
Sovereignty (removed 2 items), Empowerment (removed 1 item) and Compassion (removed 1
item). All of the models converged with a convergence statistic of less than 1.0002 (Bryne,
2010). For some of the variables, a classical suppression effect occurred, meaning that the
regression weight surpassed the value of the original correlation coefficient (Kline, 2010).
The fit indices from the initial model were compared to the fit indices from a
standardized model (latent variance set to 1). The standard errors for each model were small
(0.001) across all the models. Results from the Bayesian confirmatory factor analytic models
suggested that the DASH model practices subscales and survivor empowerment scales, had

64

significant factor loadings. For ease of interpretation, the posterior mean regression weights can
be similarly interpreted as factor loadings, and the posterior standard deviation is “analogous to
the standard error in ML estimation” (Bryne, 2010, p. 155).
For each model, I conducted sensitivity analysis checks to determine whether selecting a
diffused prior biased the results (Song & Lee, 2012). The first and third sensitivity checks
revealed that the distributions from the first and last thirds of the samples were identical for each
of the models. The trace plot was the second sensitivity check. It results from the trace plots
across all model revealed that the models quickly converged. The last sensitivity analysis that I
checked was the autocorrelation plot. A review of the plots across all models suggested the
autocorrelation coefficients lessened to 0, and remained at zero. In other words, each model
attained convergence in the distribution, and the samples came from the true posterior
distribution.
Model fit was assessed using two statistics. The first was the deviance information
criterion (DIC). It is the deviance “between the posterior mean of the deviance and the deviance
at the posterior estimates of the parameters of interest” (Spiegelhalter, Best, Carlin, & van der
Linde, 2002, p. 584). This statistic is comparable to and can be interpreted like the Akaike
information criterion (AIC). Smaller number indicates a better fit. The second measure of
goodness of fit was the posterior predictive p value (PP p-value). The model fit statistic is “a
measure of discrepancy between the observed data and the posited assumptions, among which
the hypothesis being tested is only a part” (Gelman, Carlin, Stern & Rubin, 2004, p. 175). The
measure indicates a good fit when it is close to or at 0.5 (Song & Lee, 2012). The confirmatory
factor analysis suggested that the items for each subscale provided well-fitting models. Results

65

from the BCFA are presented in the Results chapter. Reliability analysis was conducted with the
final set of items in order to determine the internal consistency of predictor and outcome scales.
Finally, multivariate multiple regression analysis was completed to determine the impact
of each model practice on the group of survivor empowerment subscales, and the group of
empowerment-related safety subscales, while controlling for level of participation and length of
stay in DASH. Fourteen multivariate regressions were completed. Each DASH model principles
were centered using the group mean in order to address multicollinearity concerns (Keith, 2006).
In seven models, the three survivor empowerment scales were regressed on a mean-centered
DASH model principle subscale, frequency of participation, and log length of stay. In the other
seven models, the three empowerment-related safety subscales were regressed on a meancentered DASH model principle subscale, frequency of participation, and log length of shelter
stay. For example, the predictors for the first model were sovereignty, frequency of participation,
and length of shelter stay. The outcomes for this model were the three subscales of survivor
empowerment (confidence, critical consciousness, and connections). In the second model, the
three empowerment-related safety scales (internal tools, trade -offs, and expectations for support)
were regressed on sovereignty, frequency of participation and length of stay. The tolerance and
VIF scores were acceptable for each of the models. Review of the residual plots for each model
indicated that the standard errors were independent.
Survivor Qualitative Analysis
Similar to the employee interviews, I chose to analyze responses from the open-ended
interview questions in the survivor interview using an inductive thematic analysis. I completed
descriptive and invivo coding for data reduction. Codes were then grouped to generate themes

66

and make inferences. Themes were reviewed with a research assistant to support trustworthiness
of the data.
Participatory Staff Meeting 4: Review of Findings
I conducted preliminary analyses and created data tables to present at an all-staff meeting,
in order to review and interpret the findings from the survivor interviews. I first provided staff
with a demographic table showing individual percentages of each of the item subscales. I gave
them time to review the findings and ask any questions they might have of the data. Following a
discussion of how the findings aligned with their original expectations, I facilitated a
prioritization activity to help staff identify key findings, as well as findings that did not meet
their expectations. The highly prioritized findings were written on flipcharts and employees were
broken up in groups of people from both upper administration and direct services. I facilitated
the rotating flip chart activity ensuring that each group moved in a circular motion to each flip
chart where they wrote down their personal interpretations of the key finding. Once this activity
was completed, we reconvened into a large group and discussed their interpretations of each
finding. I prompted the group to also tell me what follow-up questions they wanted to ask
survivors about the key findings. A majority of the questions for the survivor member check
session were derived from this staff meeting.
Survivor Member Check Session
Torrance (2012) asserts that the role of research participants in the validation of the
methods used within mixed methods research is an integral part of the research; he encourages
the use of member check sessions as a form of validation of mixed methods research. In
accordance with this, I conducted a member check session with residents from the Cornerstone
program to validate the survivor findings. Questions were derived from the staff meeting as well

67

as inconsistencies I had noted between the qualitative and quantitative survivor data. Participants
were chosen from those who had indicated at the time that they were interviewed that they would
be interested in participating in a follow up conversation about the results with other residents at
Cornerstone. Eight people elected to participate in the follow-up member check session that was
held at DASH. Discussions were recorded and transcribed. The participants were not
compensated for their time. In the focus group, I introduced the thirteen findings from the
survivor interviews as statements. I then asked focus group participants their opinions about the
findings, and if they believed the statements were representative of their experiences at
Cornerstone. The group confirmed that the statements were valid, which established
trustworthiness of the findings. The member session protocol is available in Appendix I.

68

CHAPTER 3: RESULTS

The results chapter is organized similar to the Methods chapter. I begin by describing the
results from the first, inductive phase in the study. This includes a description of the themes that
arose from the document review and staff interviews. Findings from the first phase of the study
answer the first three research questions. Results from the deductive, second phase are then
presented. Survivor interviews were analyzed to test the two study hypotheses. Brief qualitative
findings from the survivor interviews conclude the section.
Phase 1, Stage 1: Document Review
Overall, DASH policies and procedures reflected the organizational expectation that
services should be low-barrier, adaptable to survivors’ needs and desires, voluntary, and
delivered in a way to promote survivors’ strengths and power. Five themes emerged from the
review, with each theme describing specific employee behavioral expectations. Employees were
expected to:
1) use service provision approaches that promote inclusive access to safe housing,
2) use the DASH model’s seven principles when interacting with residents,
3) foster and sustain partnerships among community partners, employees, and residents
4) prioritize survivor safety, and
5) build their individual competencies using organizational capacity building opportunities.
Each expectation is described in detail below.
Expectation One: Use Approaches that Promote Inclusive Access to Safe Housing
DASH asserts in its policy and procedures that every survivor has the right to safe
housing. Utilizing a low barrier approach to program selection, residents are able to have access

69

to and maintain stable, safe housing. Voluntary services approach allows residents to choose
whether they want to participate in organizational programming and activities without fear of
losing their housing. The written rationale states that this policy is designed to support residents’
decisions and choices. Advocates are told that housing is not contingent on receiving services or
assistance from anyone, and in turn, residents are able to make decisions without having to worry
about their own housing. Supervisors are expected to support advocates in making these
decisions.
Expectation Two: DASH Model’s Seven Principles Should Inform Practice with Survivors
Eight of the ten documents required that employees use the seven principles of the DASH
model when providing direct service. Advocates are encouraged to be responsive to residents’
needs (accountability/professionalism), provide nurturing support to survivors (compassion),
engage in their own independent decision making and also encourage personal decision making
among survivors (empowerment), support residents’ sense of self (integrity), act in a professional
manner (professionalism), help residents come back to their initial goals (re-centering), and
operate from their own will (sovereignty). A handbook is given to new residents which describe
the DASH model principles, the model’s purpose, and details how employees use the model to
work with residents and outside community partners. The program directors and technical
assistance team (upper management) are also required to adhere to the DASH model principles,
and teach advocates how to do the same during service provision. The summaries below describe
the major practices expected to be enacted for each of the seven principles.
Accountability/Professionalism. Employees are expected to provide services by being
honest and transparent and creating respectful boundaries with residents. Employees are
encouraged to not become combative with survivors and remain a resource to fulfill residents’

70

needs. Residents are instructed to hold employees or other residents in the building accountable
by using the organizational grievance process. This formal process allows residents to address
issues or concerns that they have had during their stay at Cornerstone. The documents described
the grievance process as a right that survivors have to fair and safe treatment by DASH
employees. The expectation of accountability and professionalism also broadly assumes that
survivors have the right to experience a certain level of care that would not typically be offered
by outside community-based and governmental systems. As a result, DASH employees are
encouraged to act ethically and behave honestly with survivors, though this is not described
frequently in the documents.
Compassion. Broadly, employees are instructed to express empathy for residents rather
than judge or criticize them. When employees withhold judgment of residents, they are able to
build a mutually cooperative relationship that supports survivor safety. Compassionate care is
also expected to be enacted by listening to survivors, offering support and resources, and fully
believing what the resident has to say about their own experiences. The described practices
related to this component are rooted in the assumption that survivors come into DASH after
having experienced multiple traumas, including treatment from helping systems that has been
less than compassionate. As a result, DASH employees are expected to know that residents’ lives
are complex, and the outcomes of these complexities require care that is trauma-informed.
Empowerment. Across all of the documents there was an understanding that trauma and
negative life experiences have impacted survivors’ access to resources and perceived selfefficacy. Within the principle of empowerment, ‘decision’ was the most commonly repeated
word in the documents. All related policies and procedures asserted that employees should
support survivor decision making, and that survivors are encouraged to make their own

71

decisions. All resources and information provided by employees were ultimately used to ensure
that residents are able to set their own goals for their lives.
Integrity. In order to integrate integrity within the employee-resident relationship
employees were expected to be consistent and behave authentically with survivors. There was
limited information in the document review describing how DASH employees were expected to
enact the integrity principle.
(Re)centering/Adaptability. The fundamental assumption, and most commonly
described term, for the (re)centering principle was ‘balance.’ Employees were expected to enact
this principle when residents appeared out of balance. (Re)centering required a certain level of
employee capacity such as helping survivors integrate calming activities into daily life, using
harm reduction strategies, engaging in trust building strategies, and providing trauma-informed
care. Recentering is the only principle of the DASH model that discussed a formalized process,
and subsequent consequences of survivors not being able to meet the housing expectations.
Specifically, employees were expected to meet with survivors who are engaging in behaviors
that violated the lease agreement.
Adaptability is a principle that encourages employees to acknowledge and understand
survivors’ complex lives, and to adapt practice-based tools to help get the things that survivors
need. Employees are expected to have an open mind about the causes of survivors’ personal
experiences and hardships. Akin to the concept of flexibility and adaptability was creativity.
Advocates are expected to be creative about the strategies and approaches that are introduced to
the survivor in order to deal with those hardships. Survivors are able (and are expected) to
change their minds as frequently as needed. In addition, termination from the program is also
considered flexible.

72

Sovereignty. Sovereignty was often referred to as ‘choices.’ Similar to empowering
practices, employees are expected to respect the choices that survivors make for themselves, and
offer information in order to enhance those choices. This was reflected in statements in the
documents about residents being able to make their own decisions about their medications
(whether they want to take them or not) and use of substances (whether they want to continue to
use). These choices are not expected to interfere with their ability to sustain housing.
Some principles had clearer description of how they should be enacted (i.e., recentering),
while others lacked specific directions for implementation (i.e., integrity). However, a strong,
trusting relationship with residents was an implicitly and explicitly stated assumption critical to
the implementation of each principle. Even though partnerships is a DASH model principle, it
was stated so frequently throughout the documents and other principles, it formed into its own
employee behavioral expectation theme. This theme is described next.
Expectation Three: Importance for Employees to Create and Sustain Partnerships
Organizational policies and procedures emphasized the importance of creating and
sustaining partnerships between employees and residents, employees and community partners,
and with one another. All ten documents described specific techniques, strategies and tools that
are used to ensure that employees work in partnership with others to help meet residents’
intended goals. Some documents described the importance of engaging in trust building
strategies in order to strengthen relationships with residents over time. According to these
documents, residents are strongly encouraged to meet with their advocates regularly in order to
help them reach their own goals.
At an organizational level, employees are required to do their work as a cooperative team
with the specific purpose of providing survivor-centered care. This desire for cooperative

73

learning is particularly salient between the TA team and advocates. Advocates are instructed to
implement the knowledge and skills gained from monthly training and bi-weekly TA team
supervision in order to create boundaries and work effectively with residents. There is a small
discussion in the documents about how DASH works with community based organizations to
create opportunities for survivors to have access to a diverse set of resources.
Expectation Four: Survivor Safety
Findings from this theme suggested that safety is viewed by DASH as a right for
residents. The organizational policies and procedures described how employees should help
maintain survivor safety (e.g., safety plan), and discuss the negative repercussions of violating
survivor safety (i.e., client termination). Documents specifically intended for residents explicitly
stated that the purpose of the rules is not to monitor daily living, but to keep them safe. These
rules included having to sign in and out of the building and not conducting illegal activity on
DASH property. Similar to employees, a violation of these rules may result in termination from
the housing program.
Client Termination Policy. The termination policy is related to survivor safety.
Specifically, the documents describe termination as a process, rather than automatic action.
There are three actions that would make staff consider termination: violent or threatening
behavior, illegal activity, and abandonment of unit. Residents who are terminated are still able to
access other services at DASH but cannot go back to Cornerstone housing. (Re)centering
meetings occur when residents have violated or could potentially violate one of these rules.
Expectation Five: Emphasis on Advocates Learning Requisite Knowledge and Skills
DASH’s written documents stressed that employees are expected to gain all of the
requisite knowledge and build the skills necessary to serve the complex needs of survivors who

74

come to DASH. They are also expected to effectively transfer that information to residents when
it is needed. Specifically, documents describe employees having procedural skills such as
knowing when to make a report to CPS, and clinical skills such as identifying when residents are
in a mental health crisis.
Some documents also described how survivors are situated within the larger world.
These documents introduced the idea that survivors typically face stigma and discrimination
while seeking outside help, and it is important to identify strategies to help them cope with these
experiences. Upper administration is expected to support advocates to support the resident.
They are required to receive feedback on their performance, learn new information to improve
performance and be able to integrate this information into their future work with residents.
Inferences from the Document Review
Findings from the document review suggest that the policies, procedures, and relevant
implementation materials promote a survivor-driven approach to service delivery. Additional
analysis of the policies and procedures did not reveal any content that was antithetical to the
organizational mission. The results from this review suggest that employee behavior would be
considered to be consistent with the written policies of the organization if employees reported:
1) they are using the DASH model principles when interacting with residents
2) high quality partnerships with survivors and community organizations
3) strong consideration of safety for survivors
4) the belief that survivors are in control of their own lives, and
5) receiving ample opportunities to build individual capacities.

75

Phase 1, Stage 2: Staff Interviews
In the second stage of the inductive phase of this study, I interviewed employees at
DASH to answer my second and third research questions. As a reminder, the second research
question sought to explore how DASH policies and procedures reflected DASH’s culture and
structure. I wanted to understand how the expectations identified in DASH documents
manifested within the culture and structure of the organization. Overall, results from the twelve
employees suggested that DASH’s organizational culture supported the written employee
expectations. Employees also described how the flexible policies and procedures support the
autonomous yet relational, survivor-centered culture. However, analysis of the effectiveness of
the hierarchal structure suggested that advocate capacity building was not being adequately
promoted by the technical assistance team. A discussion of these themes is reported below.
Cultural Components Identified by Staff as Defining the Organization
As noted in Chapter 1, culture describes the behavioral artifacts, espoused values, and
basic assumptions within an organization. I asked employees various questions about their work
environment, what made employees successful, support that they experience in their jobs, and
the extent that they believed alignment occurred the written policies and organizational practice.
Five cultural components arose from these questions. Autonomy was the first cultural
component. Employees described having the freedom to engage in practices and make decisions
about their service provision practice with minimal oversight. Conversely, the second cultural
component identified was that DASH’s culture was highly relational. A high value was placed
on relationships among employees, survivors, and community partners. The third culture
component was an espoused value that required employees’ explicit investment in the seven
principles of the DASH model. Members of the DASH culture were expected to be cognizant of

76

and invested in the DASH model. Survivor-centered organizational practice was the fourth
cultural component. Survivors were highly valued, and their respective needs were the
cornerstone of all employee and organizational practice. The final cultural component was the
basic assumption that DASH provided a distinct and innovative approach to the provision of
services for survivors. Each of the themes is described in detail below.
DASH is Autonomous
Employees who participated described that DASH was a highly autonomous
environment where employees are encouraged to make their own decisions. Many employees, at
every part of the organizational hierarchy, suggested that they enjoy a level of freedom within
their position particularly with service provision. They were able to make choices about how
they chose to provide services that aligned with their own interpretation of the model. Employees
stated that support was provided by their supervisors, but had to be elicited. Otherwise, there was
an assumption by leadership that employees were competent in making decisions. The sense of
autonomy was also reflected in how employees engaged with one another. For example, some
staff described not interfering in other employee’s decision making as a sign of respect. Many
participants stated that new employees would have to be self-determining and comfortable with
self-directed learning to be successful at DASH. Chanel1 describes how the level of autonomy
influenced the creativity that she was able to apply to her work.
“One thing I really enjoy about my work here is that we are given a lot of kind of
freedom in terms of what I do on a day-to-day basis. Which I think in a certain
way is a support because I don't come in to work every day with a list of what I'm
supposed to do. [It] allows me to kind of interpret the model and be a little bit
creative with the work that I do.” (Chanel, Direct Service)
1

Pseudonyms were used in order to protect employees’ confidentiality.

77

One supervisor described that the highly autonomous context allowed direct service
providers to pursue personal passions, and she believed that this helped to offset the limited
compensation that they received.
“Each advocate has their own specialty area. I thought this was really a great
idea because we don't pay them a lot, but we give them an opportunity to do stuff
that they like to do.” (Cortney, Supervisor)
Employees also stated that it was okay to make a mistake in this highly autonomous
environment. Sixty-seven percent of employees (n= 8) reported that there were few formal
negative repercussions when a mistake was made during service provision. Many stated that their
supervisor generally saw it as a learning opportunity. They did not worry about being
reprimanded or being terminated. Some people stated that employees can actually make many
mistakes before being terminated.
DASH is Relational
All staff discussed the fact that DASH is a highly relational environment. Many
participants discussed the high-quality relationships that advocates are expected to have with
residents. They are expected to be able to develop an intimate understanding of residents’ lives in
order to provide the best kind of supports. Employees discussed how advocates are expected to
be in partnerships with survivors in ways that most other members in the organizational
hierarchy did not. In turn, partnerships were often connected to a discussion about boundary
setting and self-care for advocates.
Nine staff discussed working in collaboration with one another in order to carry out
specific tasks in order to best support survivors. Workers stated that the small staff relied on
being in partnership with one another, and there was noticeable difference when people were

78

missing from their jobs. Many people likened their work with other employees as a team or
community. While most of the comments about DASH’s relational culture were positive, some
participants stated that professionalism could at times be blurred due to the closeness of the
relationships and the relaxed environment.
The value on relationships also extended to how staff reported engaging with other
community-based programs. Most participants, no matter their organizational position, were able
to name at least five community partnerships that supported DASH. Community relationships
were seen as crucial to getting resources to help survivors meet personal goals. In addition to
providing direct resources to residents, different community organizations had representatives
come into DASH to provide direct training to employees on particular topics of interest. Temple
describes how the relationship building manifests at each level of the organization.
“I feel like it can be a little nontraditional because we value the relationship with
the participants as a partnership. So we're a partner with you. We are not like
here and you're here. We are partners and in order for this to be successful for
both organizational outcomes as well as what your potential outcomes are, we
have to value this partnership. Then the other piece is that we also value and
understand that our mission is to provide access to safe and affordable housing.
And we can't do it all. So we need partnerships with other community service
organizations to help survivors through other processes of their life that's
happening simultaneously with housing support. Then also with staffing, I feel
like it's a known factor that we're all partners in this process. And DASH's
perspective is that one person just doesn't go around making all the decisions.
That it really takes a partnership among staff to, you know, address a concern,

79

give their perspective, and then come up with an outcome as a group.” (Temple,
Supervisor)
In addition, all employees who participated in the study reported receiving and offering
emotional support from and to their coworkers and supervisors to help deal with difficult job
experiences. Each participant described feeling emotionally supported within the DASH
environment. Staff described how individual acts of self care were supported by the organization
in the policies (e.g., having a lot of vacation time). They also stated that supervisors encourage
people to take time off when needed, and/or provide an open space to process what they are
feeling about their interactions with survivors. Some participants stated that these exchanges are
an opportunity to process emotionally and build skills, while others simply saw these exchanges
as primarily emotional supports.
Explicit Investment in the DASH model
Every participant described that a vested belief in the DASH model was important to
DASH’s organizational culture. Investment in the model meant that employees had to be
knowledgeable about the seven principles, and trust that these principles will result in survivors’
success. Interestingly, some staff members described that the model was almost dogmatic in
nature, and asserted that questioning its legitimacy to leadership would be unsafe. Despite this
belief, staff strongly believed in the model’s effectiveness.
“Like I said, you have to be kind of like a sociopath to not buy into those
principles. But I know that when people express something less than complete
faith in the value of the model that they kind of get their head bit off.” (Elizabeth,
Direct Service)

80

Although the model was identified as an organizational given, there was not a clear
understanding about how employees were formally acclimated to the model. Many employees
stated that they learned the model simply by being in the DASH environment. All participants
described the model as “intuitive,” a philosophy that matched their personal beliefs about how to
conduct human services work. They felt that the model had a positive impact on residents’ lives
in the short and long term, which made using it rewarding.
“The model itself helped to bring it all together and give some definition in
relation to working with survivors. It helped to spell it out; create a road map or
an agenda, so to speak, on how to work with survivors. So that's what it did for
me. It didn't introduce anything that I didn't already believe in prior to even
coming here.” (Cortney, Supervisor)
Ten employees believed there was alignment between the organizational philosophies as
these components were described in written policies and how they are practiced on the ground.
Many employees described the seven DASH model principles to be their reference point for
problem solving before, during, or after decision making about a resident. Some participants
discussed considering all parts of the model when they make choices about how to proceed with
a resident. Other participants used the DASH model principles as a tool for personal reflection
to see if their actions aligned with the model. Some participants stated that the model becomes an
afterthought when DASH gets really busy, and that there was a need to integrate it more actively
into everyday organizational practice. A few participants were not able to describe how they
explicitly used the model, with one simply stating, “You just know when you are using it.”

