730561 2017

research-article2017
XXX
JIVXXX10.1177/0886260517730561
10.1177/0886260517730561Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceGregory et al.

Original Research
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
2021, Vol. 36(1-2) NP402­–423NP
Understanding How © The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
Domestic Violence sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0886260517730561
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517730561
Shelter Rules May journals.sagepub.com/home/jiv

Influence Survivor
Empowerment

Katie Gregory,1 Nkiru Nnawulezi,2

and Cris M. Sullivan1

Abstract
Domestic violence shelters have historically gone beyond providing
emergency residential space for survivors by assisting in obtaining future
housing, employment, health care, child care, or legal services. Domestic
violence shelters are expected to operate within an empowerment
philosophy, with an understanding that survivors are self-determining, can
identify their needs, and know what it takes to meet those needs. Recent
research has indicated that, as many shelters have become more rigid in
creating rules that survivors must follow to access and retain free temporary
housing, the result has been survivors’ feelings of disempowerment, the
complete opposite of what was originally intended. This study builds on
the small amount of research conducted regarding survivors’ experiences
of shelter rules by specifically examining how rules were perceived to affect
empowerment. Seventy-three survivors from two domestic violence shelters
were asked about their experiences around specific shelter rules relating to
curfew, parenting, chores, time limits, food, alcohol, drugs, and medications.
A transcendental phenomenological approach was used to analyze the

1Michigan State University, Lansing, USA

2University of Maryland, Baltimore County, USA

Corresponding Author:
Katie Gregory, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, 316 Physics Road, East
Lansing, MI 48824, USA.
Email: gregor22@msu.edu
Gregory et al. NP403

qualitative data, seeking explanations of how survivors made meaning of the

rules and how those rules influenced their empowerment. Among those
survivors who found the rules problematic, three major themes emerged:
(a) rules acted as barriers to carrying out their normal, day-to-day activities;
(b) the shelter staff’s flexibility with rules was based on contingencies; and
(c) rules negatively affected their psychological well-being, and required
them to engage in protective behaviors. Recommendations are made for the
reexamination and restructuring of rules within domestic violence shelters.

Keywords
domestic violence, anything related to domestic violence, battered women

Survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV)1 face numerous challenges when

trying to address the abuse they have experienced. Abuse encompasses physi-
cal violence, psychological and emotional violence, sexual violence, and/or
economic abuse through intimidation, isolation, threats, and the use of chil-
dren (Pence & Paymar, 1993; Stark, 2007). Communities have developed a
wide range of services to redress abuse survivors have experienced. One of
those services, domestic violence (DV) shelters, was first designed to offer
immediate residential support to those survivors who were no longer safe in
their own homes (Ham-Rowbottom, Gordon, Jarvis, & Novaco, 2005; Lyon,
Lane, & Menard, 2008). Shelters provide much more than beds, meals, and
laundry facilities. They are designed as residential spaces through which staff
and volunteers work individually with survivors, identifying unmet needs
and assisting them and their children in any way possible. This may include
assisting in finding housing, seeking employment, or obtaining health care or
legal support. Shelter employees and survivors also engage collaboratively in
safety planning, which is individualized to each survivor’s unique situation.
Finally, shelters are designed to provide opportunities for survivors to talk
with others who have been through similar situations (Goodkind, Sullivan, &
Bybee, 2004; Pence, 2001; Sullivan, 2012a; Sullivan et al., 2008).
DV shelters are expected to operate within an empowerment philosophy
(Goodman et al., 2016; McGirr & Sullivan, 2017). This means that advocates
understand that survivors are able to identify their own needs and goals, and
know what it takes to meet those needs (Cattaneo & Goodman, 2015;
Kasturirangan, 2008). Previous studies have found that, overall, DV shelters
positively affect survivors and their children by providing care that is acces-
sible, welcoming, and helps in meeting their immediate needs (Lyon et al.,
2008; Macy, Giattina, Montijo, & Ermentrout, 2010). However, in communal
NP404 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36(1-2)

shelters where rules are pervasive, unrealistic, or punitive, survivors have

reported less satisfaction and more problems (Gengler, 2012; Kolb, 2011;
Moe, 2007; VanNatta, 2010). Given that DV shelters’ mission is to enhance
survivors’ empowerment, this study examined how survivors perceived shel-
ter rules to support or hinder their sense of empowerment.

The Application of the Empowerment Model

Within DV Shelters
Empowerment has been defined as “a meaningful shift in the experience of
power attained through interaction in the social world” (Cattaneo & Goodman,
2015, p. 84). Within the context of IPV, it involves a process of increasing
survivors’ power through goal setting, their self-efficacy, their growing
awareness of the larger social world, and the acquisition of social and mate-
rial resources to support goal attainment (Cattaneo & Chapman, 2010).
Advocates are expected to promote survivors’ empowerment by working
with them to set personally meaningful goals, providing them information
and resources, and advocating on their behalf with multiple systems.
Staff also enhance survivors’ empowerment by actively supporting their
connections within their support networks and communities (Cattaneo &
Chapman, 2010; Sullivan, 2012b). Support networks increase one’s access to
opportunities and resources that are instrumental in having power over one’s
life (Hobfoll, 2001). Social support is an especially important resource to
increase for survivors, as abusers often rely on isolating their victims from
supportive family and friends to escape detection and to limit survivors’
options for help (Stark, 2007).
As shelters have become more reliant on governmental funding over time,
services have become more narrow and professionalized (Ferraro, 1983;
Panzer, Phillip, & Haward, 2000). There is growing concern that this shift
“entails patronizing, pathologizing services rather than empowerment,
choice-based service philosophy” (Lehrner & Allen, 2009, p. 668). This con-
cern is especially salient for women who occupy more vulnerable and stig-
matized identities, such as women who use substances, women with criminal
histories, and women who are chronically homeless (Smyth, Goodman, &
Glenn, 2006). Furthermore, some studies have reported that women of col-
or’s shelter experiences are less positive than are White women’s (Donnelly,
Cook, Van Ausdale, & Foley, 2005; Donnelly, Cook, & Wilson, 1999;
Nnawulezi & Sullivan, 2014). One possible interpretation of these findings
has been that, many times, shelter rules are developed and enforced by White
women staff who maybe imposing their cultural biases and prejudices on
residents (Donnelly et al., 2005; Few, 2005; Gillum, 2008).
Gregory et al. NP405

