Although the idea of empowerment lies at the heart of the anti– domestic violence movement, consensus on the defining characteristics of this construct have remained elusive. A clear and consistent definition of empowerment would promote the development of common metrics for research and evaluation, and guide the development of best practices. In this article, we describe specific challenges that have made the conceptualization of empowerment difficult. We then overview the Empowerment Process Model, and describe the ways in which it addresses those challenges. This model articulates empowerment as a meaningful shift in the experience of power attained through interaction in the social world, and describes the process of building empowerment as an iterative one, in which a person takes action toward personally meaningful goals; draws on community supports, skill, knowledge, and self-efficacy to move toward those goals; and observes the extent to which those actions result in progress. By incorporating both process and outcome dimensions, bridging the psychological and contextual realms, and allowing for domain specificity, the model addresses challenges to a clear conceptualization; and provides a common framework that may be used as a reference point for practitioners and researchers wishing to apply the construct. We conclude with suggestions for and examples of its application in research and practice.

Keywords: best practice, domestic violence services, empowerment, evaluation, intimate partner violence

The goal of empowering survivors lies at the heart of the anti– domestic violence1 movement (Goodman & Epstein, 2008). The defining characteristics of empowerment, however, have re- mained vague and inconsistent (Kasturirangan, 2008; Masterson & Owen, 2006). As a result, researchers have understood and mea- sured the concept in a wide variety of ways, thereby hindering the accumulation of a knowledge base that could deepen our under- standing of survivors’ experiences and build and evaluate best practices in anti– domestic violence work. After highlighting the centrality of the idea of empowerment in the field of intimate partner violence (IPV) and outlining obstacles to its conceptualization, this article describes the Empowerment Process Model (Cattaneo & Chapman, 2010), a model that clarifies the characteristics of em- powerment. We define empowerment as a meaningful shift in the experience of power attained through interaction in the social world. The model describes the process of building empowerment as an iterative one, in which a person who lacks power sets a personally meaningful goal oriented toward increasing power, takes action, and makes progress toward that goal, drawing on his or her evolving self-efficacy, knowledge, skills, and community resources and supports, and observes and reflects on the impact of

his or her actions (see Figure 1). This conceptualization of em- powerment sets it apart from related concepts such as mastery, locus of control, and self-determination in two primary ways. First, it is a process focused on specific goals. Second, it extends beyond the intrapsychic realm (Cattaneo & Chapman, 2010). After de- scribing the model and the definition of power on which it rests, the article details the ways in which the model addresses chal- lenges to the conceptualization of empowerment within IPV. We conclude with examples of the model’s applications to practice and research, and suggestions for future work.

Empowerment as a Key Construct in IPV

From its earliest days, the anti– domestic violence movement has worked toward the empowerment of survivors as a central goal. Early recognition of intimate partner abuse arose from the stories of women who came together and found common ground in their descriptions of being controlled by their partners, who ex- erted their power through psychological, sexual, economic, and physical abuse (Stark, 2007). If abusers were taking power from survivors, healing entailed restoring it. Early activists also identi- fied an overarching structure of patriarchy and the systematic oppression of women as a root cause of violence against women, and aimed for structural changes to gain power for women as a group. Indeed, one can find evidence of the importance of em- powerment in the scholarship of that time (e.g., Brownmiller,

1 In this article, we use the terms domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and partner abuse interchangeably to describe the abuse of a current or former intimate partner.

This article was published Online First January 13, 2014. Lauren Bennett Cattaneo, Department of Psychology, George Mason

University; Lisa A. Goodman, Department of Counseling, Developmental, and Educational Psychology, Boston College.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lauren Bennett Cattaneo, Department of Psychology, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030. E-mail: [email protected]

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035137

1975; Martin, 1976), narratives of the history of the movement (e.g., Schechter, 1982), and early program descriptions (e.g., Ro- driguez, 1988).