81

DASH is Survivor Centered
All employees explained that the culture of DASH was survivor-centered. They shared an
understanding that survivors were complex, mature, multi-faceted people with their own
personal needs and desires.
“I feel like survivors are the #1 priority. They are the most important people,
then we come next. It's not about, ‘we have to do this,’ and ‘we have to do that,’
and ‘we're important.’ No, they are the most important people. I think they're
valued more than any other program I've ever worked in. That we listen to them,
they're heard. That we believe them. That we're not that program where, ‘oh, she
was using [drugs] in the building, [so] then she has to go right away’. No. Let's
sit down and talk. Let's try to figure out how we can make this still work for you,
still keep you safe, and still keep the community safe. It's not that hard and fast,
oh, she messed up and she's gone, 'cuz then I don't value you. I don't value your
life.” (Rebecca, Supervisor)
With this in mind, staff described how they respected where the survivor was at in their
life and tried to work with them to help them reach their personal goals. Since residents are
different, all employees also discussed that the mechanisms to reach their respective goals would
differ. As a result, staff had to learn what survivors needed. All participants also stated that
survivors were competent, capable and can make their own choices. Staff had to trust survivors
when they spoke about their experiences and trust that survivors were telling the truth. Overall,
employees stated that survivors’ autonomy and personal decision making were highly valued
within the organization. Many believed that the flexible policies and limited rules helped to

82

accommodate the complexity of survivors’ lives. Overall, participants stated that survivors’
autonomy and personal decision making were highly valued within the organization.
“I just feel like when DASH was founded they were very thoughtful around doing
things differently. The survivors come to us often from very controlling,
oppressive environments and we're not gonna set ourselves up that way. These
are grown folks who can make their own decisions about many different things.
So beyond the landlord-tenant kind of issues and the basics we need for our
program, we're gonna let them decide what it is. Whilst, you know, I see part of
the advocate's role as talking to them about what different choices are available.”
(Karen, Supervisor)
One participant from upper management described how she used this survivor-centered
approach to actually push back against survivors who might state that they are
dissatisfied with the services that they received from DASH.
“DASH is very different. So sometimes participants come to us and be like, y'all
didn't help me do anything. Y'all didn't help me get my GED. Y'all didn't . . . and
we're like, no, you were the leader of this process. We've offered this and we've
offered that, but it was really up to you to make that decision. So sometimes I can
see where partnerships can be strained when working with participants.”
(Temple, Supervisor)
DASH is Distinct From Other Helping Organizations
There was a shared belief across all staff that DASH’s approach was the superior way to
deliver services compared to other domestic violence housing organizations. They discussed how
other systems disrespected, policed, and oppressed survivors. All employees stated that DASH

83

was created in opposition to these places. As a result, there was an understanding across
employees that DASH was a unique and innovative context that differed from other helping
organizations.
“DASH does things in very different ways, and treats survivors with so much
more dignity and respect. It's part of why I wanted to come here. I feel like when
we're treating survivors with more dignity. I feel just much more respected when
I'm able to treat people with respect.” (Karen, Supervisor)
“And I do think that in terms of its functionality, on its worst day it represents a
marked improvement over the status quo anywhere else I've been.” (Raquel,
Direct Provider)
How DASH Program Theory is Reflected in the Organizational Culture
Overall, the data from staff interviews revealed that the seven DASH model principles
were deeply embedded within the organizational culture. Every staff member was able to
accurately state at least part of the overall DASH mission. For example, some employees
discussed that DASH sought to provide empowering services that promoted survivor selfdetermination and advocated for survivors’ rights and choices. A few stated that the purpose of
DASH was to provide safe housing to survivors who would otherwise not have the opportunity
due to barriers they might experience at other organizations.
I also assessed embeddedness by asking participants to recall the DASH model’s seven
principles without a prompt. Eleven out of twelve participants were able to recall at least four of
the seven principles. The one employee who only remembered one model principle also spent
the least amount of time at the organization (7 months). In addition, the two employees who
remembered all seven of the principles had been at DASH the longest period of time (56 months

84

and 80 months, respectively). The most commonly recalled principles were sovereignty,
accountability, compassion, and integrity. Participants were least likely to recall the principle of
empowerment, although their responses in general often reflected congruence with providing
empowering practice.
Another way that I measured embeddedness of the organizational philosophy was to ask
employees how they enacted the DASH model principles in their practice with survivors, and
then to assess how the descriptions of this philosophy were congruent with the actual definition
of the program theory. For example, I asked each employee how they define compassion. Then, I
reviewed each of the responses, and counted how many responses were congruent with the
organization definition of compassion. Following this, I analyzed the responses and made an
aggregate of the numbers of items that were in alignment with the statement, and the number that
were out of alignment. I developed a percentage of statements that were aligned out of the total
number of statements. I found that Compassion had the greatest number of statements that were
the most similar to the organizational definition, followed by Recentering, Accountability,
Sovereignty, Empowerment, Partnerships, & Integrity. Staff reports of how they practiced each
principle within the organizational context are located in Appendix G.
Staff Perceptions of How the DASH Structure Impacts Their Work
This section describes employees’ description of DASH’s structure, or the procedural and
management mechanisms to support employees’ ability to carry out the program theory. As
noted in the methods, DASH adopted an upside-down management structure -- meaning that
many resources at the organizations are primarily devoted to those who provide direct services.
As a result, DASH leadership created a technical assistance (TA) team to support advocates in
providing effective service provision to survivors. The structure was intentionally designed to

85

promote survivor strengths through its management style, training and supervision. In order to
answer the third research question, employees were asked about the extent that organizational
structures helped or hindered their efforts to provide low barrier, voluntary, empowering services
to clients. Two themes emerged. First, the TA team was seen as providing emotional support and
clinical expertise to employees, but they were also viewed as being overly involved in direct
service with employees and not adequately building advocates’ capacity. Second, advocates
described organizational procedures in place that promoted their autonomy and flexibility.
Mixed Effectiveness of the Technical Assistance Team
The TA team serves as a unique component of the organizational hierarchy. As expected,
a majority of staff (n= 8) reported that the TA team provided expertise that improved the services
being provided to residents. Most participants generally believed that the TA team was very
encouraging and responsive to situations primarily dealing with survivor concerns. Many
believed that the TA team was knowledgeable about their respective fields of study. Members of
the TA team described using supervision to provide emotional support and practical information
to help advocates work most effectively with survivors who have complex needs. This was
affirmed by seven employees who stated that the TA team provided support through practical
resources and helpful advice. Sara describes her helpful experience with the TA team:
“And they support me and always ask me what I need [and] how I need this and
that. So that's very helpful to know that I have help, you know. They do help and
they have been extremely supportive in like, what do you need me to do and
where do you need me to go.” (Sara, Direct Service)
Staff throughout the organizational hierarchy mentioned that the TA team was providing
too much direct service to residents. While most employees stated that the misalignment was

86

occurring, many had differing reasons for why. Some attributed the misalignment to the growing
workload of the advocates; other stated that it was the rapidly changing shifts in management.
Others stated that the TA team did not trust the advocates’ skill and expertise.
“I think it can be counterproductive sometimes. Because the way that the
technical assistance grid was made, it's not working as it was created to be. It
was created to be used to support the advocates who essentially will work with the
survivors. How it's being used now is, the TA staff has been providing direct
service.” (Joy, Supervisor)
Every participant mentioned that the TA team was operating outside of its original
intention. Specifically, employees discussed how the team was providing direct services to
survivors that seemed necessary given other organizational dynamics, yet this behavior was not
aligned with the organization’s initial purpose.
“The TA model I think, you know, on its worst days can end up with the TA team
having sovereignty and sovereignty isn't the word, but being too hands-off and not
really partnering with the advocates to get some of the work done.”(Karen,
Supervisor)
Some staff stated that the TA team was not effectively transferring new knowledge to advocates.
Raquel describes her experiences with the TA team when seeking resources.
“Let's just put it this way. A stack of resources printed by one of the TA team
members isn't going to be any more useful to me than the results of a Google
search. There have been times where I have viewed the TA team's input as being
no more valuable than something I could find myself.”

87

Procedures Support Advocate Autonomy and Flexibility
Twelve DASH staff stated that the organization intentionally had flexible guidelines and
procedures about how to provide direct services. Many described the flexible procedures as
having to “work in gray area.” The guidelines were viewed by staff as helping them provide
services that were adaptable to survivors’ needs with minimal interference from restrictive
procedures. Some staff shared DASH’s organizational sentiment that “the rule is not more
important than the survivor.” This indicates that the procedural flexibility was intentional, and
was a mechanism to support survivor centered practices. Similar to the autonomous culture
theme, employees also described how the flexible procedures reflected a high level of trust that
DASH had in employees to make decisions about service provision. Joy, a supervisor, describes
the trust that was associated with the procedural flexibility:
“A lot of the policies expect for you to use your best judgment. A lot of the
policies may suggest things, but it's not cut and dry. You know, so it allows you to
be able to draw from these policies and procedures, and use the model, and use
the compassion, using your own best judgment, with integrity and sovereignty and
your professionalism – to move forward.”
Some employees did state that it would be helpful to have more policies and procedures
written down within the organization. As a supervisor, Rebecca described how the frequent
changes in policies often leave her unaware of the most current policies.
“Our policies sometimes change and I don't know it. I overall think that the
advocates have a blueprint on how they should be working with the residents and
how they should be treating the residents. I know that verbally we talk about it a
lot. But I can't 100% speak to the written policies because stuff does change.”

88

Phase 2: Survivor Interviews
As detailed in the Method section, survivor interviews were conducted in order to
examine the consistency between how staff saw their own behavior and how survivors
experienced staff behavior. Interviews also included questions about outcomes survivors
believed they had achieved as a result of receiving Cornerstone services.
Survivor Demographic Information
Thirty-three women participated in resident interviews (out of 41 possible; 80%
participation rate). Participant ages ranged from 19 to 63, with an average age of 33.3
(SD=10.8). Eighty-eight percent of the sample identified as Black, African American, or
African, and 12% of residents who participated identified as Latina or some other race. Five
participants (15%) of the sample were not born in the United States. One third of participants
(n=10) stated that they can easily pay their bills or did not worry about paying for things they
wanted or needed, while 33% (n=13) stated that they either had trouble paying their regular bills
or simply couldn’t pay their bills. About one fourth of the sample did not complete high school.
Twenty percent had earned a high school diploma, and a majority of the sample (53%, n=17) was
a college graduate or had completed some college at the time of the study. Forty-nine percent
(n=16) of the sample reported having some type of mental health issue. Only 5 participants
(15%) reported a physical disability, typically lower back pain. About one third of the sample
(29%) was employed at least part time, almost one third was enrolled in school or in a training
program (32%), and about one third of women were unemployed (29%). Demographic
information is available in Table 2.

89

Table 2:Cornerstone Resident Demographics (N = 33)
Mean (SD)
33.3 (10.78)
354 (1.89)
# of Residents

Range
19 - 63
20 - 678
%

African American/African
Hispanic/Latino/ Other

29
4

88
12

Employed Full-Time
Employed Part-Time
Unemployed
Student
Other

4
5
9
10
3

13
16
29
32
10

3
7
7

10
23
23

9
4

30
13

4
4
8
7
9

13
13
25
22
28

12
8
6
3
3
16
5
25

38
25
19
9
9
49
15
76

Age
Cornerstone stay (in days)
Race

Employment

Financial Situation
I do not worry about paying for things I want and need.
I can easily pay my bills but need to be careful.
I can pay my regular bills but a bill that was bigger than
usual would cause a hardship.
I have trouble paying my regular bills.
I simply can’t pay my bills.
These days I can generally afford to buy the things
that I need
Not at all true
Slightly true
Half the way true
Generally true
Very True
These days I can generally afford to buy the things
that I want
Not at all true
Slightly true
Half the way true
Generally true
Very true
Mental Health Concerns (Yes)
Physical Health Concerns (Yes)
Parenting Children under the Age of 18 (Yes)

90

Descriptive Survivor Analysis
Survivors were asked about the voluntary nature of the services provided by DASH.
Overall, 94% (n=31) reported that they were able to choose the programs and services they
wanted to participate in during their stay at DASH. The average response to this question was
3.45 (0=not at all to 4=very much, SD = 1.09). Survivors also reported the extent to which they
believed that employees made them feel like they had to meet with them whether they wanted to
or not. About 61% of participants (n= 20) reported that the statement was at least slightly true,
and 39% (n=13) reported that this statement was not true at all. The mean response was 1.81
(SD =1.70).
I also asked survivors questions to assess the extent to which staff behaved in ways
consistent with DASH’s model seven principles. Response options ranged from 0 (not at all) to 3
(very much), and 37 questions were asked regarding the seven principles (scale construction
described in Chapter 2). The model principle practices that were the most highly endorsed were
sovereignty practice (M =2.49, SD=0.71) followed closely by compassionate practice (M =2.47,
SD =0.77). In other words, DASH employees tended to interact with residents in ways that
respected survivors’ autonomy and were empathetic. The third highest practice was
accountability (M =2.25, SD =0.88) followed by partnerships (M =2.17, SD=0.99) and integrity
(M =2.16, SD=1.05). Relative to the other model principles, participants were less likely to
endorse empowering (M = 2.04, SD=0.93) and (re)centering practices (M =1.96, SD=0.87).
However, the means for any of the principles did not fall below “somewhat” in survivors’
responses.
With regard to outcomes achieved by survivors, they reported high levels of
empowerment (response options ranged from 0 = Not at all true to 4 = Very true) and

91

empowerment-related safety (response options ranged from 1 = Never true to 5 = Always true).
Descriptive results from the survivor empowerment scale showed that women reported high
levels of feeling able to complete their goals (confidence; M =3.26, SD =0.96), being connected
to the community (connections; M =3.07, SD=1.06), and having increased domestic violence
awareness (consciousness; M =3.12, SD =0.96).
In response to the items on the empowerment-related safety scale, Residents reported that
they had internal resources necessary to stay safe (internal tools; M =4.30, SD =0.70) and
knowledge about formal supports (expectations for support; M =3.94, SD =0.97). They also did
not believe that keeping safe would bring more difficulties (trade-offs; M =3.71, SD =1.33).
Tables 3 – 5 details these descriptive findings.
Table 3: Descriptives for Voluntary Services Questions (N = 33)
Item

Not at all
true (0)

Slightly
True (1)

Generally
True (3)

Very True
(4)

0

Half the
way True
(2)
3 (9%)

I choose what DASH
programs or services I
want to participate in.
Staff make me feel
like I have to meet
with them whether I
want to or not.

2 (6%)

4 (12%)

24 (73%)

13 (39%)

2 (6%)

5 (15%)

4 (12%)

9 (27%)

Table 4: Descriptives for DASH Model Practices Subscales (N = 33)
Item
Sovereignty Practices
1. Encourage me to
be who I am
2. Respect the
choices that I make
3. Treat me with
dignity
4. Understand that I
know what’s best
for me

Not at all (0)

A little (1)

Somewhat (2)

Very much (3)

1 (3%)

3 (9%)

9 (27%)

20 (61%)

1 (3%)

3 (9%)

7 (21%)

22 (67%)

3 (9%)

1 (3%)

4 (12%)

25 (76%)

1 (3%)

2 (6%)

11 (33%)

19 (58%)

92

Table 4 (cont’d)
Compassion Practices
1. Believe me when I
share things about
my life
2. Listen to me
3. Care about me
4. Work to
understand my
situation
5. Care about my
children
6. Accept me for who
I am
Accountability Practices
1. Respond to my
needs promptly
2. Are flexible
3. Follow up with me
when I make a
request
4. Clearly explains
how this program
works
Partnership Practices
1. Work with me to
help me make my
goals a reality
2. Make me feel like
we are working as
a team
3. Provide
opportunity for us
to learn from one
another
4. Are on my side
Integrity Practices
1. Are honest with
me about what
they can and
cannot do
2. Are consistent with
me
3. Are trustworthy

1 (3%)

4 (12%)

3 (9%)

25 (76%)

0 (0%)
4 (12%)
5 (15%)

5 (15%)
2 (6%)
4 (12%)

5 (15%)
5 (15%)
4 (12%)

23 (70%)
22 (67%)
20 (61%)

0 (0%)

2 (7%)

6 (22%)

19 (70%)

3 (9%)

2 (6%)

4 (12%)

24 (73%)

4 (12%)

4 (12%)

11 (33%)

14 (42%)

4 (12%)
1 (3%)

5 (15%)
5 (15%)

6 (18%)
5 (15%)

18 (55%)
22 (67%)

4 (12%)

4 (12%)

2 (6%)

23 (70%)

3 (9%)

4 (12%)

6 (18%)

20 (61%)

5 (15%)

5 (15%)

8 (24%)

15 (46%)

4 (12%)

7 (21%)

3 (9%)

19 (58%)

5 (15%)

3 (9%)

3 (9%)

22 (67%)

6 (18%)

3 (9%)

2 (6%)

22 (67%)

5 (15%)

0 (0%)

6 (18%)

22 (67%)

5 (15%)

7 (21%)

7 (21%)

14 (42%)

93

Table 4 (cont’d)
Empowerment Practices
1. Help me reach out
to organizations
outside of DASH
in order to get the
resources I need
2. Provide me with
the tools I need to
accomplish my
goals
3. Work with me step
by step to
accomplish my
goals
4. Provide me with
the information
that I need to make
my own choices
5. Help me to define
successes on my
own terms
6. Help me to find
resources I need
Recentering Practices
1. Help me move
forward when I
feel stuck
2. Notice when things
are out of the
ordinary for me
3. Provide me time to
learn at my own
pace
4. Help me find ways
to manage stress
5. Help me learn
different ways of
dealing with
feeling
overwhelmed

5 (15%)

8 (24%)

4 (12%)

16 (49%)

5 (15%)

6 (18%)

8 (24%)

14 (42%)

4 (12%)

6 (18%)

7 (21%)

16 (49%)

4 (12%)

6 (18%)

10 (30%)

13 (39%)

2 (6%)

6 (19%)

7 (22%)

17 (53%)

3 (9%)

4 (12%)

11 (33%)

15 (46%)

4 (12%)

6 (18%)

8 (24%)

15 (46%)

6 (18%)

7 (21%)

8 (24%)

12 (36%)

4 (12%)

3 (9%)

6 (18%)

20 (61%)

3 (9%)

7 (21%)

9 (27%)

14 (42%)

5 (16%)

9 (28%)

9 (28%)

9 (28%)

94

Table 5: Descriptives for Survivor Empowerment Subscales (N = 33)
Item
Confidence
1. I am better at
deciding what I
want for my life.
2. I trust myself and
my decisions more.
3. I am more able to
achieve goals I set
for myself.
4. I am better at
knowing what
steps to take to
achieve my goals.
5. I am more
confident about the
decisions I make.
6. I have a greater
understanding that
I have the ability to
make changes in
my own life.
7. I have a greater
sense of freedom
to make changes in
my own life.
8. I can do more
things on my own.
9. I am better at
figuring out how to
handle problems
that arise in my
life.
Connections
1. I have a greater
understanding that
if one organization
cannot help me
there will be
another that can.

Not at all
true (0)

Slightly True
(1)

Half the way
True (2)

Generally
True (3)

Very
True (4)

3 (9%)

2 (6%)

2 (6%)

7 (21%)

19 (58%)

3 (9%)

0 (0%)

5 (15%)

5 (15%)

20 (61%)

3 (9%)

2 (6%)

1 (3%)

10 (3%)

17 (52%)

1 (3%)

1 (3%)

5 (15%)

8 (24%)

18 (55%)

3 (9%)

1 (3%)

3 (9%)

11 (33%)

15 (46%)

2 (6%)

0 (0%)

1 (3%)

8 (24%)

22 (67%)

0 (0%)

3 (9%)

1 (3%)

5 (15%)

24 (73%)

1 (3%)

3 (9%)

0 (0%)

5 (15%)

24 (73%)

1 (3%)

1 (3%)

4 (13%)

9 (28%)

17 (53%)

5 (15%)

2 (6%)

4 (12%)

6 (18%)

16 (49%)

95

Table 5 (cont’d)
2. I know more about
the community
resources that I
might need.
3. I have a greater
understanding that
I am not alone.
4. I am better able to
get information
that will help me.
5. I am more
comfortable asking
for help.
Consciousness
1. I have a greater
understanding of
how racist systems
make it difficult
for survivors to
protect themselves
and their children.
2. I have a greater
understanding that
I have the right to
be angry about
what I’ve
experienced.
3. I have a greater
understanding of
how sexist systems
make it difficult
for survivors to
protect themselves
and their children.
4. I have a greater
understanding of
how common DV
is.
5. I have a greater
understanding of
how domestic
violence affects
me.

2 (6%)

3 (9%)

8 (24%)

2 (6%)

18 (55%)

3 (9%)

1 (3%)

1 (3%)

8 (24%)

20 (61%)

2 (6%)

1 (3%)

4 (12%)

8 (24%)

18 (55%)

2 (6%)

1 (3%)

7 (21%)

6 (18%)

17 (52%)

7 (21%)

1 (3%)

6 (18%)

6 (18%)

13 (39%)

3 (9%)

2 (6%)

4 (13%)

5 (16%)

18 (56%)

5 (15%)

1 (3%)

2 (6%)

9 (27%)

16 (49%)

2 (6%)

0 (0%)

4 (12%)

5 (12%)

22 (67%)

0 (0%)

3 (9%)

3 (9%)

5 (15%)

22 (67%)

96

Table 5 (cont’d)
6. I have a greater
1 (3%)
understanding that
survivors are not to
blame for being
abused in a
relationship.
7. I have a greater
3 (9%)
understanding of
the causes of
domestic violence.
8. I have a greater
3 (9%)
understanding that
together with other
survivors, I can
have a part in
ending violence
against women.

1 (3%)

2 (6%)

3 (9%)

25 (76%)

2 (6%)

4 (12%)

10 (30%)

14 (42%)

1 (3%)

5 (15%)

3 (9%)

21 (64%)

Table 6: Descriptives for MOVERS Subscales (N = 33)
Question
Internal Tools
1. I can cope with
whatever
challenges come at
me as I work to
keep safe.
2. I know what to do
in response to
threats to my
safety.
3. I know what my
next steps are on
the path to keep
safe.
4. When something
doesn’t work to
keep safe, I can try
something else.
5. When I think about
keeping safe, I
have a clear sense
of my goals for the
next few years.

Never true
(1)

Sometimes
true (2)

Half the time
true (3)

Mostly true
(4)

Always
true (5)

0 (0%)

3 (9%)

3 (9%)

12 (36%)

15 (46%)

0 (0%)

2 (6%)

2 (6%)

13 (39%)

16 (49%)

1 (3%)

3 (9%)

1 (3%)

8 (24%)

20 (61%)

0 (0%)

1 (3%)

2 (6%)

9 (28%)

20 (63%)

1 (3%)

2 (6%)

4 (12%)

13 (39%)

13 (39%)

97

Table 6 (cont’d)
6. I feel confident in
0 (0%)
the decisions I
make to keep safe.
Expectations for Support
1. I have a good idea 2 (6%)
about what kinds
of support for
safety I can get
from people in my
community
(friends, family,
neighbors, people
in my faith
community, etc).
2. I feel comfortable
2 (6%)
asking for help to
keep safe.
3. I have a good idea 2 (6%)
about what kinds
of support for
safety I can get
from community
programs and
services.
4. Community
3 (9%)
programs and
services provide
support I need to
keep safe.
Trade Offs
1. I have to give up
14 (42%)
too much to keep
safe.
2. Working to keep
17 (52%)
safe creates (or
will create) new
problems for me.
3. Working to keep
16 (49%)
safe creates (or
will create) new
problems for
people I care
about.