As services have become more professionalized, and in response to the

communal nature of many shelters (with multiple families sharing one living
space), some shelters have created an increasing number of rules that resi-
dents are required to follow (D’Enbeau & Kunkel, 2013; VanNatta, 2010;
Vaughn & Stamp, 2003). For example, many shelters have policies that
enforce curfews, require that survivors turn in prescription medication to
shelter employees, and have set times and places when survivors can eat
meals. Many shelters also implement policies restricting the length of time
survivors can stay in shelter, and oversee how survivors monitor and disci-
pline their children. Survivors in communal-living shelters are further
expected to adhere to policies related to living with others, such as complet-
ing daily chores and attending mandatory house meetings. Although these
rules were ostensibly developed to maintain safety and calm in the shelter,
they may also undermine the tenets of empowering practice (Nichols, 2011).

The Influence of Rules on Clients and Residents in

Residential Services
The impact of institutional rules on clients and residents has been examined
across a number of settings, including homeless shelters, transitional hous-
ing, shelter for victims of human trafficking, and supportive services for
intravenous drug users (Brunovskis & Surtees, 2008; DeWard & Moe, 2010;
Klitzing, 2004; Krüsi, Wood, Montaner, & Kerr, 2010; Melbin, Sullivan, &
Cain, 2003). Consistent findings across studies include clients and residents
feeling the need to “prove” themselves worthy of services and favor by
adhering to rules (e.g., documenting participation in activities, completing
chores, and staying with children), leading to feelings of a loss of indepen-
dence and autonomy (DeWard & Moe, 2010; Klitzing, 2004; Melbin et al.,
2003). Residents of DV shelters have noted that rules are both restrictive and
coercive (Anderson, Renner, & Danis, 2012; Gengler, 2012; Glenn &
Goodman, 2015; Lyon et al., 2008; Moe, 2007). In one qualitative study with
20 women residents living at a homeless shelter, DeWard and Moe (2010)
identified three ways residents negotiated the institution through submission
or acceptance, adaptation or reframing, or rejection through resistance. In
addition, residents who were mothers identified a specific loss of autonomy
regarding parenting in their role as the head of the family.
The justification for restrictive shelter rules has been to enhance the safety
and comfort of residents and establish boundaries for communal-living situ-
ations (Gengler, 2012; VanNatta, 2010), yet many rules are in direct contra-
diction with the empowerment philosophy. In the recent past, some DV
coalitions and shelters within the United States have begun to critically
NP406 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36(1-2)

examine and remove shelter rules for this very reason (Adams & Bennett,
2008; Curran & House, 2008; Hobart, 2007; Missouri Coalition Against
Domestic & Sexual Violence, 2012; Tautfest, 2008).
Anecdotal evidence suggests that rules perpetuate the same controlling
dynamics that survivors have experienced in their abusive relationships, yet
there is a dearth of empirical evidence to support these assertions. In one
small study of 19 DV shelter residents (Moe, 2007), survivors described rules
as being counterproductive, especially those mandating that residents accom-
plish particular goals within set time limits. A survivor’s shelter stay was
often “contingent on compliance with numerous policies” (p. 689), and shel-
ter residents reported that the way shelter staff enforced the rules was remi-
niscent of their past abusive relationships.
In another more recent study of 11 shelter residents (Glenn & Goodman,
2015), survivors’ overall experience with shelter was affected by (a) how the
shelter environment and staff supported them emotionally, (b) survivors’ per-
ceptions of when rules were in place for the sake of their and others’ safety,
(c) whether staff enforced rules flexibly or inflexibly, and (d) the conse-
quences of rules on survivors’ access to resources as well as their children’s
well-being. Survivors in the study identified concrete examples of their frus-
trations about how rules affected their access to short-term resources (e.g.,
medications and ability to run errands) and long-term resources (e.g., curfews
limiting ability to obtain or maintain jobs with alternative shifts or access
housing in harder to reach areas). In addition to the daily frustrations, almost
half of the survivors described the rules as “controlling and limiting,” sug-
gesting the environment to be similar to their abusive partners. Many survi-
vors indicated how the rules caused emotional distress for themselves and
their children. This distress was further affected by their isolation from the
social support of friends and family outside the shelter.
These small qualitative studies provide preliminary evidence that shelter
rules can affect survivors negatively. Yet, little is known about the connection
between shelter residents’ experiences of rules and how these experiences
influence their ability to regain power. The current phenomenological study
expands upon this earlier work examining the frustrations survivors’ had with
their shelter’s rules, and whether those experiences enhanced or inhibited
their autonomy in setting and meeting their goals.

Method
Sample
The sample for this study was a subset of a larger mixed-method project
examining the impact of empowering practices on IPV survivors. Residents
Gregory et al. NP407

from two DV shelter programs in midsized, Midwestern cities participated in

the study. Both communal-living programs embraced an empowerment phi-
losophy, had similar organizational structures, and provided similar services.
These contextual factors are comparable with many shelter programs across
the country (Lyon et al., 2008). Shelter residents were eligible for participa-
tion in the study if they were more than the age of 18, English-speaking, and
had exited shelter within the prior 30 days. Flyers describing the study were
posted throughout common areas, and a recruiter went into each shelter
approximately 4 times every week to talk about the study. An initial 177
women expressed interest in participating, 126 women were successfully
contacted after exiting shelter, and 103 participated in the larger study. Of
those, four women’s interviews were removed due to significant missing
data. Twenty women did not consent to be recorded and six women did not
provide sufficient content to be coded qualitatively. Analyses were, thus,
completed on 73 interviews.
Women were between the ages of 19 and 60 with an average age of 35
years (SD = 10.45). About 44% of the sample was Black, 31% were White,
18% identified as multiracial, 4% were Hispanic, and 3% identified as Asian-
Pacific Islander or Native American. Compared with a national shelter sam-
ple, there were more women of color in this sample (Lyon et al., 2008).
Almost half (49%) had completed some college, 34% had a high school
degree, and 17% reported not completing high school. Most were unem-
ployed (70%). On average, participants had resided in shelter for an average
of 45 days (SD = 52.04), with some participants staying as few as 3 days and
others as many as 300 days. Women were interviewed, on average, almost 15
days (SD = 7.74) after they had left shelter.