Although much has shifted over time, as that early grassroots movement has evolved into a sprawling social services system, empowerment remains central to the work of those seeking to support IPV survivors. For example, on its website, the National Coalition against Domestic Violence lists as one of its five aims to “empower battered women and children” (National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 2011). The websites of state associ- ations and myriad programs use similar language (Kasturirangan, 2008; Macy, Giattina, Sangster, Crosby, & Montijo, 2009; Mc- Dermott & Garofalo, 2004). There are several reasons why do- mestic violence organizations have embraced empowerment as a core goal in their work. Most simply, both inside and outside the IPV context, the use of the term empowerment invokes ideals that resonate with feminist and social justice values: personal choice; finding voice; a focus on strength versus deficit; and transcending oppression (Cattaneo, Calton, & Brodsky, in press). But the fre- quent use of the term in the social response to IPV is supported by more than abstract principles. Empirical work that focuses on empowerment, or overlapping constructs such as voice and con- trol, indicate a connection with key outcomes related to survivor wellbeing.

For example, research has demonstrated that when survivors feel in greater control during the process of helpseeking, they report greater satisfaction with police, the court system, and victim services

(Cattaneo, 2010; Cattaneo & Goodman, 2010; Zweig & Burt, 2007). Moving beyond satisfaction to behavior, Hotaling and Buzawa (2003) showed that survivors who reported that they had had more voice in the prosecution of their cases were more likely to report repeat incidents of abuse when they occurred in the next year. In addition to survivors’ perceptions and behavior related to the source of help itself, several studies have now linked empow- erment with more general mental health outcomes. In a longitudi- nal study in the context of the court system, victims who experi- enced greater voice and who felt they had gotten what they wanted by pursuing the court case reported less depression and greater quality of life six months later, over and above experiences of repeat abuse (Cattaneo & Goodman, 2010). Among survivors receiving services from a shelter, empowerment moderated the relationship between IPV severity and PTSD symptoms, above and beyond access to resources (Perez, Johnson, & Wright, 2012). Further, in a randomized trial, an empowerment-oriented interven- tion was related to less severe PTSD symptomatology over time and to less repeat abuse (Johnson, Zlotnick, & Perez, 2011). Finally, in a study randomizing prosecution tracks among victims of IPV, participants experienced least repeat abuse when they had a choice about pressing charges, and then decided to move forward with them (Ford & Regoli, 1992).

These studies suggest that helpseekers vary in the amount of empowerment (and related constructs) they experience in their interactions with help providers. Some survivors, for example, perceive greater choice or control than others. This variance is not

The Empowerment Process Model

Define or redefine meaningful, power- oriented GOALS and objec�ves

Carry out ACTIONS toward goal achievement

Observe and reflect on IMPACT of ac�ons in

rela�on to goal achievement

self-efficacy

knowledge

skills

community resources

Figure 1. The Empowerment Process Model.

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

85WHAT IS EMPOWERMENT

a surprise given documentation of the range of survivors’ experi- ences when they reach out to formal systems (e.g., Bennett, Good- man, & Dutton, 1999; Erez & Belknap, 1998). Of greater import, research also suggests that those who experience a greater degree of empowerment appear more likely to reach positive longer-term outcomes. In other words, empowerment may be a key mechanism for the achievement of outcomes any organization working with IPV survivors would target: mental health, satisfaction with ser- vices, and safety.

In fact, the identification of empowerment as a short-term or proximal outcome that may lead to longer-term or distal outcomes holds promise for addressing a major challenge to evaluation of IPV services: that long-term goal of safety—the core desired outcome and reason for existence of such services—is not under the direct control of survivors or practitioners (Sullivan, 2011). The person with ultimate control over the victim’s potential safety is the potential offender. Empowerment, on the other hand, is a process that can be influenced by supporters and shaped by sur- vivors, and it has the potential to lead to outcomes such as safety that may be attainable in the longer term. In other words, the construct of empowerment has the potential to be useful as a measure of the immediate impact of domestic violence services, as well as the longer-term impact.