1 (3%)

3 (9%)

9 (27%)

20 (61%)

4 (12%)

6 (18%)

10 (30%)

11 (33%)

2 (6%)

1 (3%)

6 (18%)

22 (67%)

2 (6%)

9 (27%)

6 (18%)

14 (42%)

2 (6%)

5 (15%)

9 (27%)

14 (42%)

7 (21%)

3 (9%)

4 (12%)

5 (15%)

2 (6%)

5 (15%)

6 (18%)

3 (9%)

7 (21%)

2 (6%)

3 (9%)

5 (15%)

98

Relationship between Voluntary Services and Empowerment
Results from Pearson’s correlation analysis found that the practices associated with
voluntary services were significantly related to survivor empowerment and empowermentrelated safety. For example, “I choose what DASH programs or services I want to participate in”
was positively associated with the confidence subscale, r =0.38, p < 0.05. “Staff made me feel
like I had to meet with them whether I wanted to or not” was significantly negatively associated
with the expectations of support subscale (r = -0.37, p < 0.05), confidence subscale (r = -0.36, p
< 0.05), connections subscale (r = -0.44, p < 0.05), and consciousness subscale (r = -0.46, p <
0.05).
Six simple regression analyses were run to examine whether voluntary services predicted
increased empowerment. Results showed small, significant effects when survivor empowerment
and empowerment-related safety subscales were regressed on each of the voluntary services
questions. Results showed that choosing to participate in programming at survivors’ personal
desire was a significant predictor of the confidence subscale, accounting for approximately 14%
of the variance (r2 = 0.14, p < 0.05). Feeling forced to meet with staff was significantly
negatively related to the confidence subscale (r2 = 0.13, p < 0.05), connections subscale (r2 =
0.19, p < 0.05), and consciousness (r2 = 0.21, p < 0.05), accounting for approximately 13%, 19%,
and 21% of the variance, respectively. Results suggest that practices forcing residents to meet
with advocates against their will significantly decreased survivor empowerment. Feeling forced
to engage with staff was also significantly negatively related to the empowerment-related safety
subscale, expectations for support, and explained about 14% of its variance (r2 = 0.14, p < 0.05).
Fourteen percent of the variance in this question was also accounted for by trade-offs (r2 = 0.14,

99

p< 0.05). When residents felt forced to meet with advocates, it predicted survivors’ belief that
safety strategies would create new problems for them.
Bayesian Confirmatory Factor Analysis of DASH Model Practices and Survivor
Empowerment Scales
Prior to assessing whether each of the seven model practices predicted survivor
empowerment and empowerment-related safety, it was necessary to determine whether the items
on each subscale shared the hypothesized common factor. Bayesian factor analyses were
conducted with the seven principles of the DASH model (sovereignty, empowerment,
accountability, partnerships, compassion, integrity, and recentering) and the three components of
survivor empowerment (consciousness, community, connections) using ten separate single latent
confirmatory factor models. The posterior predictive p-values across all samples ranged from
0.43 to 0.50, indicating an acceptable model fit. Table 5 shows the DIC and posterior predictive
p-values for the DASH model practices and survivor empowerment subscales. Standardized
Loadings and Posterior Standardized Deviation for Bayesian Confirmatory Factor Model of the
DASH Model Practices scale and the survivor empowerment subscales are located in Appendix J
and Appendix K, respectively.
Table 7: Model Fit Indices for DASH Model Practices Subscales and Survivor Empowerment
Subscales
Model
DASH Model
Practices
Sovereignty
Empowerment
Accountability
Partnerships
Compassion
Integrity
Re-centering

Effective # of
parameters

DIC

Posterior Predictive PValue

10.73
15.92
10.64
10.89
16.29
8.43
13.37

25.55
118.17
27.16
25.68
68.49
19.23
163.79

0.50
0.50
0.42
0.51
0.50
0.42
0.50

100

Table 7 (cont’d)
Survivor
Empowerment
Confidence 24.57
Consciousness 21.77
Connections 10.34

171.55
307.39
25.38

0.50
0.50
0.49

A reliability analysis was conducted to determine the internal consistency among each set
of principles. The alphas for all of the DASH model practices scales were acceptable, ranging
from 0.88 to 0.94 (Sovereignty, α =0.89, 95 CI [0.80,0.94]; Empowerment, α = 0.94 [0.90,0.97];
Accountability, α = 0.89[0.80,0.94], Partnerships, α = 0.91[0.85,0.95], Compassion, α =
0.92[0.87,0.96], Integrity, α = 0.91[0.83,0.95], Recentering, α = 0.88[0.79,0.93]). The confidence
intervals for each of the alphas were also within an acceptable range, as confidence intervals tend
to be slightly wider for smaller samples, but also tighter if there are more items (Iacobucci &
Duhacheck, 2003). Reliability information is available in Table 8.
Table 8: Reliability of the DASH Model Practices Subscales, Survivor Empowerment Subscales,
and MOVERS Subscales
Measure
DASH Model
Practices
Sovereignty
Empowerment
Accountability
Partnerships
Compassion
Integrity
Re-centering
Survivor
Empowerment
Confidence
Consciousness
Connections
EmpowermentRelated Safety
Internal Tools

N

M (SD)

α

95% CI

4
6
4
4
6
3
5

2.49 (0.71)
2.04 (0.93)
2.25 (0.88)
2.17 (0.99)
2.47 (0.77)
2.16 (1.05)
1.96 (0.87)

0.89
0.94
0.89
0.91
0.92
0.91
0.88

[0.80,0.94]
[0.90,0.97]
[0.80,0.94]
[0.85,0.95]
[0.87,0.96]
[0.83,0.95]
[0.79,0.93]

9
8
4

3.26 (0.96)
3.11 (0.96)
3.07 (1.06)

0.95
0.90
0.85

[0.92,0.97]
[0.83,0.94]
[0.74,0.92]

6

4.30 (0.70)

0.86

[0.75,0.92]

101

Table 8 (cont’d)
Expectations for 4
Support
Trade Offs 3

3.95 (0.97)

0.79

[0.65,0.89]

2.28 (1.06)

0.57

[0.24,0.78]

The Impact of DASH Practices on Survivor Empowerment
Pearson’s correlation analysis of the DASH model practices, survivor empowerment, and
empowerment related safety scales suggested that the variables were significantly associated
with one another (Table 9). I was interested in the cumulative effect that each practice had on the
collective variance in survivor empowerment and the collective variance in empowermentrelated safety; therefore, multivariate multiple regressions were employed to test whether each
model practice (after controlling for how frequently residents engaged in activities at DASH and
the length of stay at shelter) predicted an increase in survivor empowerment (connections,
consciousness, community). The three subscales on empowerment-related safety (internal tools,
expectations for support, trade offs) were also regressed on each of the DASH model subscales,
controlling for frequency of participation and length of shelter stay.

102

Table 9: Correlations Among DASH Model Practices Subscales, Survivor Empowerment Subscales, and MOVERS Subscales
1
1. Sovereignty
2. Empowerment
3. Accountability
4. Partnerships
5. Compassion

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

1 .55* .52** .80** .79** .68** .67** .47** .82** .45** .58** .51** .62**
1

.91** .80** .73** .66** .79**
1

.79** .69** .66** .78**
1

.88** .84** .85**
1

6. Integrity
7. (Re)Centering
8. Confidence

ns

.61**

. ns

.56** .46**

.40*

ns

.61**

ns

.43*

.34*

ns

.79**

.37*

.58** .50** .48**

.83*

.87**

.35*

.75**

.39*

.53**

.42*

.50**

1

.72**

ns

.73**

ns

.51**

.38*

.46**

1

.41*

.74**

ns

.45*

.38*

.38*

.43*

ns

ns

.54** .65**

ns

.58**

.67**

ns

.48**

1

ns

.79**

1

ns

1

9. Connections

.38*

.65** .80**
1

10. Consciousness

1

11. Internal Tools
12. Trade Offs
13. Expectations of Support

1

**p < 0.01; * p< 0.05; Trade offs subscale was reversed scored. Higher scores indicate less problems.

103

Sovereignty’s Impact on Empowerment
The results showed an overall statistically significant multivariate effect for sovereignty
practices predicting empowerment (λ=0.34, F(3,25) =16.08, p < 0.001, multivariate η2=0.66 ).
Approximately 66% of the multivariate variance of survivor empowerment was associated with
sovereignty practices. The extent to which residents participated in programming at DASH
(λ=0.80, F(3,25) =2,12, ns) and the length of time that survivors stayed at shelter (λ=0.94,
F(3,25) =0.43, ns) were not statistically significant. Follow-up univariate results showed that
sovereignty significantly predicted 35% of the variance in the confidence subscale (r2 = 0.35, p <
0.01). Sixty-six percent of the variance in the connections subscale (r2 =0 .66, p< 0.001), and
27% of the consciousness subscale (r2 =0 .27, p< 0.001).
Table 10: Multivariate Results for Total Survivor Empowerment Subscales Regressed on
Sovereignty Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay
Pillai’s Trace
0.66**
0.22
0.08

Sovereignty
Frequency of Participation
LOG Length of Stay
**p < 0.01; * p< 0.05

Wilks’ Lambda
0.34**
0.79
0.92

F
16.08 (3,25)
2.37 (3,25)
0.72 (3,25)

Table 11: Univariate Results for Total Survivor Empowerment Subscales Regressed on
Sovereignty Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay
Variables

Sovereignty Practices
Frequency of
participation
Log length of Shelter
stay
**p < 0.01; * p< 0.05

Confidence
B
SE

95%
CI
0.62** 0.22 0.17,
1.07
0.14 -0.63,
0.34**
-0.04

Consciousness
B
SE
95%
CI
0.60** 0.23 0.13,
1.07
-0.22
0.15 -0.53,
0.09

Connections
B
SE

0.15

0.01

-0.08

0.21 -0.27,
0.58

104

0.22 -0.44,
0.46

95%
CI
1.20** 0.17 0.84,
1.55
-0.01
0.11 -0.24,
0.21
0.16 -0.42,
0.25

Empowering Practice’s Impact on Empowerment
Empowering practice had a statistically significant multivariate effect on the three
survivor empowerment subscales (λ=0.57, F(3,25) =6.38, p < 0.001, multivariate η2=0.43).
Forty-three percent of the multivariate variance of survivor empowerment was associated with
empowerment practices. The extent to which residents participated in programming at DASH
(λ=0.80, F(3,25) =2.12, ns) and the length of time that survivors stayed at shelter (λ=0.95,
F(3,25) =0.43, ns) were not statistically significant. Univariate results demonstrated that the
empowerment practices only significantly predicted the connections subscale, explaining about
41% of the variance (r2 = 0.41, p < 0.001).
Table 12: Multivariate Results for Total Survivor Empowerment Subscales Regressed on
Empowerment Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay
Pillai’s Trace
0.43**
0.20
0.05

Empowerment
Frequency of Participation
LOG Length of Stay
**p < 0.01; * p< 0.05

Wilks’ Lambda
0.57**
0.80
0.95

F
6.38(3,25)
2.12(3,25)
0.43(3,25)

Table 13: Univariate Results for Total Survivor Empowerment Subscales Regressed on
Empowerment Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay
Variables

Confidence
B
SE

Empowerment 0.31

0.19

Frequency of -0.40
participation
Log length of 0.14
Shelter stay
**p < 0.001; * p< 0.05

0.16
0.23

95%
CI
-0.91,
5.91
-0.73,
-0.08
-0.33,
0.62

Consciousness
B
SE
95% CI

Connections
B
SE

0.40* 0.19

0.70**

-0.31

0.16

0.04

0.23

0.02,
0.78
-0.64,
0.02
-0.44,
0.51

-0.17
-0.06

95% CI

0.18 0.34,
1.07
0.15 -0.49,
0.14
0.22 -0.51,
0.40

Accountability’s Impact on Empowerment
Forty-four percent of the multivariate variance of survivor empowerment was associated
with accountability practices (λ=0.56, F(3,25) =6.43, p < 0.001, multivariate η2=0.44). The effect
105

was significant even after controlling for the extent to which participants participated in
programming at DASH (λ=0.20, F(3,25) = 2.03, ns) and the length of time that participants
stayed at shelter (λ=0.93, F(3,25) =0.67, ns). Univariate results revealed that accountability
practices significantly explained 43% of the variance in the connections subscale (r2 = 0.43, p <
0.01). However, the total model did not significantly predict the confidence (r2 = 0.22, ns) or
consciousness (r2 = 0.17, ns) subscales.
Table 14: Multivariate Results for Total Survivor Empowerment Subscales Regressed on
Accountability Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay

Accountability
Frequency of Participation
LOG Length of Stay
**p < 0.01; * p< 0.05

Pillai’s Trace
0.44**
0.20
0.08

Wilks’ Lambda
0.56**
0.80
0.93

F
6.43(3,25)
2.03(3,25)
0.67(3,25)

Table 15: Univariate Results for Total Survivor Empowerment Subscales Regressed on
Accountability Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay
Variables

Confidence
B
SE
Accountability 0.30
0.19

Frequency of
-0.41*
participation
Log length of 0.10
Shelter stay
**p < 0.01; * p< 0.05

0.16
0.23

95% CI
-0.10,
0.69
-0.74,
-0.08
-0.36,
0.57

Consciousness
B
SE
95% CI
0.32 0.20
-0.09,
0.73
-0.30 0.17
-0.64,
0.04
-0.03 0.23
-0.51,
0.45

Connections
B
SE
0.76** 0.18
-0.20

0.15

-0.12

0.21

95% CI
0.38,
1.13
-0.51,
0.11
-0.56,
0.31

Partnerships’ Impact on Empowerment
Seventy percent of the multivariate variance of survivor empowerment was related to
partnership practices (λ=0.30, F(3,25) =19.60, p < 0.001, multivariate η2=0.70). This result was
significant while controlling for how often survivors participated in programming at DASH
(λ=0.79, F(3,25) =2.20, ns) and the length of time that survivors stayed at shelter (λ=0.93,
F(3,25) =0.65, ns). Partnership practices explained each all three survivor empowerment

106

subscales in the univariate results. It was a significant predictor of confidence (r2 = 0.28, p
=0.03), connections (r2 = 0.66, p < 0.001), and consciousness (r2 = 0.24, p =0.05).
Table 16: Multivariate Results for Total Survivor Empowerment Subscales Regressed on
Partnership Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay
Pillai’s Trace
0.70**
0.21
0.07

Partnerships
Frequency of Participation
LOG Length of Stay
**p < 0.01; * p< 0.05

Wilks’ Lambda
0.30**
0.79
0.93

F
19.60(3,25)
2.20(3,25)
0.65(3,25)

Table 17: Univariate Results for Total Survivor Empowerment Subscales Regressed on
Partnership Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay
Variables
Partnerships

Confidence
B
SE
0.36* 0.16

Frequency
-0.38* 0.15
of
participation
Log length
0.14
0.22
of Shelter
stay
**p < 0.01; * p< 0.05

Consciousness
95% CI B
SE
95% CI
0.03,
0.39*
0.17 0.05,
0.70
0.73
-0.68,
-0.27
0.15 -0.58,
-0.07
0.05
-0.31,
0.59

0.01

0.22

-0.45,
0.47

Connections
B
SE
0.85** 0.12
-0.11

0.11

-0.06

0.16

95% CI
0.60,
1.10
-0.34,
0.12
-0.40,
0.28

Compassion’s Impact on Empowerment
The results showed an overall statistically significant multivariate effect for
compassionate practices (λ=0.43, F(3,25) = 11.02, p < 0.001, multivariate η2=0.57).
Approximately 57% of the multivariate variance of survivor empowerment was associated with
compassionate practices. The extent to which participants participated in programming at DASH
(λ=0.79, F(3,25) =2.27, ns) and the length of time that survivors stayed at shelter (λ=0.83,
F(3,25) =0.63, ns) were not statistically significant. Univariate results revealed that compassion
practices significantly predicted 27% of the variance in the confidence subscale (r2 = 0.27, p =

107

0.03), and 56% of the variance in the connections subscale (r2 = 0.56, p < 0.001). Compassion
practices was not a significant predictor of the consciousness subscale (r2 = 0.23, ns).
Table 18: Multivariate Results for Total Survivor Empowerment Subscales Regressed on
Compassion Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay
Pillai’s Trace
0.57**
0.21
0.07

Compassion
Frequency of Participation
LOG Length of Stay
**p < 0.01; * p< 0.05

Wilks’ Lambda
0.43**
0.79
0.93

F
11.02(3,25)
2.27(3,25)
0.63(3,25)

Table 19: Univariate Results for Total Survivor Empowerment Subscales Regressed on
Compassion Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay
Variables

Compassion

Confidence
B
SE
0.45*

Frequency
-0.36**
of
participation
Log length
0.14
of Shelter
stay
**p < 0.01; * p< 0.05

0.2
1
0.1
5

95%
CI
0.02,
0.89
-0.67,
-0.06

0.2
2

-0.31,
0.59

Consciousness
B
SE
0.48* 0.22
*
-0.25* 0.15

0.01

0.23

95%
CI
1.20,
6.18
0.04,
0.93
-0.46

Connections
B
SE
1.00** 0.18
-0.08

0.13

-0.08

0.19

95% CI
0.63,
1.37
-0.34,
0.19
-0.47,
0.30

Integrity’s Impact on Empowerment
Sixty-five percent of the multivariate variance of survivor empowerment was
significantly associated with integrity practices (λ=0.35, F(3,25) =15.48, p < 0.001, multivariate
η2=0.65). The extent to which participants participated in programming at DASH (λ=0.80,
F(3,25) =2.04, ns) and the length of time that survivors stayed at shelter (λ=0.95, F(3,25) =0.46,
ns) were not statistically significant. Univariate results showed that integrity practices only
significantly impacted the connections subscale, explaining 58% of the variance (r2 = 0.58, p
<0.001).

108

Table 20: Multivariate Results for Total Survivor Empowerment Subscales Regressed on
Integrity Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay
Pillai’s Trace
0.65**
0.20
0.05

Integrity
Frequency of Participation
LOG Length of Stay
**p < 0.01; * p< 0.05

Wilks’ Lambda
0.35**
0.80
0.95

F
15.48(3,25)
2.04(3,25)
0.46(3,25)

Table 21: Univariate Results for Total Survivor Empowerment Subscales Regressed on Integrity
Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay
Variables

Integrity

Confidence
B
SE
0.25

0.16

Frequency
-0.38 0.16
of
participation
Log length
0.12
0.23
of Shelter
stay
**p < 0.01; * p< 0.05

95%
CI
-0.09,
0.58
-0.70,
-0.06
-0.35,
0.59

Consciousness
B
SE
0.28

0.17

-0.27

0.16

-0.00

0.24

95% CI
-0.06,
0.63
-0.60,
0.06
-0.49,
0.48

Connections
B
SE
0.75

0.13

-0.14

0.13

-0.04

0.19

95% CI
-0.48,
1.02
-0.40,
0.12
-0.42,
0.35

Recentering Practices’ Impact on Empowerment
Recentering practices significantly accounted for 54% of the multivariate variance in
survivor empowerment (λ=0.47, F(3,25) = 9.60, p < 0.001, multivariate η2=0.54). The extent to
which participants participated in programming at DASH (λ=0.78, F(3,25) =2.54, ns) and the
length of time that survivors stayed at shelter (λ=0.93, F(3,25) =0.66, ns) were not statistically
significant. Univariate results showed that recentering practices was a significant predictor of
confidence (r2 = 0.34, p < 0.01) and connections (r2 = 0.56, p < 0.001), but did not significantly
predict consciousness (r2 = 0.19, ns).

109

Table 22: Multivariate Results for Total Survivor Empowerment Subscales Regressed on
Recentering Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay

Recentering
Frequency of Participation
LOG Length of Stay
**p < 0.01; * p< 0.05

Pillai’s Trace
0.54**
0.23
0.07

Wilks’ Lambda
0.47**
0.78
0.93

F
9.60(3,25)
2.53(3,25)
0.66(3,25)

Table 23: Univariate Results for Total Survivor Empowerment Subscales Regressed on
Recentering Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay
Variables

Recentering

Confidence
B
SE
0.51

0.18

Frequency
-0.40
0.22
of
participation
Log length
0.23
0.14
of Shelter
stay
**p < 0.01; * p< 0.05

Consciousness
B
SE

95%
CI
0.14, 0.37
0.89
-0.69, -0.27
-0.10
-0.21, 0.04
0.67

0.20
0.24

0.16

95% CI

Connections
B
SE

-0.04,
0.79
-0.59,
0.06

0.91

0.16

-0.12

0.19

-0.46,
0.53

0.03

0.13

95% CI
0.57,
1.24
-0.38, 0.14
-0.36,
0.43

The Impact of DASH Practices on Empowerment-Related Safety
Sovereignty Practices Impact on Empowerment-Related Safety
Fifty-nine percent of the multivariate variance of empowerment-related safety is
significantly associated with sovereignty practices (λ=0.41, F(3,25) =12.12, p < 0.001,
multivariate η2=0.59). The extent to which participants engaged in programming at DASH
(λ=0.87, F(3,25) =1.23, ns) and the length of time that survivors stayed at shelter (λ=0.90,
F(3,25) =0.88, ns) were not statistically significant. Univariate results showed that sovereignty
predicted all three empowerment-related safety subscales separately: internal tools (r2 = 0.33, p <
0.001), trade offs (r2 =0 .39, p < 0.01), and expectations for support (r2 = 0.43, p < 0.01).

110

Table 24: Multivariate Results for Total MOVERS Subscales Regressed on Sovereignty Model
Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay

Sovereignty
Frequency of Participation
LOG Length of Stay
**p < 0.01; * p< 0.05

Pillai’s Trace
0.59**
0.13
0.10

Wilks’ Lambda
0.41**
0.87
0.90

F
12.12(3,25)
1.23(3,25)
0.88(3,25)

Table 25: Univariate Results for Total MOVERS Subscales Regressed on Sovereignty Model
Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay
Variables
Internal Tools
95% CI
Expectations
95%
Trade Offs
95%
for Support
CI
CI
B
SE
B
SE
B
SE
Sovereignty 0.54** 0.16 0.21,
0.81** 0.20
0.39,
0.89
0.23 0.41,
0.87
1.22
1.37
Frequency
0.02
0.10 -0.19,
0.15
0.13
-0.13, 0.21
0.15 -0.11,
of
0.23
0.42
0.52
participation
Log length
-0.10
0.15 -0.41,
-0.25
0.19
-0.65, -0.18
0.22 -0.63,
of Shelter
0.21
0.14
0.28
stay
**p < 0.01; * p< 0.05
Empowering Practices Impact on Empowerment-Related Safety
The results showed an overall statistically significant multivariate effect for
empowerment practices (λ=0.50, F(3,25) =8.43, p < 0.01, multivariate η2=0.50). Approximately
50% of the multivariate variance of empowerment-related safety is associated with
empowerment practices. The extent to which participants participated in programming at DASH
(λ=0.91, F(3,25) = 0.79, ns) and the length of time that survivors stayed at shelter (λ=0.92,
F(3,25) =0.72, ns) were not statistically significant. Univariate results revealed that
empowerment practices significantly predicted internal tools (r2 = 0.33, p < 0.01) and trade offs
(r2 = 0.29, p < 0.01), but not expectations for support (r2 = 0.21, ns).