Procedures
Interviews took place in locations of the participants’ choosing, including
their homes, coffee shops, or other locations. All research assistants were
trained in feminist interviewing techniques that focused on engaging in ways
to reduce power and control within the interview context, normalizing survi-
vors’ experiences, attending to the emotional needs of survivors, learning
how to safety plan with someone, and connecting them to resources when
necessary (Hesse-Biber, 2006). All interviews were transcribed verbatim. On
average, interviews lasted approximately 90 min and survivors were compen-
sated US$25 for their participation. The university institutional review board
approved the study.
NP408 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36(1-2)

Measures
The qualitative portion of the interview guide covered survivors’ perceptions
of seven shelter rules. First, rules related to curfew: Survivors had to be back
in the shelter at a certain time which varied on weekdays and weekends.
Second, rules related to parenting suggested that survivors had to keep their
children with them at all times while in the shelter, and they could only disci-
pline their children using approaches approved by shelter staff. Third, survi-
vors were responsible to sign up for and complete daily chores. Fourth,
shelters had time limits that did not allow survivors to stay at the shelter past
the 30- to 45-day time limit without written approval by staff. Fifth, although
both shelters varied in implementation, there were rules that did not allow
survivors to bring in outside food. Sixth, both shelters stated that survivors
were not allowed to consume drugs or alcohol, nor come into the shelter
intoxicated. And seventh, both shelters also required that survivors’ medica-
tion be kept in the shelter staff’s possession or in a locker on the main floor.
Staff were engaged in multiple conversations with researchers for the
duration of the project. They were instrumental in choosing the research
questions and helping to design the interview guide. Rules were of interest to
the two shelter programs because staff knew anecdotally that some residents
found them to be problematic, but they wanted systematic evidence. For each
rule, interviewers first asked whether participants viewed the rule to be a
problem (yes/no). Interviewers probed participants’ responses to gain a
deeper understanding of their perceptions.

Analytic Plan
The first and second authors were the primary coders for this study. We chose
a phenomenological analytic approach which generally explores participants’
collective meaning (Creswell, 2007; Moustakas, 1994). Specifically, we
employed the Stevick–Colaizzi–Keen method (Moustakas, 1994) as an ana-
lytic technique for data reduction and analysis. We separately read each of the
interview transcripts multiple times, and then coded for significant state-
ments related to the phenomenon of interest (e.g., singular statements within
the transcripts that described whether rules were a problem and why survi-
vors identified something as problematic or not). After initially identifying
883 significant statements, we began horizontalization, which is the process
of developing formulated meanings for each significant statement. We read
each significant statement and formulated an interpretation of the statement.
To establish reliability, we randomly chose nine interviews previously
coded by the opposite coder, identified significant statements separately, and
Gregory et al. NP409

came together to establish agreement. Then, we separately developed formu-

lated meanings based on the other author’s established significant statements.
We identified potential themes and grouped codes into those themes, and
wrote textual descriptions of the themes that described survivors’ meaning
making around how the rules influenced their experiences of shelter
(Moustakas, 1994).

Establishing Trustworthiness
To establish trustworthiness of the findings, we engaged in a number of strat-
egies. The first two authors coded data separately and then examined level of
agreement in coding and interpretation. The third author, an expert in con-
ducting research and evaluation with DV shelter programs, reviewed the-
matic maps and the subsequent inferences that were being made in the data.
The thematic map was refined based on the feedback. We wrote the compos-
ite textual and structural description using rich, thick description (Creswell,
2007). Finally, the interpretations were shared back with the two programs,
who agreed that they represented many survivors’ experiences.

Results
The most problematic rules related to food restrictions, shelter time limits,
and parenting. Survivors were least likely to object to rules about locking up
medications and prohibiting drug and alcohol use. Table 1 provides the per-
centage of survivors who found each shelter rule to be problematic.
Survivors generally reported that rules were problematic because they
added unnecessary stress to their lives. Many of the rules were described as
being myopic, not taking into account the complexities of survivors’ lives and
forcing them to regularly ask for permission for everyday things such as
bringing food home or visiting a friend or family member. Among the survi-
vors who described rules as problematic, four major themes emerged: (a)
rules acted as barriers to carrying out their normal, day-to-day activities; (b)
rules were applied inconsistently, leading to both confusion and perceived
favoritism; (c) rules had a negative impact on survivors’ psychological well-
being and required some to engage in protective behaviors; and (d) survivors
regained a sense of their own power by subverting the rules.

Theme 1: Rules as Barriers to Day-to-Day Activities

Many survivors identified rules as restricting their ability to engage in every-
day activities. Some specifically described how the rules dictated (a) their
NP410 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36(1-2)

Table 1. Percentage of Shelter Residents Who Found the Rule Problematic.