In sum, empowerment is a powerful idea, a worthy goal, and a useful orienting concept in IPV work, including intervention, research, and evaluation. However, despite the consensus about its core importance, the way that empowerment is defined, measured, and applied both within and outside the arena of IPV remains problematic on a number of dimensions which prevents its effec- tive use as a guiding framework. We describe these problems next.

Problems in the Conceptualization of Empowerment

Empowerment Has Become a Buzzword

Despite the centrality of the idea of empowerment within both IPV practice and research arenas, when it is applied, there is little clarity about the nature of the construct and therefore wide variety in how it is measured. The research just reviewed provides an example. Three of the studies included did not explicitly focus on empowerment, but used a single question to ask participants about how much control they believed they had in their interactions with help providers (Cattaneo, 2010; Hotaling & Buzawa, 2003; Zweig & Burt, 2007); they are included in reviews on the subject, such as this one, because the construct of control is viewed as falling under the empowerment umbrella (e.g., Bell, 2007; Zimmerman, Israel, Schulz, & Checkoway, 1992). Two of the studies that did explic- itly focus on empowerment measured it using the Personal Prog- ress Scale—Revised, which assesses “10 broad outcomes of fem- inist therapies including positive self-evaluation and self-esteem, a favorable comfort— distress ratio, gender role and cultural identity awareness, a sense of personal control/self-efficacy, self- nurturance and self-care, effective problem solving skills, compe- tent use of assertiveness skills, effective access to multiple eco- nomic, social, and community resources, gender and cultural flexibility, and socially constructive activism” (Johnson et al., 2011, p.545). Finally, Cattaneo and Goodman (2010) measured empowerment with a scale focusing on the extent to which par- ticipants felt respected and got what they wanted in the court. The

variance in conceptualization and measurement makes it difficult to synthesize and identify implications of this body of work.

A search of organizations whose Web sites invoke empower- ment underscores this issue in the practice realm. For example, at the time of this writing, a Google search using the key words “domestic violence” and “empowerment” yielded more than 4 million hits. The first few websites listed include the following: a program geared toward “financial empowerment” through the pro- vision of “financial skills, knowledge, and resources,” (Allstate Foundation, 2011); the Survivor Empowerment Fund, which ac- cepts donations that are then provided to survivors in the form of gift cards to support them in whatever they need (Domestic Vio- lence Resource Center, 2012); the Healing Club, a Facebook page designed to share resources and support through connecting with others (Healing Club Inc., 2010); and the Survivor’s Empower- ment Zone, which provides information and resources, such as a list of state coalitions and the criteria for PTSD (Survivor’s Em- powerment Zone, 2001).

These Web sites may all be excellent resources. However, the looseness with which empowerment is applied creates a vicious cycle, whereby diffuse applications muddy the definition of the concept, facilitating further diffusion in application. To serve as a guiding framework for work in IPV, empowerment needs a clear definition. Although DV researchers have identified key elements of the empowerment construct, outcomes associated with it, and practices consistent with it (for several excellent examples see, e.g., Johnson, Worell, & Chandler, 2005; Kasturirangan, 2008; Song, 2012; Sullivan et al., 2013), these studies themselves reflect tensions in its conceptualization; and these tensions in turn prevent clarity and consistency across applications. We describe these challenges next.

Empowerment Is Both Process and Outcome

In scholarship both inside and outside of IPV, it is often unclear whether researchers are considering empowerment as a process, an outcome, or both. In a general review of the construct, the first author noted that much of the scholarship on empowerment de- scribes it as iterative, involving a rich give and take between action and observation of the impact of that action (Cattaneo & Chapman, 2010). In the context of IPV, for example, a survivor might take steps toward increasing her safety, take notice of the effects of those steps, and perhaps realize that she needs to gather more resources to be successful. She might attempt to gather such resources, observe her progress toward her goals again, and then revise her plans further. Empowerment, in this scenario, is a process involving multiple steps and an evolving sense of what is needed and what is possible, depending on the impact of one’s actions. Yet, at any point in this process, it would be possible to ask about the outcome of her efforts; that is, how empowered is the survivor is at that time? The fact that it is possible to consider empowerment as both process and outcome is a significant chal- lenge to a clear definition.