111

Table 26: Multivariate Results for Total MOVERS Subscales Regressed on Empowerment
Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay

Empowerment
Frequency of Participation
LOG Length of Stay
**p < 0.01; * p< 0.05

Pillai’s Trace
0.50**
0.09
0.08

Wilks’ Lambda
0.50**
0.92
0.92

F
8.43(3,25)
0.79(3,25)
0.72(3,25)

Table 27: Univariate Results for Total MOVERS Subscales Regressed on Empowerment Model
Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay
Variables

Internal Tools
B
SE
95% CI
Empowerment 0.42** 0.13 0.16,
0.68
Frequency of
-0.07
0.11 0.15,
participation
0.02
Log length of
-0.05
0.16 -0.37,
Shelter stay
0.27
**p < 0.01; * p< 0.05

Expectations for Support
B
SE
95% CI
0.35
0.19 -0.03,
0.74
0.07
0.16 -0.26,
0.40
-0.28 0.23 -0.76,
0.20

Trade Offs
B
SE
0.20
0.57**
-0.08
0.17
-0.14

95% CI
0.16,
0.97
-0.27,
0.43
0.25 -0.65,
0.36

Accountability Practices Impact on Empowerment-Related Safety
Accountability practices was significantly associated with empowerment-related safety
(λ=0.72, F(3,25) =3.21, p < 0.05). The extent to which participants engaged in programming at
DASH (λ=0.93, F(3,25) =0.59, ns) and the length of time that survivors stayed at shelter (λ=0.91,
F(3,25) =0.85, ns) were also not statistically significant. Univariate results showed that
accountability practices explained 20% of the variance in internal tools (r2 = 0.20, p < 0.01) and
21% of the variance in trade-offs (r2 = 0.21, p < 0.01). However, accountability did not
significantly predict expectations for support.
Table 28: Multivariate Results for Total MOVERS Subscales Regressed on Accountability
Model Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay

Accountability
Frequency of Participation
LOG Length of Stay
**p < 0.01; * p< 0.05

Pillai’s Trace
0.29*
0.07
0.09

112

Wilks’ Lambda
0.72*
0.93
0.91

F
3.21(3,25)
0.59(3,25)
0.85(3,25)

Table 29: Univariate Results for Total MOVERS Subscales Regressed on Accountability Model
Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay
Variables

Internal Tools
B
SE
95% CI
Accountability 0.33* 0.14 0.03,
0.62
Frequency of
-0.12 0.17 -0.47,
participation
0.22
Log length of -0.06 0.12 -0.30,
Shelter stay
0.18
**p < 0.01; * p< 0.05

Expectations for Support
B
SE
95% CI
0.31
0.20 -0.11,
0.71
0.07
0.17 -0.27,
0.41
-0.34
0.23 -0.81,
0.14

Trade Offs
B
SE
0.46* 0.22
0.09

0.26

-0.24

0.18

95% CI
0.01,
0.91
-0.28,
0.46
-0.76,
0.29

Partnerships Practices Impact on Empowerment-Related Safety
The results showed an overall statistically significant multivariate effect for partnerships
practices (λ=0.48, F(3,25) =8.82, p < 0.001, multivariate η2=0.51). Approximately 51% of the
multivariate variance of empowerment-related safety is significantly associated with partnership
practices. The extent to which participants participated in programming at DASH (λ=0.93,
F(3,25) =0.57, ns) and the length of time that survivors stayed at shelter (λ=0.92, F(3,25) =0.73,
ns) were not statistically significant. Partnerships significantly predicted all three of the
empowerment-related safety scales based on results from the univariate analysis. Partnership
practices explained 36% of the variance in internal tools (r2 = 0.30, p = 0.02), 32% in trade-offs
(r2 = 0.32, p = 0.02), and 30% in expectations for support (r2 = 0.30, p = 0.02).
Table 30: Multivariate Results for Total MOVERS Subscales Regressed on Partnerships Model
Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay

Partnerships
Frequency of Participation
LOG Length of Stay
**p < 0.01; * p< 0.05

Pillai’s Trace
0.51**
0.06
0.08

113

Wilks’ Lambda
0.49**
0.94
0.92

F
8.82(3,25)
0.57(3,25)
0.73(3,25)

Table 31: Univariate Results for Total MOVERS Subscales Regressed on Partnerships Model
Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay
Variables
Partnerships

Internal Tools
B
SE
95% CI
0.40** 0.11 0.17,
0.63
-0.09
0.15 -0.39,
0.22

Log length
of Shelter
stay
Frequency
-0.03
of
participation
**p < 0.01; * p< 0.05

0.10 -0.24,
0.19

Expectations for Support
B
SE
95% CI
0.44** 0.16 0.11,
0.77
-0.28
0.22 -0.72,
0.16

Trade Offs
B
SE
0.55** 0.18
-0.19

0.24

0.10

0.14

0.16

0.15 -0.21,
0.40

95% CI
0.19,
0.92
-0.67,
0.30
-0.19,
0.47

Compassion Practices Impact on Empowerment-Related Safety
Approximately 39% of the multivariate variance of empowerment-related safety was
significantly associated with compassionate practices (λ=0.61, F(3,25) = 5.41, p < 0.001,
multivariate η2=0.39). The extent to which participants participated in programming at DASH
(λ=0.93, F(3,25) = 0.62, ns) and the length of time that survivors stayed at shelter (λ=0.92,
F(3,25) =0.73, ns) were not statistically significant. Univariate tests revealed compassionate
practices significantly explained the variance in internal tools (r2 = 0.28, p<0.05), trade offs (r2 =
0.27, p< 0.05), and expectations for support (r2 = 0.29, p< 0.05).
Table 32: Multivariate Results for Total MOVERS Subscales Regressed on Compassion Model
Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay

Compassion
Frequency of Participation
LOG Length of Stay
**p < 0.01; * p< 0.05

Pillai’s Trace
0.39**
0.07
0.08

114

Wilks’ Lambda
0.61**
0.93
0.92

F
5.41(3,25)
0.62(3,25)
0.73(3,25)

Table 33: Univariate Results for Total MOVERS Subscales Regressed on Compassion Model
Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay
Variables

Compassion

Internal Tools
B
SE
0.45** 0.15

Log length of -0.10
Shelter stay
Frequency of -0.01
participation
**p < 0.01; * p< 0.05

0.16
0.11

95%
CI
0.14,
0.77
-0.43,
0.23
-0.23,
0.21

Expectations for Support
B
SE
95% CI

Trade Offs
B
SE

0.56**

0.21

0.64** 0.24

-0.28

0.22

0.11

0.15

0.13,
0.99
-0.73,
0.16
-0.19,
0.41

-0.20

0.24

0.16

0.17

95% CI
0.15,
1.12
-0.71,
0.30
-0.18,
0.51

Integrity Practices Impact on Empowerment-Related Safety
Results revealed a significant multivariate effect for integrity practices (λ=0.68, F(3,25)
=3.97, p< 0.05). The extent to which participants participated in programming at DASH
(λ=0.94, F(3,25) = 0.57, ns) and the length of time that survivors stayed at shelter (λ=0.92,
F(3,25) =0.69, ns) were not statistically significant. Univariate results showed that integrity
practices explained 28% of the variance in internal tools (r2 = 0.28, p = 0.056), and 24% of the
variance in Expectations for Support (r2 = 0.24, p = 0.056). Trade-offs almost reached statistical
significance (r2 = 0.20, p = 0.056).
Table 34: Multivariate Results for Total MOVERS Subscales Regressed on Integrity Model
Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay

Integrity
Frequency of Participation
LOG Length of Stay
**p < 0.01; * p< 0.05

Pillai’s Trace
0.32*
0.06
0.08

115

Wilks’ Lambda
0.68*
0.94
0.92

F
3.97(3,25)
0.57(3,25)
0.69(3,25)

Table 35: Univariate Results for Total MOVERS Subscales Regressed on Integrity Model
Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay
Variables

Internal Tools
B
SE

Integrity

0.33** 0.11

Frequency of
participation

-0.08

0.16

Log length of
Shelter stay

-0.04

0.11

95%
CI
0.10,
0.57
0.26,
0.19
0.41,
0.25

Expectations for Support
B
SE
95% CI

Trade Offs
B
SE

0.35*

0.16

-0.37

0.18

0.09

0.16

0.02,
0.68
-0.23,
0.40

0.14

0.18

-0.28

0.23

-0.75,
0.18

-0.22

0.26

95% CI
-0.01,
0.75
-0.22,
0.51
-0.75,
0.32

**p < 0.01; * p< 0.05
Recentering Practices Impact on Empowerment-Related Safety
There was a statistically significant multivariate effect of recentering practices (λ=0.73,
F(3,25) =3.04, p < 0.05) on all three empowerment-related safety subscales. However,
participation in programming (λ=0.94, F(3,25) =0.57, ns), or in the length of time that survivors
stayed at DASH(λ=0.93, F(3,25) =0.61, ns). Univariate results showed that recentering practices
significantly predicted internal tools (r2 = 0.20, p < 0.05) and trade offs (r2 = 0.21, p < 0.05), but
not expectations for support (r2 = 0.19, ns).
Table 36: Multivariate Results for Total MOVERS Subscales Regressed on Recentering Model
Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay

Recentering
Frequency of Participation
LOG Length of Stay
**p < 0.01; * p< 0.05

Pillai’s Trace
0.27*
0.06
0.07

116

Wilks’ Lambda
0.73*
0.94
0.93

F
3.04(3,25)
0.57(3,25)
0.61(3,25)

Table 37: Univariate Results for Total MOVERS Subscales Regressed on Recentering Model
Practices, Frequency of Participation, and LOG Length of Stay
Variables

Recentering

Internal Tools
B
SE
0.33*

0.15

Log length of -0.08
Shelter stay
Frequency of -0.02
participation
**p < 0.01; * p< 0.05

0.17
0.12

95%
CI
0.03,
0.63
-0.44,
0.27
-0.26,
0.22

Expectations for Support
B
SE
95% CI

Trade Offs
B
SE

0.34

0.20

0.48*

0.22

-0.28

0.24

-0.17

0.26

0.11

0.16

0.15

0.18

-0.08,
0.75
-0.77,
0.21
-0.22,
0.43

95% CI
0.03,
0.94
-0.70,
0.37
-0.21,
0.51

Quantitative Results Summary
Overall, results revealed that DASH model practices predicted all three empowerment
outcomes. The more survivors reported that staff engaged in practices associated with the
organizational philosophy, the more they believed in their ability to accomplish their goals, the
greater their connection to the community, and the greater awareness they had about domestic
violence and its dynamics. A similar pattern was found for safety-related empowerment. The
more that participants endorsed staff using practices related to the seven DASH model principles,
the greater their sense of internal resources and understanding how to access formal supports,
and the less they perceived negative trade-offs to using safety strategies. These relationships
were statistically significant even when considering how frequently the survivor engaged in
organizational programming, and the length of time they had been residing at Cornerstone.
Survivor Qualitative Findings
Results from the open-ended questions revealed two major themes that supported the
quantitative findings. First, survivors discussed that they experienced a sense of freedom during
their stay at DASH. They reported that living at DASH allowed them the opportunity to make

117

their own decisions and choices. In addition, a majority of residents also believed that DASH
was able to provide them with helpful emotional and practical resources.
Freedom in the DASH Environment
Overall, twenty-five (76%) of the participating residents stated that DASH was better
than other organizations. The other 24% provided mixed responses. Some stated that they had
never been to a similar housing situation or believed that the services provided at DASH were
too different to compare to other organizations. Many of the participants stated that the
individual apartments provided more privacy and space for them to live their lives and make
choices for themselves that were not possible at other organizations. For example, participants
described being able to cook the foods they wanted, get personal mail, watch what they wanted
on television, work the hours that best fit their lives without fear of not meeting curfew, have
visitors and even spend the night with friends. They did not have to share bathrooms or kitchens,
and the staff treated them with respect. In sum, a majority of survivors stated that they
experienced freedom to make their own decisions. Another commonly mentioned benefit about
living at DASH, aside from the freedom experienced, was the availability of programming for
children.
“Based on my experience, [at] most of the programs before DASH I had a curfew.
I had to be in at a certain time. Here we don't have a curfew. [At other
programs] I could not stay out as long as I wanted. Some programs were not at
all, I had to return that day. And [another domestic violence shelter] we could go
out on the weekend with your case manager's approval, [but] if they feel like you
haven't met any goals or anything then, no. But here [DASH] you can come and
go as you please. That's really the only good thing about it to me, is you feel a

118

little bit more free to pretty much get out and do what you need to do, you know?
Or sometimes if you just need a break, you can go somewhere for the weekend or
a week. You know, it's just a little more freedom than other programs allow you
to have.” (Renee, Cornerstone Housing Resident)
“[It is] just more freedom. [At DASH] you don't really feel like as if you're in a
program. It feels like home versus the other program that I had gone through, it
just felt like you're passing through. It’s maybe not under the best circumstances
that led you to the place, so it's kind of hard to get settled in. But when you have
someone that cares about you and they treat you right, the adjustment period is
different. It's a lot easier. So adjusting here, it wasn't really that hard because
the foundation was great.” (Brenda, Cornerstone Housing Resident)
Receipt of Helpful Practical and Emotional Resources
Residents also reported benefitting from the practical support that the program offered.
The greatest form of practical support was being able to live in a space without having to pay
rent for two years. Some people mentioned appreciating that they were able to pay bills, start a
savings account, get support finding and getting specific resources like medication, toothpaste,
detergent and vouchers for transportation and clothing. In addition to practical support, more
than half of the participants explicitly described receiving emotional or psychological support
from DASH employees. They expressed their appreciation for having staff that would listen and
talk to them when needed. Some people described staff as confidants, cheerleaders, and willing
to provide “endless help.” As a result, a majority of participants (n=20, 60%) reported that
DASH had a positive impact on their overall lives. Some people mentioned that DASH made

119

them feel more independent, safer, more relaxed, and clearer about how to set goals in order to
meet their needs for the future.
“I have gone through something, but my end result is [that] I'm here now and I'm
able to live somewhere where I don't have to worry about how I'm going to pay
my rent, electric bill, and gas bill. You know, it's allowed me a chance to handle
bills that I had before. Take care of my past debts. It's allowed me to save a little
bit, not have enough to live off on, but it had allowed me get myself together so
when I do leave here I have a plan.” (Sidney, Cornerstone Housing Resident)
“That's the difference. That's the thing that I really like about this place. They
really care about you, you know? They make it a personal thing. When you're
walking in and out the door, 'Hi, [name]. Hi, [name].' You know, they're calling
my family members' names and what-not. And not just to me, but to others too.
So that's the difference. The one thing that I really like about this place.” (Lark,
Cornerstone Housing Resident)
Summary of Entire Study Findings
The purpose of this transformative, multilevel, exploratory-sequential mixed method
study was to explore how the context of a domestic violence residential program influenced
advocates’ behaviors, and subsequently impacted residents’ well-being. A document review,
employee interviews, and resident interviews were conducted to understand the connection
between organizational context, employee practices and resident outcomes. Collectively,
findings suggested that an explicit organizational theory that is enacted through corresponding
cultural norms and assumptions and supported by flexible policies and procedures was associated

120

with employees reporting practices with residents that reflected the organizational philosophy.
As a result, these practices increased residents’ empowerment and empowerment-related safety.
Research Question 1: How do the formal policies guiding DASH reflect the
organization’s mission to provide low barrier, voluntary, empowering services to clients?
Formal DASH policies set behavioral expectations for staff that aligned with the
provision of empowering, survivor-centered care to survivors. Employees were expected to
implement a voluntary, low barrier approach that promoted survivors’ autonomy. Employees
were also required to implement the seven principles of the DASH model during service
provision. In order to augment the resources that were available to survivors, employees were
also expected to collaborate with one another, and with other community organizations. Safety
was identified as survivors’ right. Last, direct service providers were expected to continuously
learn and build upon their strengths in order to provide competent care with the support of an
effective management structure.
Research Question 2: In what ways, if at all, are DASH policies and procedures
reflected in the organizational culture and structure?
Research Question 3: How does DASH’s organizational culture and structure contribute
to the specific ways that DASH employees’ are able to provide low barrier, voluntary,
empowering services to clients?
Survivor-centered organizational expectations were reflected and supported by the
culture and structure. Across the organizational hierarchy, employees described having a high
level of autonomy, and minimal oversight, in their roles at the organization, yet there was a clear
sense across all employees that they were expected to have an unyielding investment in the
DASH model. There was a taken-for-granted assumption that the way DASH chose to provide

121

services to survivors (via the DASH model) was an improvement over other human service
organizations. Employees also described DASH as a highly relational organization. They
collectively valued partnering with survivors and with each other, and building collaborations
with community based organizations. Additional analysis revealed that the organizational
philosophy (DASH model) was deeply embedded within the organizational culture. Employees
were able to state and accurately define most of the principles of the DASH model. When asked
how they implemented the DASH model, their responses aligned with the written expectations.
The organizational structures also allowed for employees to practice empowering,
survivor centered care. DASH procedures allowed employees flexibility to implement the DASH
model in creative ways. However, the technical assistance (TA) structure that was developed to
support employees’ provision of empowering care had a mixed impact on employees. On one
hand, the TA team provided support, guidance and expertise that employees believed enhanced
service provision. However, contrary to organizational expectations, members of the TA team
often served in consultant and/or direct service provider roles rather than working to build
advocate capacity.
Hypothesis 1: DASH clients will describe specific ways that advocates’ behaviors
reflected the voluntary services model and an empowering philosophy.
The first hypothesis was supported. Survivors reported experiencing a high rate of
practices associated with the DASH model. Many survivors believed that employees were most
likely to support practices related to sovereignty, and this was also supported by the qualitative
responses. Survivors reported experiencing a level of freedom at DASH that supported their
satisfaction with services. Simultaneously, survivors also reported feeling like they were able to

122

make the choices about the programs they attended. A minority of residents reported that they
felt forced to meet with staff, a finding described in more detail below.
Hypothesis 2: DASH clients will describe specific ways that advocates’ behaviors
contributed to their increased empowerment.
a. Where clients describe advocate behavior that was unhelpful to them or
disempowering, they will describe behaviors that are not in alignment with DASH’s
organizational philosophy
The second hypothesis was also supported. Simple regression analysis showed that
practices associated with voluntary services predicted survivor empowerment and
empowerment-related safety. In other words, when survivors were able to make decisions about
what they participated in at shelter, their confidence increased. Multivariate multiple regression
analysis revealed that DASH model practices was significantly positively associated with the
collective variance of survivor empowerment and empowerment-related safety. In other words,
when staff behave with clients in ways that are responsive, consistent, empathetic, mutually
cooperative and respectful while also providing tools to promote personal power and supporting
survivor’s right to be self governing, then survivors report feeling more critical conscious,
connected, and self-efficacious. These behaviors was also associated with survivors having the
tools they need to keep safe, can find support, and have to make less compromises for their
safety.
Hypothesis 2a was also supported. When survivors felt forced to meet with staff, or did
not report that services were voluntary, each of the subscales associated with survivor
empowerment (confidence, consciousness, and connections) significantly decreased. In addition,

123

feeling forced was also resulted in survivors feeling like there were fewer resources available to
them, and increased perceptions that the use safety strategies would be problematic.

124

CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION

The purpose of this mixed methods study was to explore how a domestic violence
organizational context influenced employees’ behaviors and subsequently, survivor
empowerment. While numerous organizational studies have demonstrated significant
associations among components of the organizational context and organizational performance
(Agbenyiga, 2011; Hartnell, Ou, & Kinicki, 2011), fewer studies have examined organizational
culture and structure within the context of domestic violence shelter programs (D’Enbeau &
Kunkel, 2013; Epstein, Russell, & Silvern, 1988) and none have linked organizational context to
survivor outcomes. This study, then, is significant in its demonstration of the importance of tying
client outcomes not just to employee behavior but to the organizational culture and structure
driving that behavior.
In addition, scholars often describe empowerment as a key process to promoting
survivors’ well-being (Cattaneo & Goodman, 2015); yet limited empirical work is available to
understand the organizational conditions necessary for employees to promote this particular
process among survivors (Bloom, 2005). Domestic violence shelter studies that do focus on
context often do not systematically test the impact of the services received from the survivors’
perspective, and instead rely upon employees’ perceptions of their impact on survivors
(D’Enbeau & Kunkel, 2013). Findings from this study showed that culture and structure work in
tandem to support employees’ practices that promote residents feeling more empowered. This is
the first study to qualitatively explore organizational culture, organizational structure, employee
practices, and quantitatively examine prevalence and impact of employee practices on survivor
empowerment within the context of a single domestic violence crisis housing program.

125

A small number of the women who have abusive partners in this country actually reach
out to domestic violence organizations for support, and when they do go, it is often after an
episode of severe violence (Henning & Kleges, 2002). This means that domestic violence
organizations meet survivors at a critical juncture of their lives that has serious physical,
psychological, and financial repercussions. It is imperative that organizations are prepared to
provide helpful, effective services that center survivors’ needs and promote survivor well-being.
To this end, the application of empowerment theory has been understood as a critical component
in the promotion of survivor well-being (Cattaneo & Goodman, 2015). The current study
provided evidence for this -- results suggest that the use of survivor-centered, empowering
practice increased survivors’ ability to reach their goals, feel connected to community resources,
and increase their awareness about the dynamics of intimate partner violence. These findings
support other studies that have also demonstrated a relationship between survivor-centered
practices and survivor empowerment (Goodman et al, 2014b).
Scholars have long identified the role that organizations play in influencing employee’s
behavior (Scheider, Ehrhart, & Macey, 2013). Culture sets the behavioral expectations, which
can are implicitly and explicitly embedded within the organizational context (Schein, 2010).
Structure provides the mechanisms to carry out these expectations (Cooke & Rousseau, 1988).
Therefore, if the mission is to promote empowering for survivors, as was the DASH mission, it is
expected that the culture would align with practice, and that the structure would have
mechanisms in place to provide ways for staff to engage in empowering practice. Strategic
alignment is the “level of fit between the organization’s strategic priorities and its environment”
(Walter et al, 2013). A great deal of evidence supported significant strategic alignment in
DASH. The survivor-centered program theory was reflected in the organizational culture. The

126

management structure provided opportunities for direct service providers to apply the philosophy
with survivors. Survivors overall reported that they experienced the practices as intended, and
reported the intended outcomes. The examination of strategic alignment is a key consideration
for future research and evaluation studies that seek to support organizations in implementing
empowering, survivor-centered service provision.
In addition to the importance of strategic alignment being present in the organizational
philosophy and practice, it is equally as important that employees be aware of how they
contribute to enacting the organizational mission. Scholars call this awareness ‘line of sight’ and
assert that it increases organizational performance (Boswell & Boudreau, 2001; Boswell, 2006;
Buller & McEvoy, 2012). In this study, employees reported behaving in alignment with the
program theory and could articulate how their behavior was expected to lead to client outcomes
(increase in survivor empowerment). Line of sight theory supports the assumptions of
empowerment scholars who argue that the lack of conceptual clarity around empowerment
contributes to misapplication in practice (Kasturirangan, 2008).
Examining strategic alignment at the organizational level and line of sight at the
employee level are two ways that an organization can increase the likelihood that their mission is
actually working in practice. In addition, it is important to think about the types of contextual
factors that might be associated with service provision. For example, previous research has
argued that relational organizational cultures are useful when providing trauma-informed,
survivor-centered, empowering service provision because of the emphasis on self-care, support
from colleagues, and the friendly exchange of resources to support survivors (Bell, Kulkarni, &
Dalton, 2003; Gutiérrez,GlenMaye, & DeLois, 1995). The relational context has also been found
to decrease burnout and intention to leave the organization (Kim & Stoner, 2008). In human

127

service organizations, particularly, relational culture provides an emphasis on self-care that could
increase job satisfaction despite the stressful work conditions. Findings from the current study
support these assumptions, as many DASH employees described how helpful the relational
environment was for providing practices associated with the program theory. Relational, or clan,
cultures could be considered a key component in a survivor-centered organization.
Some previous research has demonstrated that the clinical orientation to service provision
within a hierarchal structure may decrease the implementation of true survivor centered
practices. Some have argued that such an orientation contributes to a structure that includes
mandatory services and high barrier entry assessments, which can be disempowering (Nichols,
2011). Interestingly, while DASH does have a hierarchal decision making structure and many
clinical staff in positions of influence, employees still engaged in survivor-centered practices and
survivors reported empowering practices. It is possible that two things are occurring. The
policies and procedures have set a cultural precedent that contradicts traditional clinical service
provision by requiring voluntary, low barrier service provision. In addition, the upside down
management model might also mitigate the negative impact that a clinical orientation could
potentially have on organizational practice. In other words, a program theory that explicitly
promotes survivors’ freedom rather than enforces restriction, and values advocates’ capacities
could be an important step in building a survivor-centered, empowering organization. Future
research that involves examining the impact of diverse management structures could provide
further insight into the contextual factors that mitigate the negative impact of a clinical
orientation on service provision.
In this study, the technical assistance team was also seen as a support mechanism to
provide empowering, survivor-centered service provision, but it was not clear how the technical

128

assistance team built capacity of advocates. The training component of the technical assistance
team was seen as an imperative component of service provision in theory, but it was not always
translated into practice. In the field, the theory behind the provision of technical assistance is also
quite broad, ranging from serving as a short-term consultant role to serving in a more integrated,
long term support (Le et al, 2014). The literature on the provision of technical assistance and its
effectiveness across domestic violence organization is limited, and there is no empirical literature
that describes an in-house technical assistance team within a domestic violence organization.
Therefore, this study provides some insight about the intricacies of operating an in-house
technical assistance team within a human services organization, but a great deal more research is
needed.
Another component that seems to support the provision of survivor-centered,
empowering practice is the integration of flexible policies and procedures that allow employees
to implement practices as they see fit. Previous research has found that job autonomy is
beneficial to human services practice (Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Moregeson, 2007; Kim &
Stoner, 2008). The results from this study support previous studies that argue that flexible
procedures not only have numerous benefits for the employee (such as job satisfaction and the
feeling of being trusted), it also helps employees provide flexibility to survivors in ways that
honor their personal freedom. Flexible procedures and policies suggest that employees do not
have to enforce strict rules or restrict survivors’ choices while in the organization, and can be
more focused on helping survivors meet their goals. Flexibility and autonomy appear to be
critical components in the promotion of a survivor-centered, empowering organization.