Rule % of Survivors Stated It as a Problem

Food 58
Time limits 47
Child discipline and monitoring 36
Chores 36
Curfew 18
Medication/prescription drugs 14
Drugs and alcohol use 7

access to food, (b) when they could sleep or visit friends, and (c) how they
chose to parent. In turn, these rules impeded survivors’ ability to make their
own decisions and limited access to their social support, thus limiting their
sense of power over their own lives.
Rules around food were a source of stress because they affected how sur-
vivors were able to eat, including what they could eat, when they could eat,
and where food was available and allowed within the shelter. Some survivors
suggested that the food rules keep the shelter sanitary (e.g., keeping bugs
away to ensure a sanitary living space), yet still viewed them as problematic.
Other survivors were frustrated because they could not bring their own food
into the shelter. Survivors also described how the regulated meal times cre-
ated major inconveniences because they were not aligned with their personal
schedules. For one survivor, Sarah,2 the meal schedule came in direct conflict
with the pressure she was already feeling to accomplish specific goals and
move out of the shelter:

They expect us to like be out looking for jobs and housing and stuff, some of us
can’t make it back on the exact scheduled times that they had for breakfast,
lunch and dinner. And it’s like once you missed it, it’s over. You know, you
have to wait until they serve it again and you like, you can’t eat . . . because you
missed their times that they have for you.

Food rules were also problematic because some survivors had special
dietary restrictions or their children were having a difficult time adjusting to
eating what was available. Survivors talked about how their children had
specific tastes that were in opposition to what food was available (e.g., “my
child is a picky eater”), and that the food served in the shelter was different
from what they previously had at home. Survivors with children also found it
difficult to have rules restricting their ability to store food and having food
available only during specific hours of the day. As one survivor noted, her
Gregory et al. NP411

young children needed smaller meals more often throughout the day, which
meant they left shelter to eat elsewhere.
Some survivors described the rules around curfew as problematic because
curfews required them to get special permission to attend to their daily needs
(e.g., modifying when their chores needed to be completed) and access sup-
port networks (e.g., entering shelter after hours). For example, some women
were required to provide “proof” of their whereabouts or call ahead if they
did not make curfew. Rose describes the shelter needing verification to con-
firm that she was working: “Yeah, so I ended up providing copies of my
schedules and stuff like that, and I thought to myself, ‘Why would I lie about
going to work? I need the money.’”
Survivors also discussed the ways curfew limited their access to social
support, infringing on their ability to maintain relationships with friends and
family. Traveling to another city or town to visit loved ones was an important
part of some survivors’ healing. Having a curfew meant that they had to cut a
visit short, had to call and ask permission of the shelter to be late with the fear
of not having a place to stay, or had to forego visiting family altogether. Some
women also described how being dependent on unreliable public transporta-
tion added stress to their lives, such as when a bus broke down or was running
late when they were trying to get back in time for curfew.
Some survivors reported that shelter staff threatened or engaged in punitive
or disempowering practices if a survivor missed curfew, stayed overnight else-
where, or found an alternative place for their children to stay for a night. Some
staff questioned their need for shelter; others threatened to kick survivors out.
For example, Diane talked about having asked for permission to take her son to
a family members’ house, and the staff responded, “you have to be here before
nine or else you’re going to lose your bed space.” Another survivor, Sam,
talked about the scheduling conflicts she faced while arranging for her son to
stay with her mother overnight, and how it left her without a place to stay:

During the week my mom works nights and she takes care of my son. She
doesn’t get out of work until 10:30 p.m. There were days that the day care lady
couldn’t watch him, and I needed to watch him. [I had] to go out to a town 20
minutes away and stay out there. Well, curfew during the week is 9:00 p.m. My
mom didn’t get out of work until 10:30, almost 11:00. So by the time I would
get back to the shelter it’d be almost 11:30, 12:00 and they weren’t able to let
me in. I mean, on one occasion they did, but there were a couple other times
they wouldn’t let me back in. And I was without a place to stay for the night.

Rules around parenting were also mentioned as especially problematic.

Rules were often disruptive to the family, including requiring survivors to
change their children’s bedtimes or “quiet times” to better align with shelter
NP412 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36(1-2)

child discipline and monitoring requirements. Rules about child care also
restricted survivors’ ability to rely on other shelter residents to help watch
children. Overall, the rules about child discipline and monitoring often did
not align with the realities of parenting within the shelter culture or with
mothers’ own parenting choices. Women were also acutely aware of the real
possibility of shelter staff contacting Child Protective Services (CPS), which
created additional stress for them.

Theme 2: Inconsistent Application of the Rules

The ways staff enforced the rules also affected survivors’ sense of empower-
ment. Inconsistent enforcement was a major theme. Survivors identified that
when staff were unclear about the rules and that they were both flexible and
inflexible when applying those rules. Survivors were aware of the existing
rules, yet unpredictable application led to confusion and frustration. This lack
of clarity and pointed flexibility implemented by staff created an environ-
ment ripe for resource competition and policing among survivors. In turn,
survivors identified staff favorites, and both actively and passively policed
each other.

Lack of clarity about shelter rules. When survivors identified the ways in which
rules were unclear, it was mainly focused on rules around chores and the time
limits. Regarding chores, some survivors said the procedures for signing up,
completing, and reporting the chores were unclear and unfair. This led to
confusion and possible ramifications including write-ups and disagreements
with other survivors staying in the shelter. Sandra states,

You would clean your laundry room and go to bed, or it’s the end of the day,
someone comes in after you’ve cleaned and used it over again. And then the
staff wants to write you up for not doing your chore.

When survivors discussed how staff were unclear about the time limits, it
was related to the decisions giving survivors extensions past the 30-day limit.
Survivors did not always understand the process, and some identified that it
ultimately came down to the shelter director’s discretion. In some cases, the
decision was made at the last minute, giving them little to no time to prepare
to leave. Others talked about feeling that they needed to prove they were
accomplishing things and getting things done, with the understanding that
they might receive an extension. Some believed that they did engage in the
tasks they were supposed to, but were still denied longer time limits. This
lack of clarity about rules leads to confusion and frustration for survivors, and
feelings of a lack of power over their lives.
Gregory et al. NP413

Unpredictable application of rules. Staff varied in how they applied the rules;
some survivors spoke of how staff were flexible, bending the rules for certain
circumstances. Others identified how rigidly the rules were applied. Although
this occurred across all types of rules, survivors discussed flexibility/inflexi-
bility most often in relation to the rules around chores, curfew, food, and time
limits. Some women expressed that staff were lenient about chores when they
had work conflicts or a physical disability that impeded their ability to com-
plete specific chores. Others described ways that staff accommodated rules
about curfew. As Deanna noted,

I let them know I was going be late and why, and they were very accommodating.
If you missed something that was foreseeable they would just asked if you
made arrangements to get permission from your case manager ahead of time.