To date, although scholarship inside and outside IPV might acknowledge that empowerment is a process, it is usually mea- sured as an outcome, or as one of a number of outcomes (Song, 2006, 2012; Wright, Perez, & Johnson, 2010). For example, Wor- rell and Chandler’s Personal Progress Scale (revised by Johnson, Worell, & Chandler, 2005; Wright et al., 2010), as just mentioned,

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

86 CATTANEO AND GOODMAN

includes “ten broad outcomes theorized to be associated with empowerment” (Johnson, Worell & Chandler, 2005, p.113). Both aspects of the construct need to be included in any clear and comprehensive conceptualization.

Empowerment Is Domain Specific

In terms of both theory and measurement, there is a tension between the need to develop a standard understanding of empow- erment, so that it might be compared across people and programs, and recognizing that people may be empowered in some parts of their lives but not in others. Within the context of IPV, this point is intuitive: being empowered with respect to one’s abusive partner is different from being empowered with respect to one’s parenting or one’s work life, though they may influence each other. On the basis of this understanding, Zimmerman and Warschausky (1998) argue that the construct must be conceptualized to fit with specific populations and settings, and caution against the development of a global measure. Going further, we argue that even within specific populations and settings, the construct is best conceptualized in relation to specific domains rather than as a broad concept that cuts across domains. Determining which domain to prioritize and mea- sure represents a formidable challenge to researchers attempting to develop tools that are survivor-centered; that is, tools that reflect the priorities of the community of interest.

Empowerment Is Both Psychological and Contextual

As we describe below, power is not solely a psychological phenomenon, but involves interaction between individuals (or groups) and their social context (Christens, 2012; Neal & Neal, 2011). Similarly, conceptualizing empowerment—an increase in power—requires more than a psychological focus, though most conceptualizations tend to stop there (Cattaneo, Calton & Brodsky, in press; Cattaneo & Chapman, 2010). As Riger (1993) argued in a widely cited critique of the use of the term empowerment, focusing only on the psychological, or “individuals’ sense of empowerment rather than actual increases in power [risks] making the political personal” (1993, p. 279).

In the context of IPV it is particularly clear that empowerment involves interplay between the psychological and social realms: IPV occurs within a relationship, and considerations of empower- ment often include efforts of survivors to reach out to informal and formal social systems who may respond in a variety of ways. These social experiences have psychological consequences, which in turn shape social interactions. In essence, empowerment is a bridge concept; it crosses the boundary between self and the social world. Defining and measuring a construct that crosses these realms is a formidable challenge as well.

The Empowerment Process Model

Conceptualizing Power

Any conceptualization of empowerment rests implicitly on a definition of power. There is a rich and contentious literature on the definition of and dynamics of power (for reviews see Master- son & Owen, 2006; Neal & Neal, 2011; Tew, 2006), the details of

which are beyond the scope of this paper. However, in synthesiz- ing the literature, scholars have arrived at three key aspects of power that undergird our conceptualization of empowerment. First, “the idea of power as a relationship and not a property of an individual or a group has been a recurring feature of theorizing about power for over 60 years” (Neal & Neal, 2011, p. 163). In other words, power is a dynamic between social entities—ranging from individuals to institutions. A shift in power, therefore, could include a change in a relationship between two people (e.g., an interaction where a person feels truly heard or the promotion of one person over another), or a change in the relationship between people and institutions (e.g., the deposing of a dictator, or the implementation of legislation).