129

Strengths and Limitations of the Study
This study builds upon other domestic violence program evaluation and research studies
that have demonstrated the benefits of empowering, survivor-centered practices on survivors
(Sullivan et al, 2008). This was one of the first attempts to systematically measure alignment
within a domestic violence residential program. There were multiple benefits to employing a
mixed methods design in order to understand alignment within one community-based
organization. This cross-sectional methodological design allowed me to elucidate a complex
organizational conceptual model in an unconventional organizational setting. Additionally, this
approach provided an opportunity for me to work with staff to develop a contextually relevant
interview guide and quantitative measures at each stage of the study, which increased the
ecological validity of the study findings (Schmuckler, 2001). The qualitative data provided a
theoretical basis for empirically testing the prevalence of employee practices on survivors using
the quantitative interviews. The quantitative data was enhanced by the qualitative data by
providing insight into the contexts that support employee’s empowering practices.
The design also had notable limitations. First, there was selection bias at the onset of the
project. DASH was selected for study because of its unconventional program theory, innovative
organizational context, perceived organizational alignment, and anecdotal evidence of resident
success. Given the high level of alignment within this organization, it was challenging to
examine how misalignment might contribute to worker discord, and practices that are not
empowering, or worse, disempowering. However, there was some evidence that misalignment
contributed to disempowerment for survivors. For example, results showed that when survivors
perceived DASH employees as behaving in ways inconsistent with voluntary services, such

130

behavior was negatively related to survivors’ empowerment. Future studies are needed to further
identify the impact of misalignment on employees and survivors.
Second, the study had a primarily inductive thrust with small qualitative and quantitative
samples. Both of these components of the study can be identified as limitations for
generalizability of findings. However, while large quantitative studies in normative domestic
violence organizations might be more appropriate to generalize results, they might also be
limited in the extent that they can provide “frame-breaking” insights—work that challenges the
status quo (Bamberger & Pratt, 2010). Bamberger and Pratt (2010) argue that studies which
examine unconventional research contexts can make laudable contributions to both theory and
practice. DASH is one of very few organizations in the nation that has integrated a housing-first,
low-barrier, and voluntary services approach within a domestic violence residential context.
Results supported their contention that it is possible to have flexible survivor-centered context
that asserts little control and have the desired impact on clients. Follow up research could utilize
a comparative or multi-site case study design to replicate these findings. The specific
methodological approach could be completed with normative, mainstream domestic violence
organizations that may have less alignment between their policies and organizational practice.
Third, it is also difficult to determine the actual directional relationship between structure
and culture using cross-sectional data. For example, it is unclear whether the written policies
informed the organizational culture, or whether the constant changing of policies was informed
by the organizational culture. Follow-up studies would be needed to distinguish between
individual and cultural level impact on behavior. It is also reasonable to believe that culture and
structure components create a symbiotic relationship that could be difficult to discern within the

131

organizational context. Future qualitative causal analysis should be conducted to further test
these hypotheses.
Fourth, results from the quantitative phase of the study should be interpreted with
caution. Despite some statistically significant relationships, the sample was small and statistical
power was extremely low. Future data collection would need to be undertaken in order to obtain
a larger sample size and further substantiate the findings. Additionally, the subscales of the
DASH Model principles were highly interrelated (r = 0.90). While the organization considers the
underlying theoretical concepts within the scale to be distinct, correlational analyses suggest that
the subscales are actually highly interrelated. The Bayesian confirmatory factor analysis
demonstrated the items associated with each model principle did load onto its respective latent
construct, yet sample size limitations made it difficult to test how the model principles related to
one another. Also, the CFA for the subscales did not converge as categorical variables into
AMOS due to sample size limitations. It is possible that the measure of DASH model practices
does not actually contain seven subscales as tested in this dissertation, but instead is a
unidimensional scale. Given time limitations and budget constraints, I was not able to collect
additional data. However, items from the DASH model practices scale could be modified to help
further test and refine the theoretical constructs of the DASH model.
Implications for Theory and Research
Empowerment informs the program theory of many domestic violence shelter programs
across the nation. Therefore, it is important to continue to explore the organizational conditions
that promote survivor empowerment. Findings from this dissertation study, and
recommendations from other qualitative studies and theoretical articles, suggest that clan cultures
are best suited for providing empowering, survivor-centered, trauma-informed practices to

132

survivors (Agbenyiga, 2011; Bloom, 2005; Gutiérrez, GlenMaye, & DeLois, 1995). Rigorous
studies are needed to examine organizational cultures across domestic violence shelters to
determine the generalizability of this assertion. In particular, researchers should test if employee
behaviors associated with empowering practices vary across organizational culture types. For
example, while a clan culture might encourage building relationships with other employees and
outside organizations, which subsequently promotes survivors in getting necessary resources, a
developmental culture could potentially be associated with employees introducing new and
innovative practices within the organization that enhances a diverse set of survivor strengths.
Community psychologists have described the concept of organizational empowerment
and the characteristics that encompass an empowering organization (FosterFishman & Keys,
1997; Peterson & Zimmerman, 2004). However, it is unclear whether being an empowering
organization is a prerequisite for empowering practice. Previous participant observation studies
conducted in domestic violence shelter studies have identified some points of misalignment
which resulted in worker discord and worker disempowerment (D’Enbeau & Kunkel, 2013).
However, future research studies should identify whether psychological empowerment for
employees is a necessary precondition for the promotion of survivor empowerment. For
example, if employees feel disempowered, do they subsequently engage in practices that are
disempowering for clients? Or, is feeling supported within an organization and having a clear
line of sight enough to engage in empowering practices?
While flexible survivor-centered practices were the key to service provision at DASH, a
few employees described feeling tension during implementation. Some people reported some
tension associated with working in a flexible context and engaging in practices that supported
survivors’ autonomy, while also still having to meet funding and programming requirements.

133

Some employees stated that they often had to remind survivors “this is still a program.” This
could be a rhetorical tool that is used in order to set bounds around survivors’ behavior. This
assertion could also be why some survivors reported that they felt forced to meet with staff
whether they wanted to or not. It is possible that the desire to meet funding requirement or other
programmatic requirements still impede on survivors’ autonomy.
In the recent calls for a more expansive, inclusive and flexible service provision within
anti-violence organizations (Smyth, Goodman, & Glen, 2006), it will be crucial to study and
illuminate the tensions inherent in implementing survivor-centered practices within residential
spaces. Is it possible to have practices that keep shelter residents accountable for maintaining a
safe, nonviolent living space while not impeding on their autonomy? If not, would it be
necessary to re-envision the funding requirements placed on domestic violence shelter services
all together? It is imperative to continue to find methods that keep women in safe housing and do
not get her more deeply involved in oppressive formal systems. Future research should be
implemented to further understand and create solutions that help ease this tension.
Organizational theorists often discuss the significant impact of leadership styles on
organizational culture and organizational change initiatives (Ostroff, Kinicki, & Muhammad,
2012; Schein, 2010). At DASH, the leaders who founded the organization still work within the
organization; hence, it is not a coincidence that the DASH context is still highly aligned with the
mission. Future research should continue to explore how leadership, and the maintenance of
founders as leaders, influence strategic alignment and line of sight.
Evaluation and research studies that seek to improve the organizational context of
domestic violence organizations should attempt to integrate diverse methodological approaches
in order to study the unique ways that context influences practice and client outcomes. Most

134

domestic violence residential settings are small and would not provide the statistical power
necessary to generate trustworthy results needed for a large survey-based, multi-level research
study. In addition, the time, expense, and resources necessary to implement these types of largescale studies could impose on already stressed organizational contexts that often have little
research and evaluation capacity. Therefore, researchers who are interested in answering
complex multilevel questions can explore diverse mixed method designs and qualitative causal
analytic techniques best suited to the domestic violence context. Quantitative results such as
Bayesian statistics could also be an appropriate analytic technique when examining the impact of
shelter services.
The participatory methods of this evaluation proved to also support organizational
change. Evaluation practice that engages and involves participants in the evaluation process can
potentially lead to transformative organizational change. Based on the results of this study,
DASH leadership implemented a transformational coaching framework across the management
structure of the organization. They want to improve upon the findings from the study by
advancing their capacity building using this coaching framework.
Implications for Human Service Practice
This dissertation study has implications for all human service organizations that seek to
support client well-being. Gaining a deep understanding of the context is the impetus for
changing it or introducing new interventions. A strategic planning and visioning meeting could
encompass an honest reflection on whether the mission of the organization aligns with the
procedures of the organization, if the goal is to understand whether employees behave in
alignment with the mission. This organizational reflection could also detail whether the culture
and structure facilitate or hinder the ability of employees to meet organizational expectations.

135

This type of information gathering can provide an assessment of the effectiveness of the structure
in reaching the organizational mission, and identify the cultural components that support those
aims. Not only would these conversations provide clarity and consistency of the program, it
would also promote line of sight among employees.
These findings also point to the importance of creating strong socialization mechanisms
to help employees become more aligned with philosophy, particularly through effective training
and capacity building techniques. Socialization practices to orient new employees to the mission
and philosophy of the organization would ensure that they are providing services as originally
intended. Leaders should create a work context where employees are given freedom and
flexibility to provide services in a way that fits their personal desires, but also have a shared
commitment and understanding of the organizational philosophy.
In conclusion, this dissertation study benefits human service organizations that are
interested in understanding the conditions and processes needed to enact an organizational
mission and to accomplish intended organizational goals. Specifically, this study contributed to
the field of intimate partner violence, as well as other human service fields, by exploring the
organizational conditions that are aligned with the provision of empowering practices and
empowered client outcomes. Applying theories from Community Psychology and
Organizational Psychology, researchers, evaluators, and practitioners can use findings to better
assess and create an organizational context that facilitates effective service provision among
employees and that centers clients’ well-being.

136

APPENDICES

137

APPENDIX A: DASH Organizational Chart FY 2014
Figure 4: 2014 DASH Organizational Context

Executive Director

Development
Director

Finance &
Development
Manager

Office and Facilities
Manager

Director of Operations

Cornerstone Housing
Director

Lead Advocate

Resident
Advocates

Clinical Director

Community Housing
Programs Director

Housing Advocate

Chemical Addictions
Program Director

Children's Program
Director

Volunteer
Coordinator

Building Monitors

138

APPENDIX B: Document Review Mind Map
Figure 5: Document Review Mind Map

Visual model created using online program: https://bubbl.us

139

APPENDIX C: Document Review Themes
Table 38: Document Review Themes
Themes
DASH Model should be followed in practice: Formal policies and
procedures suggest that advocates should use the components of the
DASH model with residents. Formal handouts and procedures stated
that the role of advocates are to help survivors come back to their
initial goals (re-centering), act in a professional manner
(professionalism), encourage independent decision making
(empowerment), provide nurturing support no matter the situation
(compassion), ensure that women are operating from their own
space (integrity), their own will (sovereignty), and make sure they
feel comfortable holding advocates accountable (accountability).
Importance of creating and sustaining partnerships with staff and
residents: Employees are expected to be highly self-aware,
reflective, adaptable, and adopt a practice that is non-judgmental
when working with survivors in the service of creating partnerships
with other staff, and importantly, with survivors. Policies suggest
that with survivors, other staff and community will help survivors
reach their intended goals.
Survivor safety is a priority: These are organizational procedures
specifically detailing how employees should behave in order to
maintain survivor safety, and discuss the negative repercussions of
safety violations, specifically termination.
Survivors need to be at the center of personal decision making:
These are organizational and employee practices that situate
survivors as the master of their own lives. Survivors are expected to
make decisions about every aspect of their lives during their time at
DASH, and employees are encouraged to support these decisions in
creative and flexible ways they help them accomplish their goals,
create stability and maintain safe housing.

Emphasis on learning requisite knowledge and skills for advocates:
Employees are expected to engage in honest and open
communication with survivors and other employees as well as rely
on community resources to gain all of the requisite knowledge and
build the skills necessary to serve the complex needs of survivors
who come to DASH.

140

Codes
Model
Re-centering
Professionalism
Empowerment
Compassion
Integrity
Sovereignty
Accountability

Partnerships/Teamwork
Reflection
Non-judgmental
Adaptability
Build Trust

Survivor Safety
Termination Policy

Survivor Centered
Flexibility
Harm Reduction Model
Confidentiality
Low Barrier
Stability
Reduce barriers to safe
housing
Voluntary Services Model
Knowledge and Capacity
Communication
Community Engagement

APPENDIX D: DASH Staff Interview Guide
Study Introduction
First, I want to say thank you for being with me today. I know that you are incredibly busy, and I
appreciate you taking the time for us to do this interview together. I want to also let you know
that everything that you share with me is completely confidential. What you say to me, stays with
me. All data will be aggregated with other DASH employees, and your individual information or
position title will not appear in any of the analysis or interpretation phases. Since there is not a
lot of staff at DASH, I will be extra careful about making sure people are not identified. If,
during my initial analysis, I come across some information that I would like to include in our
group analysis process but I believe could be potentially revealing, I will reach out to you. We
can determine together whether you would like the information included in the group analysis
and interpretation process. If I cannot get in touch with you, then I will not include the
information. In addition, you have the right to pass on any question that you do not feel
comfortable answering. I also want to let you know that I will be recording the interview. Only
those on the MSU research team will have access to the digital files. They will be deleted once
all of the interviews have been transcribed. Do you have any questions about the interview
before we begin? [PAUSE] Ok, let’s get started.
Introduction Question
1. So, tell me a little bit about your position here are DASH. What are your primary
responsibilities?
Program Mission
Great, thanks! Now, I would like to ask you a few questions about the mission and values that
guide DASH as an organization.
2. In your own words, what is the mission of DASH?
[INTERVIEWER NOTE: Stop staff from getting, showing, or referring to materials.]
3. What is your understanding of how survivors are valued within this organization?
Dash Philosophy
4. Can you recall, offhand, the components of the DASH Model?

141

[INTERVIEWER NOTE: It is important to give people time to recall as many components
as they can. The interviewer should pay attention to how quickly they recall but don’t
give them ANY hints or help.]
5. Broadly, what does the DASH model mean in relationship to the work that you do with
survivors and their children?
The next section of the interview is specifically about the DASH interview. Start with the
components of the model that the staff person remembered, and then the components they did
not remember. The order below is not necessarily how to ask the questions.
6. As far as you know, how does DASH define sovereignty according to the model?
[INTERVIEWER NOTE: If they left this out in the original listing, at this point, now it’s
okay to tell them that this is one component.]
a. [Admin only] How, if at all, do you use this principle in your supervision with
advocates?
b. How, if at all, do you use this principle in your day to day interactions with survivors?
Have there been in tensions in trying to apply this principle to your work with
survivors?
i. If not, can you tell me more about why?
c. How does this organizational value align, or not align, with your own personal
values?
7. In your opinion, how does DASH define empowerment according to the model?
[INTERVIEWER NOTE: If they left this out in the original listing, at this point, now it’s
okay to tell them that this is one component.]
a. [Admin only] How, if at all, do you use this principle in your supervision with
advocates?
b. How, if at all, do you use this principle in your day to day interactions with survivors?
Have there been in tensions in trying to apply this principle to your work with
survivors?
i. If not, can you tell me more about why?
c. How does this organizational value align, or not align, with your own personal
values?

142

8. In your opinion, how does DASH define accountability (previously known as accountability)
according to the model?
[INTERVIEWER NOTE: If they left this out in the original listing, at this point, now it’s
okay to tell them that this is one component.]
a. [Admin only] How, if at all, do you use this principle in your supervision with
advocates?
b. How, if at all, do you use this principle in your day to day interactions with survivors?
Have there been in tensions in trying to apply this principle to your work with
survivors?
i. If not, can you tell me more about why?
c. How does this organizational value align, or not align, with your own personal
values?
9. Can you recall, offhand, how DASH, as an organization defines partnership in accordance to
the model?
[INTERVIEWER NOTE: If they left this out in the original listing, at this point, now it’s
okay to tell them that this is one component.]
a. [Admin only] How, if at all, do you use this principle in your supervision with
advocates?
b. How, if at all, do you use this principle in your day to day interactions with survivors?
Have there been in tensions in trying to apply this principle to your work with
survivors?
i. If not, can you tell me more about why?
c. Which community organizations would you say are important to DASH being able to
do its work? [Get them to be specific; what orgs do they know? Can they name
them?] How do you think this/these collaborations impact the work that is currently
being done at DASH?
d. How does this organizational value align, or not align, with your own personal
values?
10. As far as you know, how does DASH define compassion according to the model?
[INTERVIEWER NOTE: If they left this out in the original listing, at this point, now it’s
okay to tell them that this is one component.]
143

a. [Admin only] How, if at all, do you use this principle in your supervision with
advocates?
b. How, if at all, do you use this principle in your day to day interactions with survivors?
Have there been in tensions in trying to apply this principle to your work with
survivors?
i. If not, can you tell me more about why?
c. How does this organizational value align, or not align, with your own personal
values?
11. In your opinion, how does DASH, as an organization, define integrity according to the
model?
[INTERVIEWER NOTE: If they left this out in the original listing, at this point, now it’s
okay to tell them that this is one component.]
a. [Admin only] How, if at all, do you use this principle in your supervision with
advocates?
b. How, if at all, do you use this principle in your day to day interactions with survivors?
Have there been in tensions in trying to apply this principle to your work with
survivors?
i. If not, can you tell me more about why?
c. How does this organizational value align, or not align, with your own personal
values?
12. Can you recall, how DASH, as an organization defines (re)centering in accordance to the
model?
[INTERVIEWER NOTE: If they left this out in the original listing, at this point, now it’s
okay to tell them that this is one component.]
a. [Admin only] How, if at all, do you use this principle in your supervision with
advocates?
b. How, if at all, do you use this principle in your day to day interactions with survivors?
Have there been in tensions in trying to apply this principle to your work with
survivors?
i. If not, can you tell me more about why?

144

c. How does this organizational value align, or not align, with your own personal
values?
13. Thinking about what actually happens on the ground at DASH—how, if at all, does the
DASH model impact how the organization operates as a whole?
14. What aspects of the DASH model were you immediately comfortable with when you first
became aware of them?
15. What aspects of the model, if any, have you struggled with, currently struggle with, or find
the most difficult to put into practice even if you believe in them?
16. Broadly speaking, what are the rewards, if any, for putting the DASH model into practice?
17. What are some drawbacks, if any, for putting the DASH model into practice?
18. What does it mean that DASH is a low-barrier organization?
a. In what ways, if any, does this organizational service approach impact what you do
when providing services to survivors?
b. Could you tell me how this service delivery approach aligns or doesn’t align with
your personal values?
19. What does it mean that DASH utilizes a voluntary services model approach?
a. In what ways, if any, does this organizational service approach impact what you do
when providing services to survivors?
b. Could you tell me how these service delivery approaches align or doesn’t align with
your personal values?
20. I know DASH has a philosophy of providing financial, practical and emotional help to apply
this model to your work, but I also know how difficult this can be in practice. Could you tell
me your perception of what DASH does to provide financial, practical and/or emotional
assistance to apply the model to your work? In other words, what is your perception of what
DASH is doing to support your work?
i. How successful are these efforts?
ii. What types of resources are provided?
iii. Are they helpful? Are they enough?
iv. What do you think needs to be improved?
v. What is needed for these improvements to happen?