Staff were also lenient regarding food with some survivors. They were
allowed to bring food into shelter because of dietary restrictions associated
with religious and medical reasons. Alternatively, when other survivors
wanted to bring their own food into the shelter, there were mixed and con-
flicting responses from staff members. Survivors from one shelter mentioned
the expectation that if they wanted to cook their own food or bring anything
in, there must be enough available for everyone staying at the shelter. Others
identified specific staff members who would allow them to bring in food for
themselves, versus those who would make them throw it away if they did not
have enough to share with the other shelter residents.

When flexibility leads to favoritism and policing. When survivors spoke of how
rules were met with staff members’ flexibility or rigidity, this was often cou-
pled with identifying who needed or deserved resources the most, regardless
of the availability or scarcity of those resources. Some women spoke specifi-
cally of having experienced or seeing others experience favoritism in terms
of how the rules were applied. When survivors identified others experiencing
favoritism, it was because they were not receiving the same accommodations
from staff. Among those who spoke of having experienced favoritism, some
spoke of it being related to accomplishing what needed to be done according
to the shelter policies.

Theme 3: The Negative Impact of Rules on Women’s

Psychological Well-Being
Some survivors talked about the negative impact of rules on their psychologi-
cal well-being. As a result, some chose to circumvent the rules when they
NP414 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36(1-2)

recognized that they had become barriers to meeting their self-identified

needs or goals. For example, although some survivors indicated their relief in
having a place to stay, living under rules that conflicted with their lifestyles
complicated and sometimes superseded that relief. In general, survivors
reported feeling patronized, disconnected, anxious, overwhelmed, pressured,
fearful of losing their children and safe housing, and responsible for the abuse
they had experienced because of shelter rules. Survivors also identified that
shelter rules placed additional stress on an already stressful experience of
communal living.
For some survivors, coming into the shelter was their first opportunity to
process the abuse they had been experiencing while simultaneously having to
uproot their lives and potentially being separated from their children.
Processing what they had been through was debilitating and created difficulty
in accomplishing the things that were expected of them in the short time they
had at the shelter. As one survivor stated, “By the time you’re there, two
weeks into a 30-day limit, you just realize the [abuse] you’ve gone through
and that maybe then, and sometimes later, you’re still not mentally able to get
things in perspective.” Survivors also recounted shelter rules as being patron-
izing and some described it as being “in jail,” noting that having so many
rules communicated they could not be trusted to make good judgments or
decisions. Sharon stated,

You have a lot of like your freedom taken away from you. And so, someone
like me, who’s been really independent and stuff, I feel like they’re my parent
protecting me almost. I get that. I know that’s their whole purpose [is] to protect
you and keep you safe, but my judgment would’ve been the best one if I felt
super unsafe and not go out.

Survivors reported that shelter time limits created an immense amount of

pressure to be considered productive, or “doing what they are suppose to be
doing” to maintain safe housing. For some, accomplishing arbitrarily identi-
fied goals (e.g., finding a job, securing housing that may not be ready imme-
diately) meant that they were able to receive week-by-week extensions past
the 30-day time limit.

I always kept a log of everything that I did during the day. Like, how many
[and] where I put job applications and the places, apartments and stuff that I
went to look at and the people that I contacted for other services. As long as you
could show them that you were doing something to improve yourself and your
situation, they didn’t have a problem with granting you like another week or
whatever. (Kate)
Gregory et al. NP415

As the following survivor noted, having a weekly review on her accom-

plishments after passing the 30-day time limit made her meetings with her
caseworker overwhelming:

Being on that weekly probation to show what I’ve accomplished, when I don’t
know what more I could’ve done was very stressful. It was like not knowing if
you’re going to have a place the next week or not. I [had] horrid, horrid anxiety,
and my meetings with [case worker] were never about “what can we do in the
mean time,” it was “when you going to get some money.” I mean honestly
that’s what it is. (Veronica)

Theme 4: Regaining Power by Subverting Rules

Some survivors described specific tactics that they or other survivors did to
circumvent the rules. These subversive acts were not necessarily done to
change the overall system but were in response to rules that were incompat-
ible for themselves and their families. Although these tactics seemed rela-
tively minor, survivors used them to keep a sense of normalcy, engender a
sense of agency, and resist staff surveillance.
Most survivor tactics were focused on sneaking food into shelter and hold-
ing onto their own medicine. In the case of one survivor, Rebecca, not turning
over her medicine to the shelter staff was related to her personal privacy. She
said she did not feel that it was “any of [the staff’s] business what kind of
medicine I was on . . . I’m grown. I can control my own medicine.” Some
survivors found private spots to smoke a cigarette outside a window. Other
survivors described how they navigated their shelter stays by documenting
all of their activities to “prove” to staff they were active in their housing and
employment searches. A few survivors kept logs of the work they accom-
plished and/or took photos of completed work. For example, Alicia described
how she took a picture of every application she filled out to prove to the
shelter staff that she was actively seeking a job and “not lazy.” Another sur-
vivor, Shonda, took before and after photos when she completed her chores.