Second, Masterson and Owen (2006) review the tension be- tween empowerment at the individual and social levels. This tension results from the perception that a focus on power at one level detracts from an understanding of power at the other level: a focus on individual power diverts attention from structural in- equality, and a focus on power at the macrolevel assumes away within-group differences. They conclude, as do we, that both the individual and social conceptualizations are necessary, and in fact are inextricably linked: “Helping individuals to feel more person- ally powerful will have a limited effect without social change to allow that power to be exercised. Likewise, social change will not be empowering if individuals perceive themselves as unable to make use of those changes” (p.26). Further, power dynamics at the social level may be internalized at the individual level, with profound impact on how people understand their situation and the possibility of changing it (Tew, 2006). This conceptualization of power supports our articulation of empowerment as a bridge concept, spanning the boundary between the intrapsychic and social worlds.

Finally, scholarship on types of power reveals its enormous breadth, viewing a wide range of behaviors as the enactment of power dynamics. For example, Riger (1993) summarizes the lit- erature to identify power over (dominance), power to (ability to take action), and power from (freedom from the influence of others); Tew (2006) has also indentified power together (wielding influence cooperatively), and proposes that power dynamics can be productive (opening up opportunities) or limiting (closing them off).

Building upon this literature, the Empowerment Process Model relies on the following definition of power: “an increase in power is an increase in one’s influence in social relations at any level of human interaction, from dyadic interactions to the interaction between a person and a system” (Cattaneo & Chapman, 2010, p.647). Influence in turn is defined broadly, including connection, withdrawal, or effecting broad social change.

Model Overview

The Empowerment Process Model (Cattaneo & Chapman, 2010; see Figure 1) builds on a thorough review of several decades of empowerment scholarship (e.g., Fitzsimons & Fuller, 2002; Freire, 2000; Gutiérrez, 1990; McWhirter, 1991; Rappaport, 1987; Zim- merman, 1995) to articulate the concept of empowerment in a way that addresses the challenges just outlined. In the model, as men- tioned above, empowerment is defined as a meaningful shift in the experience of power attained through interaction in the social

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

87WHAT IS EMPOWERMENT

world. It is an iterative process, in which a person who lacks power sets a personally meaningful goal oriented toward increasing power, takes action, and makes progress toward that goal, drawing on his or her evolving self-efficacy, knowledge, skills, and com- munity resources and supports, and observes and reflects on the impact of his or her actions. Here we elaborate each component of this process in the context of IPV, and then describe the ways that the model addresses each challenge in turn.

Goals in the context of IPV. It has been well-established that survivors of IPV may have a wide range of goals (e.g., Davies, Lyon, & Monti-Catania, 1998). For example, a survivor may want to find ways to ensure her own safety within the relationship; to leave the relationship and find a new place to live; to gain financial independence so as to increase her range of options; to get mental health treatment for her children who have witnessed violence; or to reduce her isolation. Within the context of the broad goals such as these, there is further variety. For example, the survivor seeking financial independence might wish to find a job, to advance herself in a current job, to seek public benefits to help with expenses such as childcare, or to decrease expenses by moving in with a family member. Any one goal might be considered superordinate to a set of subgoals. For example, the survivor who wants to find a job may have subgoals to identify jobs she wants, to pursue job training to increase her qualifications, to apply for jobs that are a good fit, and to learn how to speak up for herself in a job interview. The process of empowerment involves thinking through possibil- ities and selecting the best option based on the unique circum- stances each survivor faces at any given time. It also often involves revisiting goals and subgoals, as context and other components of the process shift.