145

Organizational Structures (Policies, Procedures, Decision-Making Structures)
Thank you very much for answering those questions for me. Now, I would like to ask you a
little bit about how DASH operates and functions as an organization.
21. In what ways, if any, are you a part of DASH’s organizational decision-making process?
22. How does the TA team support your role in the organization? In what ways is the support
helpful or unhelpful? [Probe about supervision; care conferencing—working with a
survivor; brown-bag trainings]
23. As far as you know, what impact does the TA team have on the way that services are
provided to survivors?
24. Broadly, how well do you think the policies and procedures detailing how employees should
behave with survivors align with the model?
Not at all
1

Somewhat
2

3

To a great extent
4

5

a. Why did you give this response? What could improve this alignment?
25. Broadly, how well do you think the guidelines given to survivors about their participation in
the DASH programs align with the model?
Not at all
1

Somewhat
2

3

To a great extent
4

5

a. Why did you give this response? What could improve this alignment?
Organizational Culture
Now I want to talk about what it means to be an employee at DASH. Generally, I am
interested in what you think is needed in order to be successful at DASH.
26. What characteristics must an employee have in order to be successful at DASH? How did
you learn these?
27. How comfortable do you feel making a mistake in your position? What happens when an
employee makes a mistake?
28. In your opinion, how well do you feel the actions of leadership align with the DASH model?
[Probe about why they give this answer]
Transformative Organization
Now, I want to ask you a few more questions about how you relate to DASH as an
organization.
146

29. How, if at all, do you think aspects of your identity (e.g., race, gender, class) influence your
work with survivors?
30. On a scale of 1-10, with 10 being highest, how much, if at all, do you think that maintaining
a diverse workforce is a priority to DASH?
a. [If low] Why do you think this is the case?
b. [If high] How does DASH go about maintaining a diverse workforce?
31. As an organization, how, if at all, do you think DASH considers the way that power,
privilege or oppression impacts workplace dynamics?
32. As an organization, how, if at all, do you think DASH considers how power, privilege or
oppression influences service provision?
Survivor Outcomes
Thank you for answering those questions. Now I want to ask you a few questions about
how staff interacts with survivors at DASH. You are doing great. Your responses are
really helpful. For the second to last part of the interview, I am going to read you with
two hypothetical scenarios about your work with survivors. You can read along with me
on this card. After I am done reading, I will ask you a few questions about the scenario.
33. A single woman named Stephanie came to DASH last month when she was referred by a
short-term inpatient drug treatment program after disclosing that she was in an abusive
relationship. Stephanie has been at DASH for several months now and, you have seen that
she has serious mental health and addiction issues. Stephanie rarely showers and she
regularly comes into the building seemingly drunk or high. She regularly misses her
appointments with you and she never attends groups. However, when she does come to an
appointment, she describes having hallucinations and is often talking (sometimes yelling) at
voices in her head. You are doubtful that Stephanie has a partner (let alone an abusive one)
based on information that she disclosed during her intake. Almost daily other residents
complain to you and other staff that Stephanie is too loud, her unit smells, and she scares
their kids when she’s talking to herself.
[Upper Management Questions]
a. How confident are you that you would know how to supervise someone about how to
work with this survivor?

147

b. Can you talk me through how might you supervise an advocate who wanted help
supporting this survivor? What might you recommend?
c. How would you use the DASH philosophy to inform and facilitate how you supervise
advocates around providing advocacy for Stephanie?
d. How, if at all, do you use the TA structure to facilitate how you supervise advocates
around providing advocacy for Stephanie?
e. How realistic is this scenario to the survivors that you encounter in your daily
practice?
[Advocate]
f. How confident are you that you know what to do in this situation?
g. How might you go about supporting Stephanie during her time at DASH?
i. Would any exceptions have to be made for Stephanie? If so, how might you
go about obtaining those exceptions?
h. What resources or options might you recommend for Stephanie within, or outside, of
the organization?
i. How realistic is this scenario to the survivors that you encounter in your daily
practice?
Concluding Questions
We are almost done. I wanted to ask you a few more broad questions related to your
general feelings working at DASH.
34. Have you worked in other non-profits prior to working at DASH?
a. If yes, how, if at all, does DASH differ from other organizations that you have
worked for? In what ways?
35. At this moment, on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the highest, how committed do you feel to
DASH as an organization?
36. How much longer do you see yourself working at DASH? What makes you say that?
Demographics
To end this interview, I am going to ask you three short demographic questions.
37. What month and year did you start working here?
38. Are you employed full or part-time at DASH?
39. What is your racial background?
148

40. Is there anything else that you want to share with me about your experiences at DASH? Or
anything in relationship to the things that we talked about today?

149

APPENDIX E: Organizational Culture Mind Map
Figure 6: Organizational Culture Mind Map

150

APPENDIX F: Organizational Structure Mind Map
Figure 7: Organizational Structure Mind Map

151

APPENDIX G: Staff Perceptions of DASH Model
Table 39: Staff Perceptions of DASH Model
DASH Model Practices

Participants

Accountability/Professionalism: Being
accountable to a set of standards, keeping
clear boundaries between yourself and your
work

1. Having boundaries with
survivors
2. Advocate for survivors
(VAGUE)
3. Be transparent in the
services that can be offered
(INTEGRITY)
4. Being honest about not
knowing a source
5. Being the presence that is
needed in the moment
(COMPASSION)
6. Building relationships with
survivors
(PARTNERSHIPS)
7. Complete informed
consent
8. Do not argue with
survivors
9. Do what you say you are
going to do
10. Explain the commitment to
the cornerstone program
when there is tension
between the survivors and
the program
11. Follow through with
survivors
12. Had awareness of DV 101
13. Have an open door for
survivors to talk
(COMPASSION)
14. Accountability to the larger
community
15. Maintain professional
composure despite
discomfort
16. Reach out to other sources
when the answer is
unknown (PART)
152

Percentage of
Similarity
16 (matched
definition) / 26
(total
statements) =
0.62 x 100=
62% alignment

Table 39 (cont’d)

Compassion: Having empathy for others
who are affected by misfortune, and
working to understand and help them

17. Respecting women where
they are (SOVERIGNTY)
18. Responding in a prompt
fashion
19. Responds in a
compassionate way
(COMPASSION
20. Say you are unsure
(INTEGRITY)
21. Set boundaries with
survivors
22. Speak to survivor if they
might be angry with you
23. Try to answer questions as
honestly as possible
(INTEGRITY)
24. Upheld a professional
standard despite crisis
25. Be culturally sensitive
Do what you say that you
are going to do
1. Convey a sense of
understanding
2. Allowing women to feel
what they feel
3. Being engaged in
conversation without
controlling the
conversation
4. Be responsive as possible
to survivors
5. Be very gentle
6. Being nonjudgmental
7. Believing women
8. Bend the rules for
survivors when needed
9. Bending the rules in
accordance to what the
survivor needs
10. Care about the survivor
11. Caring for a person
12. Changing interactions to fit
where are
13. Connect survivor with
therapy services
153

28 (matched
definition) / 28
(total) = 1 x 100
= 100%

Table 39 (cont’d)

Empowerment: Giving voice to your own
power, and providing the tools to help
others recognize and access their power

14. Accepting women for who
they are
15. Did not want to look as a
high authoritative figure
16. Disclose about herself in
order to convey a sense of
connection
17. Encourage residents to be
gently with themselves
18. Encourage survivors to
forgive themselves
19. Encourage taking care of
yourself
20. Get things for survivors
when necessary
21. Listen to survivors
22. Not just another resident
23. Not try to put someone
down
24. Not trying to fix someone
25. Respecting a person where
they are
26. State that abuse is not their
fault
27. To not pass judgment on
survivors
28. Understand when they just
need to blow off steam
1. Helping survivors achieve
whatever their goals are
2. Acknowledging to
survivors it is absolutely
about baby steps
3. Ask survivor what they
need from us (VAGUE)
4. Ask them about what keeps
them from making
decisions
5. Assuming as little as
possible about the survivor
(VAGUE)
6. Backing survivor up
(COMPASSION)

154

Table 39 (cont’d)
7. Be encouraging
(COMPASSION)
8. Be sensitive to whatever
clues you are getting from
your interactions
(COMPASSION)
9. Being honest with survivor
(INTEGRITY)
10. Care for the survivor
(COMPASSION)
11. Do not assume someone’s
needs (COMPASSION)
12. Do not define success from
survivors (SOVERIGNTY)
13. Do not dictate how
survivor should obtain
practical resources
(SOVERIGNTY)
14. Do not get into
conversations about belief
systems
(ACCOUNTBILITY)
15. Do not tell survivors what
to do with their children
(SOVERIEGNTY)
16. Do what you can do
(VAGUE)
17. Doing a safety plan with
them
18. Emphasize all that they
have done that is good
19. Encourage residents to
push staff on the model
20. Encourage survivors
(COMPASSION)
21. Encourage survivors’ self
sufficiency
(SOVEREIGNTY)
22. Encourage them to channel
inner strength in direction
of their own choosing

155

Table 39 (cont’d)
23. Encourage ways to help
survivor find control
24. Encourage people to do
what they need to do in
order to combat
discrimination
25. Express to survivor what
she saw and how to do
things differently (DON’T
KNOW)
26. Giving them the tools they
need
27. Go step by step through a
process to meet survivors’
goals
28. Help someone learn a
process
29. Help survivors achieve
what they want
30. Help survivors find
resources
31. Help survivors finds
resources to move forward
32. Help survivor get to the
next level
33. Help survivors to get the
things they need
34. Help them feel good about
decisions they made
35. Help them find places to
get the things they need
36. Helping people choose
what they want to do
37. Acknowledge that
empowerment is a process
Helping survivors navigate
the system
38. Helping them come out of
panic mode
(RECENTERING)
39. Laying out of the resources
40. Letting survivors be the
captain of their own ship
(SOVERIEGNTY)

156

Table 39 (cont’d)
41. Letting the survivors tell
you what they need
(SOVEREIGNTY)
42. Listen to survivors
(COMPASSION)
43. Make sure they are safe as
possible (VAGUE)
44. Meeting survivors where
they are at
(SOVEREIGNTY)
45. Meeting women where
they are (SOVERENTY)
46. Not being judgmental
(COMPASSION)
47. Not case management
(VAGUE)
48. Not reprimanding women
(VAGUE)
49. Plan with survivors about
how to get the things that
she needs
50. Provide feedback to what
their actions look like an
outside
51. Providing validation for
the decisions that survivors
make
52. Push survivor when they
ask for it
53. Push the bar to make sure
staff meet you where you
are
54. Respect survivors
(SOVERIEGNTY)
55. Respect the decisions
survivors make
(SOVERIGNTY)
56. Sit down with survivors to
discuss what they want
57. Supporting survivors in
making their own decisions
(SOVERIGNTY)

157

33 (matched
definitions) / 71
(total) = 0.46 x
100 = 46%

Table 39 (cont’d)

Integrity: Behaving consistently with the
values you promote; striving to know
yourself and behaving authentically

58. Survivors drive what they
need (SOVEREIGNTY)
59. Talked about the positive
things (COMPASSION)
60. Talking out a problem with
them (COMPASSION)
61. Telling survivors how to
use safety
62. Treating survivors like
they was able to make their
own choices
(SOVERIEGNTY)
63. Trusting the decisions that
survivors make
(SOVEREIGNTY)
64. Value the inner strength
65. Right to pursue what they
want (SOVEREIGNTY)
66. Talk about cycle of
violence
67. Talk about domestic
violence
68. Talk about power and
control wheel
69. Tell survivors that they
have the power
Treated me like I was human
being (COMPASSION)
1. Helping survivors
(VAGUE)
2. Asking survivor to
contribute to the process
(VAGUE)
3. Be consistent with
survivors
4. Be transparent with
survivors
5. Being a good
representation of DASH
6. Being upfront with
survivors about what
advocates cannot do
7. Build trust with survivors
(VAGUE)

158

12 (matched
definitions) / 29
(total) = 0.41 x
100 = 41%

Table 39 (cont’d)
8. Checking back in if
something is not working
(ACCOUNTABILITY)
9. Convey to resident that
they are acting out of
alignment with they what
they value
10. Do not give the run around
(VAGUE)
11. Do not make promises they
you can’t keep
12. Follow up with residents
about their concerns
(ACCOUNTABILITY)
13. Hear what survivors have
to say
14. Help survivor get what
they need while at DASH
(EMPOWERMENT)
15. Accepting of survivors
spiritual and religious
beliefs
16. Helping survivors keep
their word
17. Holding someone
accountable to their own
values
18. Respected what survivors
have to say (VAGUE)
19. Recognizing what
survivors were not
following up with their
word
20. Respect survivors where
survivors are at and how
they feel (SOVREIGNTY)
21. Taking time to understand
survivor (COMPASSION)
22. Tell survivors the truth
even when its difficult
23. Telling the resident that
you see they are more
capable than what they are
delivering (VAGUE)

159

Table 39 (cont’d)
24. Understanding boundaries
with survivors
(ACCOUNTABILITY)
25. Understanding role with
survivors (VAGUE)
26. Understanding that the
resident has different needs
(SOVERIGNTY)
27. Be honest about what you
can and cannot do
28. Follow through with
mental health referrals
Follow through with what
you say you are going to
do
Partnerships: Having mutually cooperative
1. Remind survivors that they
are sovereign but in a
and respectful relationships with all who are
community
doing the work, including program
2. Ask survivors what they
residents, service providers, investors, and
the community
need
3. Ask them what they want
to do
4. Ask women how they
wanted to contributed to
the joint process
5. Build a relationship with a
survivor
6. Do not run women’s lives
7. Establish a meeting time
when you need it
8. Felt like a give and take
relationship
9. Follow up with you when
you need it
10. Give community resources
to survivors
11. Iterative process of
providing support and
testing
12. Lean on each other
13. Partnered with other
people in the organizations
to address needs

160

Table 39 (cont’d)
14. Provide resources to
survivors
(EMPOWERMENT)
15. Ask survivors what they
want
16. Remind survivors that they
should have a connection
with the advocate
17. Remind that they do not
have to participate in the
services being offered
(SOVEREIGNTY)
18. Supporting survivor when
they come back from the
systems (COMPASSION)
19. Talk with survivors about
their barriers and
roadblocks
(EMPOWERMENT)
20. Talk with survivors about
what it bad about the
program
21. Talk with survivors about
what is good with the
program
22. Tell survivor that the
advocate and survivor are
on a team
23. Valued partnership with
survivors
24. Willingness to step in and
be what is needed in the
moment (COMPASSION)
25. Work to address the issue
that they are having first
before giving advice
26. Work with survivors to
make goals a reality
(EMPOWERMENT)
27. Give information when
asked for it
28. Helping survivors navigate
the systems
(EMPOWERMENT)

161

13 (matched
definition) / 28
(total) = 0.46 *
100 = 46%

Table 39 (cont’d)
Re-centering: finding and maintaining the
clarity, focus, and the wherewithal to
balance competing demands and pressures
that are on us

1. Helping survivor stabilize
2. Adapt to how survivors are
understanding the DASH
mission
3. Adaptable to survivor
needs
4. Ask survivor what they
want to do
5. Asking how people can
achieve the goal they came
in for (EMPOWERMENT)
6. Being honest about the
barriers for the situation
(INTEGRITY)
7. Changed course with
resident when something is
not working
8. Creating a plan with the
survivor
9. Create an action plan
10. Discussed what could have
contribute to a relapse
11. Encouraging survivors to
make a plan to move
forward
12. Explain when a recentering
is about to happen
(VAGUE)
13. Find balance between what
is working and what is not
working
14. Give residents positive
feedback
15. Have a conversation with a
rule is broken instead of
immediate termination
16. Have a meeting to set
initial goals and then come
back to set new goals when
necessary
17. Have her do some writing
about relapse
18. Adapt to how people are
learning

162

25 (matched
definitions) / 34
(total) = 0.74 X
100 = 74%

Table 39 (cont’d)

Sovereignty
Having the freedom and responsibility to
determine what is right for you and be selfgoverning

19. Helping survivor compare
where they are from where
they came
20. Immediately address issues
that could possibly get
survivors terminated
21. Meet with survivors once a
week to check with safety
(VAGUE)
22. Meeting and reporting
back (VAGUE)
23. Noticed when something
was out of the ordinary
24. Recognizing where you are
25. Stepping back to determine
how to go forward
26. Tell people that we
appreciate you coming to
the program
27. Tell residents the positive
strengths that are seen in
kids
28. Try to figure out what it
happening and resolves it
29. Understanding that people
learn at their own pace
30. Go through a formal
process of re-centering
31. Help survivor get back to
where she was when she
was sober
32. Honestly talk about what is
happening
33. Residents are aware of recentering process
When something negative
happens talk to figure out
what is going on
1. Do not make decisions for
survivors
2. Affirm that they have valid
concerns
3. Allowed women to make
their own choices

163

12 (matched
definitions) / 24
(total) = 0.50 x
100 = 50%

Table 39 (cont’d)
4. Allowing people to make
decisions about what to do
with the information
5. Allowing survivors to be
self-governing
6. Ask if they want a hug
(COMPASSION)
7. Ask survivor questions
about their goals
(EMPOWERMENT)
8. Be cheerleaders
(COMPASSION)
9. Be validating
(COMPASSION)
10. Being nonjudgmental
(COMPASSION)
11. Belief that survivors are
capable to think on their
own
12. Bring everyone to the table
to discuss the issue at hand
(PARTNERSHIPS)
13. Create an open space for
them to talk
(COMPASSION)
14. Do not do everything for
the survivors (VAGUE)
Acknowledging that
15. women have a valid
concern
16. Encourage survivors to not
beat herself up about her
decisions
(COMPASSION)
17. Give them a space to get
out grievances
18. Help guide survivors
(VAGUE)
19. Meet survivors at their own
terms
20. Pointing out dangers but
letting women do what
they want

164

Table 39 (cont’d)
21. Provide trauma informed
care (RECENTERING)
22. Queen of their own castle
23. Survivors set the terms of
the relationship
24. Survivors set the tone for
goal setting
25. Try not to cross boundaries
26. Understanding that
survivors are adults
27. Validating the survivors
gut feeling
Encourage survivors to
make their decisions

165

APPENDIX H: DASH Resident Interview Guide
Pre-Interview Checklist
Pen
Survivor Interview Guide
Audio Recorder
Extra batteries
Notebook
Survivor ID
Response cards
Money envelope (receipt + cash)
Thank you for your help today. We are doing this study to learn more about residents’
experiences at the Cornerstone program. Your answers will be used to help improve the services
that people receive while they are at DASH. Everything that you share with me is completely
confidential, and will not affect any of the services that you receive from the Cornerstone
Housing program. We will not tell staff who has decided to participate in the study. We will
keep all of your information in a secure, password protected location. You will also not be videotaped for this interview. However, I would like to tape-record this interview, just to make sure
we are accurate about what you say. Would this be ok with you?
Yes, ok to audio record this interview.
No, not ok to audio record this interview.
This interview is completely voluntary. You can stop any time you want and you can choose not
to answer any questions that you do not want to answer. Throughout the interview, if I ask you a
question that you do not feel comfortable answering, you can say the word ‘pass’. This indicates
to me that you do not feel comfortable answering the question. I will not ask you why you chose
to pass, and I will just move to the next question. At the end of this interview, you will be given a
cash payment of $25 for your participation.
Do you have any questions?
Notes:

166

Introduction
This interview will take approximately one hour, and I will be asking you questions about the
types of services you wanted from Cornerstone and the experiences that you have had with staff
since you have been here. There is no right or wrong answer to any of the questions. I am really
just interested in hearing your honest opinions. (TIME ON RECORDER: _________)
Part 1: Accessing DASH Services
First, I want to ask you a few questions about coming to Cornerstone, and how things have been
going for you since you moved into your apartment.
1. Can you tell me about how you found out about DASH? (Probe about the specifics of how
they discovered the Cornerstone program).

2. Can you tell me about the process of applying for and getting into Cornerstone housing?
What improvements would you make, if any?

3. In addition to housing, what type of support did you want from DASH? Are you able to get
the help you need?

Thank you. Now using the BLUE card, please tell me the number that best describes your
experiences with Cornerstone. [Go through responses aloud and pay attention to any literacy
needs. Repeat options as needed.]

0
Not at all
true

1

2

3

167

4
Very True

8
Don’t
know

9
Declined to
answer

3. When applying to the program, staff trusted that I was telling the truth.
4. I was able to access housing here despite barriers that might come up at other
organizations.

____
____

Tell me whether the following questions are simply true or false in relationship to accessing
DASH services.
0 False
1 True
8 Don’t know
5.
6.
7.
8.

I had to provide photo identification to receive services from Cornerstone.
Staff asked whether I used substance or alcohol usage during my intake interview.
Staff force people to get sober in order to receive housing.
I needed proof of my abuse in order to access housing.

____
____
____
____

Part 2: DASH Staff Practices
Now I would like to know about your experiences so far receiving services from staff while
being at the Cornerstone program. I know that the experiences that you have can change
depending on the staff person. However, I am interested in knowing your overall impression of
staff. Please remember that anything you say is just between us and staff will not know who said
what to me. Using this PINK card, can you tell me the answer that best describes how DASH
staff behave with you OVERALL? [Go through responses aloud and pay attention to any
literacy concerns. Check in to make sure that responses make sense. Repeat options as needed.
Repeat the stem every 3 to 4 items.]
0
1
2
3
8
9

Not at all
A little
Somewhat
Very much
Does not apply to me
Declined to answer

Overall, staff…
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Encourage me to be who I am (SV)
Respect my privacy (SV)
Respect the choices that I make (SV)
Treat me with dignity (SV)
Understand that I know what’s best for me (SV)
Are judgmental of the decisions I make for myself (SV)
Celebrate my accomplishments (EM)
Help me reach out to organizations outside of DASH in order to get the resources I
need (EM)
9. Provide me with the tools I need to accomplish my goals (EM)
168

____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____

10. Work with me step by step to accomplish my goals (EM)
11. Talk with me about the dynamics of domestic violence (EM)
12. Provide me with the information that I need to make my own choices (EM)
13. Help me to define successes on my own terms (EM)
14. Help me to find resources I need (EM)
15. Respond to my needs promptly (AC)
16. Are flexible (AC)
17. Follow up with me when I make a request (AC)
18. Clearly explains how this program works (AC)
19. Work with me to help me make my goals a reality (PA)
20. Make me feel like we are working as a team (PA)
21. Provide opportunity for us to learn from one another (PA)
22. Are on my side (PA)
23. Believe me when I share things about my life (CM)
24. Listen to me (CM)
25. Care about me (CM)
26. Work to understand my situation (CM)
27. Treat my children with respect (CM)
28. Care about my children (CM)
29. Accept me for who I am (CM)
30. Are honest with me about what they can and cannot do (IN)
31. Are consistent with me (IN)
32. Are trustworthy (IN)
33. Help me move forward when I feel stuck (CEN)
34. Notice when things are out of the ordinary for me (CEN)
35. Provide me time to learn at my own pace (CEN)
36. Help me find ways to manage stress (CEN)
37. Help me learn different ways of dealing with feeling overwhelmed (CEN)

____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____

Thanks so much, I know that was a lot of similar questions. Now, using the BLUE card again,
please tell me how true the following statements are based on your own experience with services
at Cornerstone.
0
Not at all true

1

2

3

4
Very True

9
Declined to
answer

38. I choose what DASH programs or services I want to participate in.
39. Staff make me feel like I have to meet with them whether I want to or not.

____
____

40. Peoples’ cultural backgrounds are respected in this program.
41. Peoples’ religious or spiritual beliefs are respected in this program.
42. Staff respect peoples’ sexual orientations and gender expressions.
43. Staff understand what it means to be in my financial situation.
44. Staff understand the challenges faced by people who are immigrants.

____
____
____
____
____

169

45. Staff understand how discrimination impacts peoples’ everyday experience.
46. Staff recognize that some people or cultures have endured generations of violence,
abuse and other hardships.
47. This program treats people who face physical or mental health challenges with
compassion.
48. Staff provide support for people who must interact with potentially difficult
systems (for example, courts, police, housing, child protective services, public
assistance).

____
____
____
____

Thank you, now using this GREEN card [go through responses together and check for literacy],
please answer the following question.
1 Rarely or never
2 Sometimes
3 Fairly often
4 Very often
5 Always
9 Declined to answer
How frequently do you participate in the programs that happen here at
Cornerstone?