I felt so threatened by the chores you know, because people were just not doing
it, that I covered myself by taking before and after pictures of the chore that I
did. That way nobody could accuse me of not doing my job or doing a crappy
job. That’s just how on edge I felt about the chores. (Meredith)

Discussion
The goal of this study was to understand the underlying reasons of why DV
shelter residents negatively perceive rules, and how those rules may have
NP416 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36(1-2)

supported or impeded their empowerment. Overall, results revealed that shel-

ter rules inhibited the empowerment process by restricting survivors’ abilities
to make their own choices about their lives and limiting their access to social
networks. Survivors viewed rules as disempowering, unnecessarily stressful,
and having negatively contributed to their psychological well-being. The
inflexibility and strict enforcement of rules contributed to a restrictive culture
that negatively influenced survivors’ self-efficacy and access to social net-
works. Survivors used creative coping strategies in response to the rules,
including documenting their work efforts and circumventing the rules, to
maintain safe housing and reestablish a sense of power.
The first theme of the results revealed that survivors wanted to have more
control over when and where they could sleep (e.g., curfew, taking naps),
watch television, visit family and friends, what foods they could eat and at
what times, and how they parented. This can be interpreted more broadly as
participants explicated a desire to have control over their basic life choices. A
sense of control over their own lives is vital given the controlling, abusive
relationships that they sought out shelter to escape. Staff surveillance of sur-
vivors could potentially be justified as supporting women’s safety, but results
suggest that they might also be too controlling.
Many survivors described how the rules limited their access to their natu-
ral support systems which contributed to experiences of disempowerment.
Although an objective of empowering practice is to enhance people’s access
to social support and supportive communities (Bennett & Chapman, 2010;
Sullivan, 2012b), some of the shelter rules made such connections more dif-
ficult. Curfews, limits on visitors, and prohibitions against watching other
shelter residents’ children all served to further isolate survivors rather than
expanding their access to those who might increase their resources or oppor-
tunities (Hobfoll, 2001).
The extent to which the rules were capricious or arbitrarily enforced also
served to countermand women’s sense of power within shelter. Survivors
believed that if they were “doing what you are supposed to be doing,” they
would be rewarded with greater flexibility on the part of staff. In other words,
by behaving consistently with the shelter rules and becoming model residents,
they would later be given special privileges or exceptions informally, such as
extended shelter stays, greater chances for overnight stays outside of shelter, or
a later curfew. Although some benefited from this, it also created a contentious,
competitive, and uncertain shelter climate. Survivors were not ever sure how
rules would be enforced, who would be given exceptions, how someone could
get those exceptions, and what the punishment was when the rule was broken.
Privileges that were granted to some and not others, generally in the form of
flexibility with shelter rules, caused survivors to experience frustration and
Gregory et al. NP417

stress. Flexibility is a major component of survivor-centered, empowering, and

trauma-informed spaces (Wilson, Fauci, & Goodman, 2015), and is a part of
basic service provision within all community-based organizations. Restrictive
shelter rules impede practitioner’s ability to practice flexibility with survivors
in consistent and clear ways. Future research is needed that focuses on the con-
textual variables necessary to support flexibility with survivors, especially
those who are seen as not always following shelter policies and seen as “diffi-
cult” residents.
Although the rules served to limit survivors’ sense of agency and power
within the shelter, many women resorted to creative and sometimes subver-
sive means to reassert their power. Similar to Glenn and Goodman (2015), we
found that survivors coped with the rules by rejecting some and circumvent-
ing others. These practices of resistance in a surveillance climate can pre-
serve survivor dignity and increase their sense of power, but come at the cost
of feeling like one is in an unsupportive and disempowering environment.
Overall, the effectiveness of shelter services is dependent not only on the
services survivors receive but also the shelter context where they are receiv-
ing them, and whether this context introduces or alleviates additional barriers
to accomplish goals.
Findings need to be interpreted within study methodological limitations.
Each shelter created rules around similar categories (curfew, food, children,
etc.), but there was some variation between the two shelters about how they
implemented these rules. This variation in implementation could contribute
to differences in findings. In addition, there might be some bias in the sample
as we only interviewed 70% of the original sample. It is possible that the
other 30% would have different experiences that could influence these find-
ings. Third, findings were based on cross-sectional, self-report data. Although
the sample is large for a qualitative study, the generalizability of the findings
is unknown. More research is needed with shelters in different areas of the
country and with a diverse set of survivors. Fourth, the findings are based
only on residents’ perspectives; staff may have disagreed with some of the
specific incidents presented here or may have had additional information to
contribute about why they behaved the way they did. Finally, the study find-
ings often revealed the negative perceptions of the residents, and focused on
their frustrations and the difficulties the rules imposed on their ability to
access what they needed. Different survivors may make meaning of the shel-
ter rules with a more positive perspective, suggesting that the rules benefited
their lives, were there to keep them safe, and maintain order in a space for
communal living.
These findings can be directly applied to the practice of DV organizations.
Shelter policies are intended to maintain an environment that supports the
NP418 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36(1-2)

safety of communal living while also supporting the well-being of survivors

who access services. It is counter to DV organizations, or any organizations
that serve oppressed groups, to have shelter policies that restrict, condemn,
and negatively affect the clients who serve them. These experiences impede
on the quality of services that are being provided, the ability for employees to
build trusting relationships with survivors, and the ability to keep survivors in
safe housing.
Although women from across all social identities access shelter, many
shelters disproportionately serve low-income women and women of color
who experience severe violence. Some women also have physical or mental
health disabilities caused or exacerbated by the abuse that they experienced
in their relationships (Bonomi, Anderson, Rivara, & Thompson, 2007; Lyon
et al., 2008). In this study, a majority of participants were women of color and
unemployed. Given the intersections of these social identities, it is possible
they could also be experiencing discrimination and/or high levels of surveil-
lance in other settings that contribute to disempowerment. Shelter policies
that remove or lesson connections to family and friends also impede on the
ability for women to access vital social support networks that help them cope
with the discrimination or disempowerment that they experience in other set-
tings. Social connections are a vital part of surviving and coping with living
in oppressive contexts. Therefore, shelter rules that minimize those connec-
tions are culturally insensitive. Shelters are an important site to promote
empowerment among survivors who occupy a diverse set of social identities
and have been historically marginalized and systematically disempowered.
Empowerment might look different based on survivors’ social identities and
the sociocultural contexts in which they are embedded.
Broadly, we first recommend that employees critically examine each of the
shelter rules using their organizational philosophy as a guide. In this examina-
tion, employees can ask themselves the following questions: What was the
original intention of the rule? Is it accomplishing what you hope to accom-
plish? Do these goals and intentions align with the organizational philosophy?
By making this a rule, what do we hope to convey to survivors? When the
purpose and intention of the rule is clearly identified and its link to the organi-
zational mission is clearly understood, employees should then describe
whether it is being implemented as originally intended. One of the ways to
identify this is to ask survivors what they think the purpose of the rule is, how
the rule is being enforced, and the impact of the rule on their experiences at the
shelter. Rules that are not aligned with the organizational philosophy, not
being enforced as intended, or negatively affecting survivors should be reeval-
uated for their relevancy in the context. Although the rules that will be set in
place will vary from shelter to shelter, the implications from this study suggest
Gregory et al. NP419