Self-efficacy, skills, knowledge, and community resources in the context of IPV. Once a person has defined a single or set of goals, her ability to act and the effectiveness of the action depends on her self-efficacy, skills, knowledge, and community resources. Self-efficacy is one’s perceived ability to accomplish particular tasks (Bandura, 1977). Because self-efficacy is related to other commonly used constructs such as agency, perceived-control, and mastery, and because it has been critiqued for an individualistic focus, its selection in the model requires explanation. First, self- efficacy has a strong grounding in theory and research. Goal- setting theory specifies self-efficacy as the moderator between goals and performance, with the combination of highly valued goals and high self-efficacy deemed the “motivation hub” (Locke & Latham, 2002, p.709). Second, self-efficacy has been shown to be a key factor in performance across cultures. In particular, Bandura (1997) has argued that it is not at all incompatible with a collectivist orientation:

There is no reason to believe that individuals from collectivist cultures do not form personal goals. . . . [but] it is the content of the goals that is different between individualistic and collectivist cultures. Whereas individualist persons . . . prefer to set goals for themselves that relate to self-actualization, collectivist individuals . . . prefer to set goals for themselves that relate to promoting the welfare of their in-group. For both types of goals, it should be the self-efficacious individuals who make good progress toward realizing their goals, whereas the indi- viduals plagued by self-doubt should be less effective (p. 170).

Nor is self-efficacy born of the belief that one must go it alone; instead, a belief in one’s own ability to reach a goal could easily

include the belief that one needs to collaborate with others in order to prevail. In sum, in developing the Empowerment Process Model, we chose the concept of self-efficacy above related con- cepts because of this connection to the pursuit of valued goals, and because of the large amount of evidence linking it to outcomes across situations and cultures (Cattaneo & Chapman, 2010).

Self-efficacy is strongly related to, but not the same as the actual skills a survivor possesses relative to her goal. Skills are the concrete capabilities needed to move toward particular goals, and can range from relatively straightforward competencies like know- ing how to use a computer, to more complex sets of abilities like being able to job-seek or parent children who are suffering from the sequelae of trauma. The survivor interested in financial inde- pendence, for example, may not have the skills to write a resume that will help her find a job. The survivor who wants to improve her relationship with her child may not have the skills to respond effectively to the child’s tantrums.

Knowledge is the understanding of what must be done in order to reach goals. It is distinct from the ability to actually take those steps, which is determined by skills. Within the context of IPV, knowledge often requires an understanding of how systems work, and can be built through informal networks or official information sources like Web sites or brochures. To take steps toward gaining financial independence, for example, a survivor must be aware of the resources available, such as job listings or training, and how to access them. A key component of knowledge is critical conscious- ness—a broader understanding of belief systems and institutions that influence the survivor’s situation. For example, a survivor who is in a same-sex relationship may learn that resources, such as shelters, are not as available to him, and may come to understand this lack of availability as part of a larger pattern of bias in the community. This knowledge may lead him to redefine his goals in any number of ways—from seeking refuge from informal supports rather than formal, to seeking services at a GLBT-friendly com- munity organization instead of a DV program, to working toward changing cultural biases.

As the above example suggests, as important as knowledge about resources and systems, skills to use them, and beliefs in one’s abilities to do what is needed is the question of what resources exist: Building and/or accessing community resources, including both formal systems and informal supports such as friends, neighbors, coworkers, or family, is also part of the process of empowerment. A social interaction may translate into an expe- rience of increased power much more readily for some than others, depending on available resources, which in turn depend on mac- rolevel structures. Returning to the survivor in the same sex relationship, if there is no shelter bed available, no job training to be had, or no friend to reach out to, either the survivor will need to revisit his or her goals or work with an advocate to find or create new resources.

Impact in the context of IPV. Finally, the question of the impact of the survivor’s actions is key; the process of empower- ment involves reflecting on one’s progress, both in terms of internal experience and external change, and on any other ramifi- cations—whether collateral damage or unexpected benefits. Social context again plays an important role here, in that the same action may result in different levels of progress depending on the social location of the actor. For example, a survivor who is poor may have a more difficult time being hired because she does not have

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

88 CATTANEO AND GOODMAN

professional clothing or has been unable to afford dental care (Smith, 2010). An African American survivor who submits the same resume as a white survivor may get a less favorable response simply because her name suggests her racial identity (Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004). Though certainly desirable, attainment of one’s ultimate goals is not required to meet the definition of “progress.” Indeed, the idea of subgoals serving superordinate ones opens the door to incremental progress; movement toward changing the world may begin with one’s story being told and heard.