____

Now I would like to ask you a few more questions about how you feel DASH staff engage with
you. Tell me how you feel at this moment:
49. I believe that staff members here like me.
50. The staff and I collaborate on setting goals for our work.
51. The staff and I respect each other.
52. The staff and I are working towards mutually agreed upon goals.
53. I feel that staff members here appreciate me.
54. The staff and I agree on what is important for me to work on.
55. I feel staff members here care about me even when I do things they do not
approve of.
56. We have established a good understanding of the kind of changes that would
be good for me.
Now, let’s switch gears. The next question is about parenting.
57. How many children under 18, if any, are you currently parenting? _____
If the participant is parenting, proceed to answer questions 58 – 62.
If the participant is NOT parenting, skip the next 5 questions and go to Part 3, question 1.
These next five questions are about how staff behave with you as a parent. Using the BLUE
card, can you tell me the answer that best describes your experience with DASH staff.

170

____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____

0
Not at all
true

1

2

3

4
Very True

8
9
Not
Declined to
Applicable answer

58. I am learning more about how children react emotionally when they have witnessed
or experience abuse and other hardships.
59. Staff help me explore how children’s relationships can be affected by witnessing or
experiencing abuse, and other life difficulties.
60. I am learning more about how my own experience of abuse can influence my
relationships with my children.
61. The program provides opportunities for children to get help dealing with the abuse
and other hardships they may have experienced or been affected by.
62. Staff support me to strengthen my relationships with my children.

______
______
______
______
______

Part 3: Impact of DASH Services
Now I’d like to ask you about whether your experiences at Cornerstone have changed your
knowledge or feelings about any particular areas. I do not want to imply that you did not know
this stuff before, but rather I am interested in how being at Cornerstone might have increased
your knowledge about or ability to do specific things. Using the BLUE card, please tell me
which answer best reflects your experience
0
Not at all true

1

2

3

4
Very True

9
Declined to
answer

Because of my experiences at Cornerstone,…
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

I am better at deciding what I want for my life. (SE)
I trust myself and my decisions more. (SE)
I am more able to achieve goals I set for myself. (SE)
I am better at knowing what steps to take to achieve my goals. (SE)
I am more confident about the decisions I make. (SE)
I have a greater understanding that I have the ability to make changes in my own
life. (SE)
10. I have a greater sense of freedom to make changes in my own life. (SE)
11. I can do more things on my own. (SE)
12. I am better at figuring out how to handle problems that arise in my life. (SE)
13. I have a greater understanding that if one organization cannot help me there will be
another that can. (COM)
14. I have a greater understanding of how racist systems make it difficult for survivors
to protect themselves and their children. (CRIT)
15. I know more about the community resources that I might need. (COM)
16. I have a greater understanding that I have the right to be angry about what I’ve
experienced. (CRIT)
17. I have a greater understanding that I am not alone. (COM)
171

____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____

18. I am better able to get information that will help me. (COM)
19. I have a greater understanding of how sexist systems make it difficult for survivors
to protect themselves and their children. (CRIT)
20. I am more comfortable asking for help. (COM)
21. I have a greater understanding of how common DV is. (CRIT)
22. I have a greater understanding of how domestic violence affects me. (CRIT)
23. I have a greater understanding that survivors are not to blame for being abused in a
relationship. (CRIT)
24. I have a greater understanding of the causes of domestic violence. (CRIT)
25. I have a greater understanding that together with other survivors, I can have a part
in ending violence against women. (CRIT)

____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____

Now, I want to ask you more broadly how you are feeling as a result of receiving services from
Cornerstone. As of today, thinking about your experience in the program, can you tell me how
true the following statements are? You can use the BLUE card to answer the following question.
Please remember that everything you tell me today is confidential, and will not be shared with
staff here or at any other program.

0
Not at all true

1

2

3

4
Very True

26. I feel more hopeful about the future.
27. I am more able to achieve the goals I set for myself.
28. I know more about the community resources I might need.
29. I am better able to get information that will help me.
30. I have a greater understanding of how domestic violence affects me.
31. I feel less alone.

9
Declined to
answer
____
____
____
____
____
____

Thank you for hanging in there with me. We are almost done with the interview. Now I would
like to ask you some questions about your safety. Different people face different challenges to
their safety, and when I use the word safety in the next few questions, I mean safety from abuse
or violence. Using the PINK card, please tell me the extent to which this statement applies to
you.
0 Not at all
1 A little
2 Somewhat
3 Very much
8 Does not apply to me
9 Declined to answer
At this moment, figuring out ways to stay safe is one of my top priorities.

____

Now, using the WHITE card, please tell me what best describes how you think about your and
your family’s safety right now.
172

1
2
3
4
5
9

Never true
Sometimes true
Half the time true
Mostly true
Always true
Declined to answer

32. I can cope with whatever challenges come at me as I work to keep safe.
33. I have to give up too much to keep safe.
34. I know what to do in response to threats to my safety.
35. I have a good idea about what kinds of support for safety I can get from people in
my community (friends, family, neighbors, people in my faith community, etc).
36. I know what my next steps are on the path to keep safe.
37. Working to keep safe creates (or will create) new problems for me.
38. When something doesn’t work to keep safe, I can try something else.
39. I feel comfortable asking for help to keep safe.
40. When I think about keeping safe, I have a clear sense of my goals for the next few
years.
41. Working to keep safe creates (or will create) new problems for people I care about.
42. I feel confident in the decisions I make to keep safe.
43. I have a good idea about what kinds of support for safety I can get from community
programs and services.
44. Community programs and services provide support I need to keep safe.

____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____

Now I want to ask you just a few more questions, but will read you the answer options. Please
tell me the answer that best fits your experience at Cornerstone.
45. How would you rate the quality of services you receive thus far? Would you say they are:
1
Poor

2
Fair

3
Good

4
Excellent

46. Did you get the kind of services you wanted? Would you say:
1
Definitely not

2
No, not really

3
Yes, generally

4
Yes, definitely

47. To what extent has this program met your needs? Would you say:
1
None of my needs
have been met

2
Only a few of my
needs have been met

3
Most of my needs
have been met

4
All of my needs have
been met

48. If a friend were in need of similar help, would you recommend this program to them? Would
you say:
173

1
No, definitely not

2
No, I don’t think so

3
Yes, I think so

4
Yes, definitely

49. How satisfied are you with the amount of help you have received?
1
Quite dissatisfied

2
Indifferent, or mildly
dissatisfied

3
Mostly satisfied

4
Very satisfied

50. Have the services you receive helped you deal more effectively with your problems? Would
you say:
1
No, they seemed to
make things worse

2
No, they really didn’t
help

3
Yes, they helped

4
Yes, they helped a
great deal

51. In a general sense, how satisfied are you with the services you received? Would you say:
1
2
3
4
Quite dissatisfied
Indifferent, or mildly
Mostly satisfied
Very satisfied
dissatisfied
52. If you were to seek help again, would you come back to this program?
1
No, definitely not

2
No, I don’t think so

3
Yes, I think so

4
Yes, definitely

53. (TIME ON RECORDER: _________) How does DASH differ, if it does, from other
organizations that you have received services from?

54. Can you tell me about the specific ways that Cornerstone has impacted your life? (Probe
about social, emotional, and environmental aspects of Cornerstone programming that could
have been impactful).

174

55. How, if at all, do you think aspects of your identity (e.g., race, gender, class) either positively
and negatively influences your ability to get resources you need?
a. Can you tell me about the different ways, if at all, that DASH staff has increased your
knowledge about how racism, sexism, and classism or other types of discrimination
influence the lives of people surviving violence?

56. Is there anything that we should talk about that you think is important but that I haven’t
asked about?
Part 4: Demographics
This is the last section of the interview. I want to ask you some general questions about yourself
just so that we know who participated in this study overall and if people’s answers differed by
anything like age or whether they were parenting. We combine this information across
participants and also feel free to pass on any question you don’t feel like answering.
1. How long have you been living at Cornerstone? _____ (Probe to get the most accurate
answer. You can ask for the day they moved into the cornerstone program. Give answers in
days.)
2. What is your race or ethnic background?__________________ [. Do not read the following
responses. Have the participant state it in their own words, and then code after the
interview is over. If they are multi-racial, ask them to be specific.]
African American

1

African

2

Asian

3

White/Caucasian

4

Hispanic/Latino/a

5

White/Caucasian

6

Asian Pacific Islander

7

Native American/Alaska Native

8

Multi-racial

9

Middle Eastern

10
175

Other (___________________)

11

3. What is your gender? _______
4. How old are you? ______
5. What is your sexual orientation? ________________ . [Do not read the following responses.
Have the participant state it in their own words, and then code after the interview is over.]
Heterosexual/Straight

1

Lesbian

2

Gay

3

Bisexual

4

Other (___________________) 5
6. What’s your educational level now?
8th grade or less
th

th

9 to 12 grade

1
2

High school graduate or GED 3
Vocational School

4

Some college

5

College graduate (AA, BA)

6

Advanced degree

7

7. Were you born in the United States? ________________
If no, where is your country of origin? _______________
8. What is your primary language? ________________________________
9. How would you describe your current financial situation? Would you say:
1
I do not worry about paying for things I want and need.
2
I can easily pay my bills but need to be careful.
3
I can pay my regular bills but a bill that was bigger than
usual would cause a hardship.
4
I have trouble paying my regular bills.
5
I simply can’t pay my bills.

10. Please indicate the extent to which the following statement is true on a scale from 0 to 4,
using the BLUE card:
These days I can generally afford to buy the things I want.

176

0
Not at all true

1

2

3

4
Very True

9
Declined to
answer

4
Very True

9
Declined to
answer

These days I can generally afford to buy the things I need.
0
Not at all true

1

2

3

11. Do you consider yourself to have a physical disability or disabling condition? ______
a. If yes, what is your primary physical disability?

b. If yes, does it interfere with your daily functioning?

12. Do you struggle with mental health issues? ______
c. If yes, what is your primary mental health issue?

d. If yes, does it interfere with your daily functioning?

13. Are you:
Employed full time
Employed part-time
Unemployed
In the military
Retired
Volunteering
Student/enrolled in a training program
Other (________________________)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Thank you for your time for time on this interview. Your answers were very helpful. (TIME ON
RECORDER: _________)
After we collect this information, we would like to invite Cornerstone residents together to talk
about the information that came from these surveys. It would be a one-time conversation with
177

other residents at Cornerstone. Would you be interested in participating in something like this?
Yes, I would be interested.
Not sure; maybe
No, I would not be interested
General Reflections:

Post-Interview Checklist
Pay the participant $25. Have participant sign receipt!
Check interview for missing information. Make detailed notes about interview.
Call Nkiru (402.598.6383).
Enter in data into SPSS. Enter qualitative information in personal audit trail.
Return recorder, completed interview, signed receipt, envelope & response cards to office
within 24 hrs.

178

APPENDIX I: Survivor Focus Group Protocol
Meeting Agenda
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Welcome and Introductions
Purpose of Focus Group
Group Rules
Focus Group Questions
Conclusion

Welcome & Introduction
Thank you for joining us today. I am happy that you have been able to come
and share your perspectives with us.
Purpose
I am so glad that you are here today. You may remember Stephanie and me
from interviews. We have collected all of the data, and analyzed your
responses. However, we are here to make sure that we are on the right track
and are interpreting things in a way that really aligned with what residents are
saying.
You all expressed interest in participating in this group.
For the next 90 minutes, I am going to read some statements to you that came
from the data. However, Stephanie and I want to make sure that we
understood and interpreted everything correctly. When I read the statement, I
want you to think about whether you feel it represents your personal, and
potentially others experience of DASH.
Overall, we just want to confirm that we are on the right track.
Do you have any questions for me?
Group Rules
1. There are not right or wrong answers
2. What is said in this room stays in this room
Also, please know that we will be tape recording the interview. However, this is
still confidential. What you say specifically will not be shared with the staff.
179

Focus Group Questions
Entry Questions
What brought you here today? (Round robin question)
Engagement Questions
1. DASH housing is a better housing option compared to other places like
domestic violence shelters or transitional housing programs. It seems like this
is related to the fact that people feel like they have a lot of freedom here to
pursue their own lives.
2. People have also stated that there is a wide range of ways that they benefit
from DASH, primarily it seems like having your own place to live that you do
not have to share with others is particularly helpful.
3. It seems that staying at Cornerstone generally had a positive impact of
resident lives. People have described it most commonly as a blessing.
4. People also talk about receiving practical support like transportation and
other housing support that is helpful, this seems to be greatly endorsed
compared to emotional support that they receive.
5. One thing that I find interesting is that it seems like more people discuss
staying to themselves rather than reaching out for support from staff or other
residents.
6. There are really good advocates here at Cornerstone. It seems like it is the
practical and emotional support that you get from them that makes them
happy.
7. It seems to be that there were also times when people felt dissatisfied with
the support that was being offered. This was related to feeling like they were
being treated unfairly.
8. There were a lot of changes that have been happening at DASH over the
last few years/months. This has included advocate turnover or change in the
rules.
9. There is a sense at the hiring practices at DASH have to be improved.

180

10. Confidentiality of information was identified as an issue, specifically with the
understanding that staff shares information between staff or with other
residents.
11. There is a need for more programming designated for adult women at DASH.
Can you provide an example of this?
12. Many people felt that DASH was good for nor, but there seems like DASH
does not seem to provide a lot of support or options once your two years are
up. Many people believed that there is a need for more programming.
Exit Questions
Is there anything else you want to share us about the findings?

181

APPENDIX J: Bayesian CFA Factor Loadings for DASH Model Practices Subscales
Posterior Means and Posterior Standardized Deviations for Bayesian Confirmatory Factor
Analysis for DASH Model Practices
Table 40: Posterior Means and Posterior Standardized Deviations for DASH Model Practices
Item

Sovereignty
Encourage me to
be who I am
Respect the
choices that I
make
Treat me with
dignity
Understand that I
know what’s best
for me
Empowerment
Help me reach out
to organizations
outside of DASH
in order to get the
resources I need
Provide me with
the tools I need to
accomplish my
goals
Work with me
step by step to
accomplish my
goals
Help me to find
resources I need
Help me to define
successes on my
own terms
Provide me with
the information
that I need to
make my own
choices

Posterior Mean

95% CI

Posterior
Standard
Deviation

Error
Variance

95% CI

1.00 a

__

--

0.22

[0.18,0.94]

1.12

[0.74,1.75]

0.25

0.17

[0.03,0.36]

0.99

[0.49,1.65]

0.29

0.59

[0.32,1.02]

1.01

[0.65,1.55]

0.23

0.12

[0.07,0.39]

1.17

[0.79,1.761] 0.26

0.43

[0.21,0.78]

1.00 a

--

--

0.43

[0.22,0.79]

1.03

[0.66,1.60]

0.25

0.45

[0.24,0.86]

1.00

[0.68,1.48]

0.22

0.25

[0.11,0.49]

0.90

[0.60,1.39]

0.22

0.40

[0.21,0.74]

1.08

[0.74,1.61]

0.24

0.29

[0.12,0.55]

182

Table 40 (cont’d)
Accountability
Respond to my
needs promptly
Are flexible
Follow up with me
when I make a
request
Clearly explains
how this program
works
Compassion
Believe me when I
share things about
my life
Listen to me
Care about me
Work to
understand my
situation
Care about my
children
Accept me for
who I am
Integrity
Are honest with
me about what
they can and
cannot do
Are consistent
with me
Are trustworthy
Partnerships
Work with me to
help me make my
goals a reality
Make me feel like
we are working as
a team
Provide
opportunity for us
to learn from one
another
Are on my side

1.00

--

--

0.34

[0.10,0.71]

1.10
0.83

[0.67,1.71]
[0.51,1.26]

0.28
0.20

0.44
0.33

[0.14,0.87]
[0.15,0.62]

.97

[0.53,1.57]

0.28

0.69

[0.35,1.24]

0.57

[0.31,0.85]

0.13

0.44

[0.59,1.98]

0.60
1.00 a
0.98

[0.40,0.82]
-[0.68,1.32]

0.12
0.16

0.26
0.11
0.48

[0.14,0.45]
[-0.02,0.31]
[0.23,0.89]

0.45

[0.27,0.65]

0.10

0.21

[0.11,0.40]

0.84

[0.60,1.11]

0.12

0.32

[0.16,0.57]

0.98

[0.63,1.36]

0.19

0.50

[0.16,1.00]

1.00 a

--

--

0.05

[-0.35,0.37]

0.82

[0.49,1.17]

0.18

0.62

[0.31,1.13]

0.82

[0.60, 1.06]

0.19

0.30

[0.14,0.56]

1.00 a

--

--

0.08

[-0.10,0.29]

0.76

[0.46,1.08]

0.16

0.75

[0.43,1.29]

0.90

[0.64,1.19]

0.14

0.46

[0.22,0.83]

183

Table 40 (cont’d)
(Re)centering
Help me move 0.87
[0.44,1.47] 0.25
forward when
I feel stuck
Notice when 0.79
[0.31,1.44] 0.28
things are out
of the ordinary
for me
Provide me 1.00 a
--time to learn at
my own pace
Help me find 0.97
[0.62,1.47] 0.20
ways to
manage stress
Help me learn 0.94
[0.53,1.60] 0.26
different ways
of dealing with
feeling
overwhelmed
Note: Dashes (--) indicate the standard error was not estimated.

184

0.71

[0.37,1.26]

0.99

[0.54,1.72]

0.37

[0.08,0.76]

0.39

[0.53,0.79]

0.53

[0.21,1.02]

APPENDIX K: Bayesian CFA Factor Loadings for Survivor Empowerment Subscale
Posterior Standardized Deviations for Bayesian Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Survivor
Empowerment
Table 41: Posterior Standardized Deviations for Survivor Empowerment
Item
Posterior Mean
95% CI
Posterior
Error
Standard
Variance
Deviation
Community
I have a greater 1.58
[0.90,2.91]
0.53
0.62
understanding
that if one
organization
cannot help me
there will be
another that can.
I have a greater 1.03
[0.44,1.70]
0.38
0.98
understanding
that I am not
alone.
I am better able 0.98
[0.44,1.70]
0.34
0.88
to get
information that
will help me.
I am more 1.00 a
-0.66
comfortable
asking for help.
Consciousness
I have a greater 1.07
[0.44,1.97]
0.37
1.88
understanding of
how racist
systems make it
difficult for
survivors to
protect
themselves and
their children.
I have a greater 1.22
[0.70,2.09]
0.33
0.85
understanding
that I have the
right to be angry
about what I’ve
experienced.

185

95% CI

[-0.12,1.49]

[0.49,1.75]

[0.42,1.56]

[0.26,1.30]

[1.06,3.22]

[0.42,1.53]

Table 41 (cont’d)
I have a greater
understanding of
how sexist
systems make it
difficult for
survivors to
protect
themselves and
their children.
I have a greater
understanding of
how common DV
is.
I have a greater
understanding of
how domestic
violence affects
me.
I have a greater
understanding
that survivors are
not to blame for
being abused in a
relationship.
I have a greater
understanding of
the causes of
domestic
violence.
I have a greater
understanding
that together with
other survivors, I
can have a part in
ending violence
against women.
Confidence
I am better at
deciding what
I want for my
life.

1.42

[0.58,2.06]

0.36

1.30

[0.70,2.29]

1.00 a

--

--

0.34

[0.12,0.74]

0.88

[0.53,1.42]

0.21

0.50

[0.26,0.89]

0.94

[0.62,1.53]

0.22

0.32

[0.15,0.59]

1.07

[0.60,1.82]

0.29

0.93

[0.51,1.61]

0.86

[0.34,1.55]

0.29

1.41

[0.81,2.41]

1.10

[0.64,1.64]

0.26

1.03

[0.59,1.76]

186

Table 41 (cont’d)
I trust myself 1.20
[0.81,1.68]
0.23
and my
decisions
more.
I am more 1.06
[0.60,1.60]
0.25
able to
achieve goals
I set for
myself.
I am better at 1.05
[0.77,1.43]
0.18
knowing
what steps to
take to
achieve my
goals.
I am more 1.23
[0.87,1.70]
0.22
confident
about the
decisions I
make.
I have a 1.16
[0.91,1.52]
0.16
greater
understanding
that I have
the ability to
make changes
in my own
life.
I have a 0.95
[0.67,1.31]
0.17
greater sense
of freedom to
make changes
in my own
life.
I can do more 1.04
[0.70,1.48]
0.20
things on my
own.
I am better at 1.00 a
--figuring out
how to handle
problems that
arise in my
life.
Note: Dashes (--) indicate the standard error was not estimated.

187

0.65

[0.36,1.12]

1.00

[0.57,1.71]

0.31

[0.16,0.54]

0.52

[0.28,0.91]

0.12

[0.04,0.25]

0.28

[0.42,0.49]

0.49

[0.27,0.84]

0.21

[0.10,0.40]

APPENDIX L: Staff Member Recruitment Email
Dear ____,
I hope this email finds you well! I am excited to tell you that I plan to start individual staff
interviews this week. The purpose of these interviews is to explore your experiences
working at DASH, and to gain your insight for organizational improvement. You have been
selected to participate in these interviews because you have worked at DASH for at least
two weeks, provided direct services to clients and/or provided direct supervision to
employees who provide direct services. Your participation in this study is voluntary, and any
information that you provide during the interview will be kept completely confidential. I
anticipate that interviews will last approximately 1 to 1 ½ hours. All interviews will take
place face-to-face. We can do the interview at DASH, or in a confidential location of your
choice.
If you are interested in participating in an individual interview, please send me an
email with your preferred day, 2 hour time slot, and ideal location. I am extremely
flexible with my schedule, and if none of the tentative times below work for you, please let
me know. We can schedule something that is a better fit for your schedule. If you are not
interested in participating in an interview, please send me an email me back to let me
know. I will remove your name from my list.
Thanks in advance for your consideration. If you have additional questions, please feel free
to contact me by phone(402.xxx.xxx) or by email (nkirunnawulezi@gmail.com).
I look forward to hearing from you soon!
Tentative Interview Time Slots
Thursday, 4/10 (9:00 – 6:00)
Friday, 4/11 (1:00 – 6:00)
Saturday, 4/12 (10:00 – 3:00)
Monday, 4/14 (9:00 – 1:00)
Tuesday, 4/15 (9:00 – 8:00)
Wednesday, 4/16 (9:00 – 1:00)
Thursday, 4/17 (3:00 – 7:00)
Friday, 4/18 (1:00 – 6:00)
Saturday (10:00 – 3:00)
Monday, 4/21 (9:00 – 8:00)
Tuesday, 4/22 (9:00 – 8:00)
Wednesday, 4/23 (9:00 – 5:00)
Monday, 4/28 (9:00 – 8:00)
Wednesday, 4/30 (9:00 – 1:00)

188

APPENDIX M: Survivor Recruitment Form
Figure 8: Survivor Recruitment Flyer

Are you over the
age of 18?
Have you lived in
Cornerstone for at
least 2 weeks?
If so, we would
love to hear from
you!

Image taken from www.igniteyourtruth.com

Interested and eligible residents will have the
opportunity to participate in a one-time, confidential
interview asking about your experiences in the DASH
Cornerstone Program.

Each person will receive $25 for their participation!