that survivors prefer rules that take into account as to who they are as individu-
als and what their personal needs are, as opposed to trying to acquiesce to
rules that are more broadly applied to everyone. All of the survivors’ sugges-
tions related to wanting to be seen as full and autonomous beings who are able
to make decisions for themselves. To attend to this call, a number of shelters
have either greatly reduced or eliminated their rules, and guidelines have been
developed to assist others in this process (see, for example, Hobart, 2007;
Missouri Coalition Against Domestic & Sexual Violence, 2012)
The DV shelter context is not particularly unique; residents from homeless
shelters and human trafficking organizations also have similar experiences
with a surveillance climate, and experiencing restrictions under the rhetoric
of ensuring safety and empowerment (Brunovskis & Surtees, 2008; Krüsi
et al., 2010). This climate requires that employees police shelter residents
rather than working in partnership with them to achieve their goals. This is
antithetical to the original goal of providing empowering care, and can under-
mine the important relationship between staff and survivor (Melbin et al.,
2003; Sokoloff & Dupont, 2005). DV shelters were constructed to be alterna-
tives to the standard formal helping systems by integrating a feminist
approach to service delivery and advocacy that centered on empowerment.
The implementation of specific shelter rules counters the empowerment phi-
losophy by replicating the same systems of control survivors experience with
other governmental and community-based organizations.
DV shelters are valuable community assets and serve as an important safe
haven for survivors of IPV (Lyon et al., 2008; Sullivan, 2012a; Sullivan &
Virden, 2017). The supports and advocacy provided to shelter residents and
their children are specifically designed to enhance their safety, well-being,
and power over their lives (Sullivan, 2016). It is important that the context in
which services are provided matches the philosophy driving organizational
practice if the ultimate goal of empowerment is to be achieved.

Authors’ Note
The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily repre-
sent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank the women who participated in the study, without whom the
research would not have been possible.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
NP420 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36(1-2)

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by a grant from
NIMH (R24MH75941).

Notes
1. Intimate partner violence (IPV) and domestic violence (DV) are used inter-
changeably in this article to represent the same constructs.
2. Names have been changed to protect participant identities.

References
Adams, D., & Bennett, S. (2008). Rethinking punitive approaches to shelter. Seattle:
Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
Anderson, K. M., Renner, L. M., & Danis, F. S. (2012). Recovery resilience and
growth in the aftermath of domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 18,
1279-1299.
Bennett, L. B., & Chapman, A. R. (2010). The process of empowerment: A model for
use in research and practice. American Psychologist, 65(7), 646.
Bonomi, A. E., Anderson, M., Rivara, F. P., & Thompson, R. S. (2007). Health out-
comes in women with physical and sexual intimate partner violence exposure.
Journal of Women’s Health, 16, 987-997.
Brunovskis, A., & Surtees, R. (2008). Agency or illness—The conceptualization
of trafficking victims’ choices and behaviors in the assistance system. Gender,
Technology and Development, 12, 53-76.
Cattaneo, L. B., & Chapman, A. R. (2010). The process of empowerment: A model
for use in research and practice. American Psychologist, 65, 646-659.
Cattaneo, L. B., & Goodman, L. A. (2015). What is empowerment anyway? A model
for domestic violence practice, research, and evaluation. Psychology of Violence,
5, 84-94.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative enquiry and research design: Choosing among
five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Curran, M., & House, H. (2008). Moving from rules to rights and responsibilities.
Seattle: Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
D’Enbeau, S., & Kunkel, A. (2013). (Mis)managed empowerment: Exploring
paradoxes of practice in domestic violence prevention. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 41, 141-159.
DeWard, S. L., & Moe, A. M. (2010). Like a prison: Homeless women’s narratives of
surviving shelter. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 37, 115-135.
Donnelly, D. A., Cook, K. J., Van Ausdale, D., & Foley, L. (2005). White privilege,
color blindness, and services to battered women. Violence Against Women, 11,
6-37.
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, 710-741.
Gregory et al. NP421

Ferraro, K. (1983). Negotiating trouble in a battered women’s shelter. Urban Life,