Within the context of IPV, this model addresses the challenges described earlier in specific ways. We highlight these aspects of the model next.

How the Model Responds to Critiques of Empowerment

Empowerment is both process and outcome. The Empow- erment Process Model provides a framework for considering em- powerment as both a process and an outcome. As we have de- scribed, the process dimension includes the iterative interaction among components: defining goals, taking action, drawing on self- efficacy, skill, knowledge, and community resources, observing the impact of the action internally and externally, and then poten- tially doubling back to redefine goals or build resources.

Conceptualizing empowerment as a process in this way ad- dresses Kasturiranagan’s (2008) critique of the term, in which she makes clear that empowerment is a long process that programs intersect with but don’t hand over: “Programs designed to address domestic violence do not, in and of themselves, empower women. Rather, women may turn to programs as a resource at various stages of the empowerment process” (p. 1473). This understanding of survivors as involved in a longer process of change, and of service providers as potential facilitators of that process, is also a feature of survivor-centered or client-centered practice in general (Goodman & Epstein, 2008). In that framework, providers assume that each survivor is unique and expert on the contours of her own situation. The provider’s role is to collaborate, understanding the survivor’s frame of reference and bringing her own expertise to bear when needed.

The Empowerment Process Model locates the work of programs within the evolving process of empowerment that victims engage in over time. Service providers might facilitate (or hinder) any part of the process, from helping a person or group to define personally meaningful goals to contributing to knowledge and supporting self-efficacy, to identifying and helping with access to community resources, to helping evaluate the impact of actions and consequent need to retool goals or actions. In essence, one might add an arrow to any part of the process depicted in Figure 1, describe how the work of an organization influences that component, and then consider how that influence might then shape the other compo- nents of the survivor’s empowerment.

The model is also useful in considering empowerment as an outcome. Although individuals can always become more or less empowered (or disempowered) within a specific domain, at any given point in time it is possible to evaluate one’s level of em- powerment relative to an earlier level, or one group’s level of empowerment relative to another group’s. Sullivan and colleagues (2013), for example, evaluated empowerment as a set of outcomes

in their cross-sectional study of women who had exited a shelter. They found that above and beyond practical assistance, the use of “empowering practices” in the shelter led to greater survivor empowerment, which they defined as confidence, connections, and consciousness. What the model adds to this picture is a conceptu- alization of empowerment that is embedded within an iterative process.

Empowerment is domain specific. The Empowerment Pro- cess Model is also customizable for different contexts or domains. Perhaps the only broad goal domain shared across survivors is that of safety, though it may be conceptualized and achieved in many different ways, depending on the individual circumstances of each survivor. Given different subgoals within this broad domain, dif- ferent resources might come into play. For example, the resources required to be successful in a court case against one’s abuser will be different from those required to achieve financial independence, and both will be different than those required to reduce the vio- lence without leaving the relationship. In each case, though, the process of empowerment requires developing a set of goals and subgoals, learning about available resources that may help achieve them, developing or strengthening whatever skills are needed, building a sense of self-efficacy about one’s capacity to employ those skills and achieve the goals, feeling supported to move forward; and then having influence in social world as a result of that movement. It is likely that this same process might evolve differently in various domains for an individual survivor—she might be empowered in the domain of parenting but disempowered in the domain of job security. Viewing the overall process as the same but the support needed as different, depending on domain, is helpful in considering where and how service providers should facilitate.