This study is the result of a collaborative
partnership between the Research Consortium
on Gender-Based Violence at Michigan State
University & District Alliance for Safe housing

189

REFERENCES

190

REFERENCES

Adams, A. E., Sullivan, C. M., Bybee, D., & Greeson, M. R. (2008). Development of the scale of
economic abuse. Violence Against Women, 14(5), 563-588. doi:
10.1177/1077801208315529
Agbenyiga, D.L. (2011). Organizational culture influence on service delivery: A mixed methods
design in a child welfare setting. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(10), 17671778.
Bamberger, M., & Oswald, R. (2010). From the editors: Moving forward by looking back:
Reclaiming unconventional research contexts and samples in organizational scholarship.
Academy of Management, 53(4), 665-671.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
Baran, M., Lindland, E., Kendall-Taylor, N., & Kohut, M. (2013). “Handed to them on a plate”:
Mapping the gaps between expert and public understandings of human services.
Frameworks Institute: Washington D.C.
Bell, H., Kulkarni, S., & Dalton, L. (2003). Organizational prevention of vicarious trauma.
Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 8(4), 463 – 470.
Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walter, M. L., Merrick, M. T., & Stevens,
M. R. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS):
2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Blitz, L.V. & Illidge, L.C. (2006). Not so black and white: Shades of gray and brown in antiracist
multicultural team building in a domestic violence shelter. Journal of Emotional Abuse,
6(2-3), 113-134.
Bloom, S.L. (2005). The sanctuary model of organizational change for children’s residential
treatment. Therapeutic Community: The International Journal for Therapeutic and
Supportive Organizations, 26(1), 65-81.
Boehm, A. & Yoels, N. (2009). Effectiveness of welfare organizations: The contribution of
leadership styles, staff cohesion, and worker empowerment. British of Social Work, 39,
1360-1380.
Boswell, W. (2006). Aligning employees with the organization’s strategic objectives: out of ‘line
of sight’, out of mind. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(9),
1489-1511.

191

Boswell, W.R., & Boudreau, J.W. (2001). How leading companies create, measure and achieve
strategic results through “line of sight”. Management Decision, 10,851-859.
Bowen, G.A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research
Journal, 9(2), 27-40.
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3, 77 – 101.
Brodsky, A.E., & Cattaneo, L.B. (2013). A transconceptual model of empowerment and
resilience: Divergence, convergence and interactions in kindred community concepts.
American Journal of Community, 52 (3-4), 333-346.
Buller, P.F., & McEvoy, G.M. (2012). Strategy, human resource management and performance:
Sharpening line of sight. Human Resource Management Review, 22, 43-56.
Busch, N.B. & Valentine, D. (2000). Empowerment practice: A focus on battered women.
Affilia, 15(1), 82-85.
Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications,
and programming. New York: Routledge.
Campbell, J.C., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, J., Block, C., Campbell, D.,…Langhon, K. (2003).
Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: Results from a multisite case control
study. American Journal of Public Health, 93(7), 1089-1097.
Campbell, R., Sullivan, C.M., & Davidson, W.S. (1995). Women who use domestic violence
shelters: Changes in depression over time. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19, 237-255.
Cattaneo, L.B. & Goodman, L.A. (2015). What is empowerment anyway? A model for domestic
violence practice, research and evaluation. Psychology of Violence,5(1), 84-94.
Cattaneo, L.B., & Chapman, A.R. (2010) The process of empowerment. American Psychologist,
65(7), 646-659.
Cattaneo, L.B., Calton, J.M., & Brodksy, A.E. (2014). Status quo versus status quake: Putting the
power back in empowerment. Journal of Community Psychology, 42(4), 433-446.
Chen, L.Y. (2004). Examining the effect of organizational culture and leadership behaviors on
organizational commitment, job satisfaction and job performance at small and middlesized firms of taiwan. The Journal of American Academy of Business, 5(1/2), 432-438.
Chow, I.H.S., & Liu, S.S. (2009). The effect of aligning organizational culture and business
strategy with HR systems on firm performance in Chinese enterprises. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(11), 2292-2310.
Chronister, K.M. & McWhirter, E.H. (2006). An experimental examination of two career
interventions for battered women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(2), 151-164.
192

Coker, A. L., Davis, K. E., Arias, I., Desai, S., Sanderson, M., Brandt, H. M., … Smith, P. H.
(2002). Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and
women. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 24(4), 260-268.
Collins, C.C. & Dressler, W.W. (2008). Cultural consensus and cultural diversity: A mixed
methods investigation of human service providers’ models of domestic violence. Journal
of Mixed Methods Research, 2(4), 362 - 387.
Collins, K.M.T., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Jiao, Q.G. (2006). Prevalence of mixed-methods
sampling designs in social science research. Evaluation & Research in Education, 19(2),
81-101.
Collins, K.M.T., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Sutton, I.L. (2006). A model incorporating the rationale
and purpose for conducting mixed-methods research in special education and behavior.
Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4(1), 67-100.
Cooke, R.A., & Rousseau, D.M. (1988). Behavioral norms and expectations: A quantitative
approach to assessment of organizational culture. Group and Organization
Studies,13(3),245-273.
Creswell, J.W., Plano Clark, V.L., Gutmann, M.L., & Hanson, W.E. (2003). Advancing mixed
methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of Mixed
Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (pp. 209-240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
D’Enbeau, S. & Kunkel, A. (2013). (Mis)manged empowerment: Exploring paradoxes of
practice in domestic violence prevention. Journal of Applied Community Research, 41(2),
141-159.
Davis, L. V., & Srinivasan, M. (1995). Listening to the voices of battered women: What helps
them escape violence. Affilia, 10, 45-69.
Davis, L.V., Hagen, J.L., & Early, T.J. (1994). Social services for battered women: Are they
adequate, accessible, and appropriate? Social Work, 39(6), 695-704.
Denison, D.R. & Spreitzer, G.M. (1991). Organizational culture and organizational development:
A competing values approach. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 5,
1 – 21.
District Alliance for Safe Housing (2013). Welcome to Cornerstone: Participant Handbook.
Washington, D.C.
Dobash, R., & Dobash, R. (1992). Women, Violence, and Social Change. New York:
Routlegdge.
Donnelly, D. A., Cook, K. J. & Wilson, L. A. (1999). Provision and exclusion: The dual face of
services to battered women in three deep south states. Violence Against Women, 5, 710741. doi: 10.1177/10778019922181455
193

Donnelly, D. A., Cook, K.J., Ausdale, D., & Foley, L. (2005). White privilege, color blindness,
and services to battered women. Violence against women, 11, 6-37. doi:
10.1177/1077801204271431.
Edgell, S.E., & Noon, S.E. (1984). Effect of violation of normality on the t test of the correlation
coefficient. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 576-583.
Elo, S. & Kyngas, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing,
62(1), 107-115.
Epstein, S.R., Russell, G., & Silvern, L. (1988). Structure and ideology of shelters for battered
women. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16(3), 345 – 367.
Feinberg, F.M., & Gonzalez, R. (2012). Bayesian modeling for psychologists: An applied
approach. In H. Cooper (Ed.), APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology
(pp.445 – 464).Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Ferraro, K.J. (1983). Negotiating trouble in a battered women’s shelter. Urban Life, 12(3), 287306.
Flyvberg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry,
12(2), 219 - 245.
Ford, R.C., Wilderom, C.P.M., & Caparella, J. (2008). Strategically crafting a customer-focused
culture: an inductive case study. Journal of Strategy and Management, 1(2), 143-167.
Foster-Fishman, P.G., & Keys, C.B. (1997). The person/environment dynamics of employee
empowerment: An organizational culture analysis. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 23(3), 345 – 369.
Fowler, D.N. & Hill, H.M. (2004). Social support and spirituality as culturally relevant factors in
coping among african american women survivors of partner abuse. Violence Against
Women, 10(11), 1267-1282.
Gelman, A., Carlin, J., Stern, H., & Rubin, D. (2004). Bayesian Data Analysis (2 ed.). Boca
Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
Gillum, T. L. (2009). Improving services to African American survivors of IPV: From the voices
of recipients of culturally-specific services. Violence Against Women, 57(1), 57-80. doi:
10.1177/1077801208328375.
Glisson, C. (2002). The organizational context of children’s mental health services. Clinical
Child and Family Psychology Review, 5(4), 233-253.
Glisson, C. (2007). Assessing and changing organizational culture and climate for effective
services. Research on Social Work Practice, 17(6), 736 -747.

194

Glisson, C., & James, L.R. (2002). The cross-level effects of culture and climate in human
services teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(6), 797-794.
Glisson, C., Schoenwald, S.K., Kelleher, K., Landsverk, J., Hoagwood, K.E.,…The Research
Network on Youth Mental Health (2008). Therapist turnover and new program
sustainability in mental health clinics as a function of organizational culture, climate, and
service structure. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health
Services Research, 35, 124-133.
Goodkind, J. R., Sullivan, C. M., & Deborah, B. (2004). A contextual analysis of battered
women's safety planning. Violence Against Women, 10(5), 514-533.
Goodman, L.A., Bennett Cattaneo, L., Thomas, K., Woulfe, J., Chong, S.K., & Fels Smyth, K.
(2014a). Advancing domestic violence program evaluation: Development and validation
of the measure of victim empowerment related to safety (MOVERS). Psychology of
Violence. Advanced online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0038318
Goodman, L.A., Thomas, K., Cattaneo, L.B., Heimel, D., Woulfe, J., & Chong, S. K. (2014b).
Survivor-defined practice in domestic violence work: Measure development and
preliminary evidence of link to empowerment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.
Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/0886260514555131
Greene, J.C., Caracelli, V.J., & Graham, W.F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for
mixed-method evaluation design. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3),
255-274.
Gruys, M.L., Stewert, S.M., Goodstein, J., Bing, M.N., & Wicks, A.C. (2008). Values enactment
in organizations: A multi-level examination. Journal of Management, 34(4), 806-843.
Gutiérrez, L., & Lewis, E. (1999) Empowering women of color. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Gutiérrez, L.,GlenMaye, L., & DeLois, K. (1995). The organizational context of empowerment
practice: Implications for social work administration. Social Work, 42(2), 249 – 258.
Gutiérrez, L.M. (1995). Understanding the empowerment process: does consciousness make a
difference? Social Work Research, 19(4), 229-237.
Gutiérrez, L.M., DeLois, K.A., & GlenMaye, L. (1995). Understanding empowerment practice:
Building on practitioner-based knowledge. Families in Society, 76(9), 534-542.
Hartnell, C.A., Ou, A.Y., & Kinicki, A. (2011). Organizational culture and organizational
effectiveness: A meta-analytic investigation of the competing values framework’s
theoretical suppositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 677-694.
Heise, L.L. (1998). Violence against women: An integrated ecological framework Violence
Against Women, 4(3), 262-290.

195

Helfrich, C.A., Aviles, A.M., Badiani, C., Welens, D., & Sabol, P. (2006). Life skill
interventions with homeless youth, domestic violence victims and adults with mental
illness. Occupational Therapy in Health Care,20(3-4), 189-207.
Henning, K.R. & Klesges, L.M (2002). Utilization of counseling and supportive services by female
victims of abuse. Violence and Victims, 17(5), 623 – 636,
Humphrey, S.E., Nahrgang, J.D., & Moregeson, F.P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social,
and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension
of the word design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1332-1356.
Iyangar, R., & Sabik,L. (2009). The dangerous shortage of domestic violence services. Health Affairs,
28(6), 1052-1065.
Iyengar, R., Sabik, L., Southworth, c., Tucker, S., & Fraser, C. (2008). 50,000 people a day: The use of
federally funded services for intimate partner violence. National Bureau of Economic Research:
Cambridge, MA.
Johnson, B., & Turner, L.A. (2003) Data collection strategies in mixed methods research. In A.
Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral
Research (pp. 297-320). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Johnson, M.P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of
violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57(2), 283-294.
Johnson, R.B. & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm
whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
Kasturirangan, A. (2008). Empowerment and programs designed to address domestic violence.
Violence Against Women, 14(12), 1465-1475.
Kasturirangan, A., Krishnan, S., & Riger, S. (2004). The impact of culture and minority status on
women’s experience of domestic violence. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 5(4), 318-332.
Keith, T.Z. (2006). Multiple regression and beyond. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Kim, H., & Stoner, M. (2008). Burnout and turnover intention among social workers: effects of
role stress, job autonomy and social support. Administration in Social Work, 32(3), 5-25.
Kimmel, M.S. (2002). “Gender symmetry” in domestic violence: A substantive and
methodological review. Violence Against Women, 8(11), 1322-1363.
Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York:
Guilford Press.
Kubiak, S.P., Nnawulezi, N., Karim, N., Sullivan, C.M., & Beeble, M.L. (2012). Examining
disclosure of physical and sexual victimization by method in samples of women involved
in the criminal justice system. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 51(3), 161-175.
196

Lacey, K.K., McPherson, M.D., Samuel, P.S., Sears, K.P., & Head, Doreen. (2013). The impact
of different types of intimate parnter violence on the mental and physical health of
women in different ethnic groups. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(2), 359-385.
Le, L.T., Anthony, B.J., Bronheim, S.M., Holland, C.M., & Perry, D.F. (2014). A technical
assistance model for guiding service and systems change. The Journal of Behavioral
Health Services & Research. Advanced online publication. doi: 10.1007/s11414-0149439-2
Lehrner, A. & Allen, N.E. (2009). Still a movement after all these years?: Current tensions in the
domestic violence movement. Violence Against Women, 15(6), 656-677.
Lund, D.B. (2003). Organizational culture and job satisfaction. Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, 18(3), 219-236.
Macy, R.J., Giattina, M.C., Nontijo, N.J., & Ermentrout, D.M. (2010). Domestic violence and
sexual assault agency directors’ perspectives on services that help survivors. Violence
Against Women, 16(10), 1138-1161.
McDermott, M.J., & Garofalo, J. (2004). When advocacy for domestic violence victim backfires:
Types and sources of victim disempowerment. Violence Against Women, 11(11), 1245 –
1266.
McFarlane, J., Symes, L., Maddoux, J., Gilroy, H., & Koci, A. (2014). Is length of shelter stay
and receipt of a protection order associated with less violence and better functioning for
abused women? Outcome data 4 months after receiving services. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 29(15), 2748-2774.
Melton, H.C., & Belknap, J. (2003). He hits, she hits: Assessing gender differences and
similarities in officially reported intimate partner violence. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 30(3), 328-348.
Mertens, D.M. (2008). Transformative research and evaluation. New York: The Guilford Press.
Mertens, D.M. (2012). Transformative mixed methods: Addressing Inequities. American
Behavioral Scientist, 56(6), 802-813.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods
Sourcebook (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Newman, I., Ridenour, C.S., Newman, C., & Paul DeMarco, G.M. (2003) A typology of research
purposes and its relationship to mixed methods. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.),
Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (pp. 167-188).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Nichols, A.J. (2011). Gendered organizations: Challenges for domestic violence victim
advocates and feminist advocacy. Feminist Criminology, 6(2), 111-131.

197

Nichols, A.J. (2013). Survivor-defined practices to mitigate revictimization of battered women in
the protective order process. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(7) 1403-1423. doi:
10.1177/0886260512468243
Nnawulezi, N. & Sullivan, C.M. (2013). Oppression within safe spaces: Exploring racial
microaggressions within domestic violence shelters. Journal of Black Psychology, 40(6),
563-591.
O’Reilly, C.A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D.F. (1991). Academy of Management Journal, 34(3),
487-516.
Odom, R.Y., Boxx, W.R., & Dunn, M.G. (1990). Organizational cultures, commitment,
satisfaction, and cohesion. Public Productivity & Management Review, 14(2), 157 -169.
Onwuegbuzie, A.J. & Collins, K.M.T. (2007). A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in
social science research. The Qualitative Report, 12(2), 281-316.
Onwuegbuzie, A.J. & Johnson, R.B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in
the Schools, 23(1), 48 - 63.
Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Leech, N.L. (2006). Linking research questions to mixed methods data
analysis procedures. The Qualitative Report, 11(3), 474-498.
Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A.J., & Muhammad, R.S. (2012). Organizational culture and climate. In
Weiner, I.B., Schmitt, N.W., & Highhouse, S., Handbook of Psychology (2nd ed.), 643676. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Panzer, P.G., Philip, M.B., & Hayward, R.A. (2000) Trends in domestic violence service and
leadership: Implications for an integrated shelter model. Administration and Policy in
Mental Health, 27(5),339-352.
Patton, M.Q. (2008). Utilization-Focused Evaluation. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Perez, S., Johnson, D.M., & Wright, C.V. (2012). The attenuating effect of empowerment on
IPV-related PTSD symptoms in battered women living in domestic violence shelters.
Violence Against Women, 18(1), 102-117.
Perez, S., Johnson, D.M., Wright, C.V. (2012). The attenuating effect of empowerment on ipvrelated ptsd symptoms in battered women living in domestic violence shelters. Violence
Against Women, 18(1), 102-117.
Peterson, N.A., & Speer, P.W. (2000). Linking organizational characteristics to psychological
empowerment. Administration in Social Work, 24(4), 39-58.
Peterson, N.A., & Zimmerman, M.A. (2004). Beyond the individual: Toward a nomological
network of organizational empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology,
34(1/2), 129 – 145

198

Rappaport (1987) Terms of empowerment/exmplars of prevention: Toward a theory for
community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology , 13(2), 121-148.
Roberts, A.R., & Lewis, S.J. (2000). Giving them shelter: National organization survey of
shelters for battered women and their children. Journal of Community Psychology, 28(6),
669-681.
Rodriguez, N.M. (1988). Transcending bureaucracy: Feminist politics at a shelter for battered
women. Gender and Society, 2(2), 214-227.
Roth, D. & Crane-Ross, D. (2002). Impact of services, met needs, and service empowerment on
consumer outcomes. Mental Health Services Research, 4(1), 43 – 56.
Schein, E.H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: JosseyBass.
Schmuckler, M.A. (2001). What is ecological validity. Infancy, 2(4), 419-436.
Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M.G., & Macey, W.H. (2013). Organizational climate and culture.
Annual Review of Psychology,64, 361-388.
Schollenberger, J., Campbell, J., Sharps, P.W., O’Campo, P., Gielen, A.C., Dienemann, J. &
Kub, J. (2003). African american hmo enrollees: Their experiences with partner abuse
and its effect on their health and use of medical services. Violence Against Women, 9(5),
599-618.
Schulz, A.J., Israel, B.A., Zimmerman, M.A., & Chechoway, B.N. (1995). Empowerment as a
multi-level construct: perceived control at the individual, organizational and community
levels. Health Education Research, 10(3), 309-327.
Semler, S.W. (1997). Systematic agreement: A theory of organizational alignment. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 8(1), 23 – 40.
Simmons, C.A., Farrar, M., Frazer, K., & Thompson, M.J. (2011). From the voices of women:
Facilitating survivor access to IPV services. Violence Against Women, 17(10), 12261243.
Slattery, S.M. & Goodman, L.A. (2009). Secondary traumatic stress among domestic violence
advocates: Workplace risk and protective factors. Violence Against Women, 15(11), 1358
– 1379.
Smyth, K.F., Goodman, L., & Glen, C. (2006). The full-frame approach: A new response to
marginalized women left behind by specialized services. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 76(4), 489-502.
Song, X. & Lee, S. (2012). Bayesian and Advanced Bayesian Structural Equation Modeling with
Applications in the Medical and Behavioral Sciences. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons,
Ltd.
199

Spiegelhalter, D.J., Best, N.G., Carlin, B.P., & van der Linde, A. (2002). Bayesian measures of
model complexity and fit. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 64(4), 583-639.
Srinivasan, M., & Davis, L.V. (1991). A shelter: An organization like any other? Affilia, 6(1), 38
– 57.
Stiffman, A.R., Striley, C., Horvath, V.E., Hadley-Ives, Polgar, M.,…Pescarino, R. (2001).
Organizational context and provider perception as determinants of mental health service
use. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 28(2), 188-204.
Sugarman, D.B. & Frankel, S.L. (1996). Patriarchal ideology and wife assault: A meta-analytic
review. Journal of Family Violence, 11(1),13-40.
Sullivan, C.M. & Bybee, D.I. (1999). Reducing violence using community-based advocacy for
women with abusive partners. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(1), 4353.
Sullivan, C.M. (2012). Examining the work of domestic violence programs within a “social and
emotional well-being promotion” conceptual framework. Harrisburg, PA: National
Resource Center on Domestic Violence.
Sullivan, C.M., & Gillum, T.L. (2001). Shelters and community-based services for battered
women and their children. In C. Renzetti, J. Edelson, & R.K. Bergen (eds.), Sourcebook
on Violence Against Women (pp. 247 – 260). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
Inc.
Sullivan, C.M., Baptisa, I., O’halloran, S., Okroj, L., Moton, S., & Stewart, C.S. (2008).
Evaluating the effectiveness of women’s refuges: A mutli-country approach to model
development. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 32(2),
291 – 308.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed
methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.),
Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research (pp. 3 - 50). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Thompson, M.P., Kaslow, N.J., Kingree, J.B., Rashid, A., Puett, R….Matthews, A. (2000).
Partner violence, social support, and distress among inner-city african american women.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 28(1),127-143.
Torrance, H. (2012). Triangulation, respondent validation, and democratic participation in mixed
methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 111-123.
Tutty, L.M., Weaver, G., & Rothery, M.A. (1999). Residents’ views of the efficacy of shelter
services for assaulted women. Violence Against Women, 5(8), 898 – 925.

200

van de Schoot, R., Kaplan, D., Denissen, Asendorpf, J.B., Neyer, F.J., & van Aken, M.A.G.
(2013). A gentle introduction to bayesian analysis: Applications to developmental
research. Child Development, 85 (3), 842-860.
Vaughn, M., & Stamp, G.H. (2003). The empowerment dilemma: The dialectic of emancipation
and control in staff/client interaction at shelters for battered women. Communication
Studies, 54(2), 154-168.
Wallach, E. (1983). Individuals and organizations: The cultural match. Training and
Development Journal, 37(2), 28 – 36.
Walter, J., Kellermanns, F.W., Floyd, S.W., Veiga, J.F., & Matherne, C. (2013). Strategic
alignment: A missing link in the relationship between strategic consensus and
organizational performance. Strategic Organization, 11(3), 304-328.
Wathen, C.N., Harris, R.M., Ford-Gilboe, M., & Hansen, M. (2015). What counts? A mixedmethods study to inform evaluation of shelters for abused women. Violence Against
Women, 21(1), 125-146.
Watts, R.J., Diemer, M.A., & Voight, A.M. (2011). Critical consciousness: Current status and
future directions. In C.A. Flanagan & B.D. Christens (Eds.), Youth civic development:
Work at the cutting edge. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 134,
43-57.
Wies, J.R. (2008). Professionalizing human services: A case of domestic violence shelter
advocates. Human Organizations, 67(2), 221-233.
Williams, N.J. & Glisson, C. (2014). Testing a theory of organizational culture, climate and
youth outcomes in child welfare systems: A united states national study. Child Abuse &
Neglect,38(4), 757 – 767.
Woo, J.Y. (2002). The relationship between organizational variables and client outcomes.
Administration in Social Work, 26(2), 39-61.
Woodside, A. (2010). Case study research: Theory, methods, and practice. United Kingdom:
Emerald Group Publishing.
Zeitlin, W., Augsberger, A., Auerbach, C., & McGowan, B. (2014). A mixed-methods study of
the impact of organizational culture on workforce retention in child welfare. Children
and Youth Services Review, 38, 36 – 43.
Zosky, D. (2011). A matter of life and death: The voices of domestic violence survivors. Affilia:
Journal of Women and Social Work, 26(2), 201-212.
Zweig, J., Schlichter, K.A., & Burt, M.R. (2002). Assisting women victims of violence who
experience multiple barriers to services. Violence Against Women, 8(2), 162-180.

201