12, 287-306.
Few, A. (2005). The voices of black and white rural battered women in domestic
violence shelters. Family Relations, 54, 488-500.
Gengler, A. M. (2012). Defying (Dis) empowerment in a battered women’s shelter:
Moral rhetorics, intersectionality, and processes of control and resistance. Social
Problems, 59, 501-521.
Gillum, T. L. (2008). Community response and needs of African American female
survivors of domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 39-57.
Glenn, C., & Goodman, L. (2015). Living with and within the rules of domestic
violence shelters: A qualitative exploration of residents’ experiences. Violence
Against Women, 21, 1481-1506.
Goodkind, J., Sullivan, C., & Bybee, D. (2004). A contextual analysis of battered
women’s safety planning. Violence Against Women, 10, 514-533.
Goodman, L. A., Thomas, K., Cattaneo, L. B., Heimel, D., Woulfe, J., & Chong, S. K.
(2016). Survivor-defined practice in domestic violence work: Measure develop-
ment and preliminary evidence of link to empowerment. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 31, 163-185.
Ham-Rowbottom, K. A., Gordon, E. E., Jarvis, K. L., & Novaco, R. W. (2005). Life
constraints and psychological well-being of domestic violence shelter graduates.
Journal of Family Violence, 20, 109-121.
Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2007). The practice of feminist in-depth interviewing. Feminist
Research Practice: A Primer, 111148.
Hobart, M. (2007). Assessing the impact of domestic violence on children’s safety.
Seattle, WA: The Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the
stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology,
50, 337-421.
Kasturirangan, A. (2008). Empowerment and programs designed to address domestic
violence. Violence Against Women, 14, 1465-1475.
Klitzing, S. W. (2004). Women living in a homeless shelter: Stress, coping and lei-
sure. Journal of Leisure Research, 36, 483-512.
Kolb, K. H. (2011). Sympathy work: Identity and emotion management among vic-
tim-advocates and counselors. Qualitative Sociology, 34, 101-119.
Krüsi, A., Wood, E., Montaner, J., & Kerr, T. (2010). Social and structural determi-
nants of HAART access and adherence among injection drug users. International
Journal of Drug Policy, 21, 4-9.
Lehrner, A., & Allen, N. E. (2009). Still a movement after all these years? Current ten-
sions in the domestic violence movement. Violence Against Women, 15, 656-677.
Lyon, E., Lane, S., & Menard, A. (2008). Meeting survivors’ needs: A multi-state
study of domestic violence shelter experiences, final report. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice.
Macy, R. J., Giattina, M. C., Montijo, N. J., & Ermentrout, D. M. (2010). Domestic
violence and sexual assault agency directors’ perspectives on services that help
survivors. Violence Against Women, 16, 1138-1161.
NP422 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36(1-2)

McGirr, S. A., & Sullivan, C. M. (2017). Critical consciousness raising as an element

of empowering practice with survivors of domestic violence. Journal of Social
Service Research, 43, 156-168.
Melbin, A., Sullivan, C., & Cain, D. (2003). Transitional supportive housing pro-
grams: Battered women’s perspectives and recommendations. Affilia, 1, 445-460.
Missouri Coalition Against Domestic & Sexual Violence. (2012). How the earth
didn’t fly into the sun: Missouri’s project to reduce rules in domestic violence
shelters. Jefferson, MO: Author.
Moe, A. M. (2007). Silenced voices and structured survival battered women’s help
seeking. Violence Against Women, 13, 676-699.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Nichols, A. J. (2011). Gendered organizations: Challenges for domestic violence vic-
tim advocates and feminist advocacy. Feminist Criminology, 6, 111-131.
Nnawulezi, N. A., & Sullivan, C. M. (2014). Oppression within safe spaces: Exploring
racial microaggressions within domestic violence shelters. Journal of Black
Psychology, 40, 563-591.
Panzer, P., Phillip, M., & Haward, R. (2000). Trends in domestic violence service
and leadership: Implications for an integrated shelter model. Administration and
Policy in Mental Health, 27, 339-352.
Pence, E. (2001). Advocacy on behalf of battered women. In C. M. Renzetti, J. L.
Edleson, & R. K. Bergen (Eds.), Sourcebook on violence against women (pp.
329-343). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1993). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth
model. New York, NY: Springer.
Smyth, K. F., Goodman, L., & Glenn, C. (2006). The full-frame approach: A new
response to marginalized women left behind by specialized services. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76, 489-502.
Sokoloff, N. J., & Dupont, I. (2005). Domestic violence at the intersections of race,
class, and gender challenges and contributions to understanding violence against
marginalized women in diverse communities. Violence Against Women, 11, 38-64.
Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: The entrapment of women in personal life. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Sullivan, C. M. (2012a). Domestic violence shelter services: A review of the empiri-
cal evidence. Harrisburg, PA: National Resource Center on Domestic Violence.
Sullivan, C. M. (2012b, October). Domestic violence shelter services: A review of the
empirical evidence. Paper presented at the National Resource Center on Domestic
Violence, Harrisburg, PA. Available from http://www.dvevidenceproject.org
Sullivan, C. M. (2016). Examining the work of local domestic violence programs
within a “social and emotional well-being promotion” conceptual framework.
Harrisburg, PA. Available from http://www.dvevidenceproject.org
Sullivan, C. M., Baptista, I., O’halloran, S., Okroj, L., Morton, S., & Stewart, C.
S. (2008). Evaluating the effectiveness of women’s refuges: A multi-country
approach to model development. International Journal of Comparative and
Applied Criminal Justice, 32, 291-308.
Gregory et al. NP423

Sullivan, C. M., & Virden, T. (2017). Interrelationships among length of stay in a

domestic violence shelter, help received, and outcomes achieved. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 87, 434-442.
Tautfest, K. (2008). How we gave up curfew (and a lot of other rules, too). Seattle:
Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
VanNatta, M. (2010). Power and control: Changing structures of battered women’s
shelters. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 5, 149-161.
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, 154-168.
Wilson, J. M., Fauci, J. E., & Goodman, L. A. (2015). Bringing trauma-informed prac-
tice to domestic violence programs: A qualitative analysis of current approaches.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 85, 586-599.

Author Biographies
Katie Gregory, PhD, is an assistant professor of ecological/community psychology
and associate director of the Research Consortium on Gender-Based Violence at
Michigan State University. Her research is focused on supporting agencies’ and sys-
tems’ improvement of services for survivors of intimate partner violence and their
children.
Nkiru Nnawulezi is an assistant professor of community psychology at the University
of Maryland, Baltimore County. Her research aims to improve domestic violence
shelter practice by using ecological theory to identify the multilevel, contextual fac-
tors that facilitate survivors’ empowerment.
Cris M. Sullivan is a professor of ecological/community psychology and director of
the Research Consortium on Gender-Based Violence at Michigan State University.
She has been an advocate and researcher in the movement to end gender-based vio-
lence since 1982. Her areas of expertise include developing and rigorously evaluating
community interventions for domestic violence survivors and their children, and
evaluating victim services.