Empowerment is both psychological and contextual. Finally, the Empowerment Process Model explicitly bridges the psychological and social realms by including both intrapersonal and social components, and the links between the two. From a philosophical standpoint, it answers Riger’s (1993) call to avoid making the political personal, as described earlier—not finding a job may have nothing to do with the survivor’s efforts, and her disempowerment in attempting to find one may draw the evaluator, researcher, or program developer’s attention to more macrolevel problems.

Thus the Empowerment Process Model is designed to standard- ize our understanding of the construct of empowerment so that we might grab hold of it to greater effect, but to do so in a way that is also enormously flexible, and that avoids pathologizing survi- vors for social problems. In the sections that follow we describe specific applications of the model within the context of IPV.

Applications of the Empowerment Process Model

The Empowerment Process Model can be used as a guiding framework for work with IPV survivors, and for evaluation and research related to that work. The model does not necessarily recommend a shift in practices; we believe that advocates are already facilitating many of the processes the model names. In- stead, the model offers a framework for describing and commu- nicating about those practices. In terms of research and evaluation, the model offers specific pathways for evaluating program and practice impact in terms of their influence on empowerment; and

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

89WHAT IS EMPOWERMENT

exploring the empowerment process and its connection to other long-term outcomes. In this section and in Table 1, we offer examples and specific suggestions for applications of the model to both practice and research.

Applications to Practice

Applying the goals component to practice. Applying the Empowerment Process Model means that the work of understand- ing a survivor’s goals, and of helping the survivor articulate those aims, is part of the process of empowerment, as opposed to being ancillary or a footnote to other more important work. Here we are almost certainly describing practice that is already standard in many programs—the work of helping a survivor get clear about what she wants. However, many scholars have commented that the web of systems that have been developed to address IPV have unintentionally led to a menu-based or service-defined approach in which a survivor is offered a set of options for assistance based primarily on the availability of services or the mission of the organization rather than on the survivor’s unique circumstances and hopes for her future (Davies et al., 1998; Goodman & Epstein, 2008; Stark, 2007). Consistent with the movement toward

survivor-centered practice, the Empowerment Process Model ex- plicitly roots practice in survivor priorities rather than in service options (Kulkarni, Bell, & Rhodes, 2012).

Helping a survivor to identify her priorities can range from a straightforward process to an enormously complex and time- consuming effort. Survivors may have a number of goals that fall within different domains such as safety, work, and children. Some may be more high priority than others, though harder to achieve. In assisting the survivor to articulate and map out subgoals toward superordinate goals, it is important to be domain-specific, because each goal may require different kinds of knowledge and services, and may generate different risks (Davies et al., 1998). At the same time, it is critical to explore when progress in one domain might cause unintentional negative consequences in another (Good- man, Smyth, Borges, & Singer, 2009). If a low-income woman gains access to subsidized housing, she may find herself unable to continue to house her aging relatives given rules about overcrowding; if an African American woman turns to the criminal justice system for help with safety, she might find herself criticized by a community that does not want to see another black man enter the justice system; or if a lesbian

Table 1 Recommendations for Applying the Empowerment Process Model to Research/Evaluation and Practice in IPV

Model component Recommendations to guide practice Recommendations for questions to guide research/

evaluation

Goals Ensure that goal identification is an ongoing process that cuts across domains and is rooted in survivor priorities rather than service options.

Pay attention to broad goals as well as subgoals or steps required to attain goals.

Assess the potential for unintended negative consequences of specific goal achievement.

What is the fit between survivor-defined and system-defined goals and subgoals?

To what extent do evaluation plans address survivor-defined versus system-defined goals and subgoals?

What kind of formal and informal supports facilitate progress toward which kinds of goals and subgoals?

How do individual and contextual factors shape goal formation and goal achievement?

Knowledge, skills, self-efficacy, and community resources

Assess what knowledge, skills, self-efficacy, and community resources the survivor has and what s/he needs relevant to each goal and subgoal

Collaborate on identifying best route to facilitating acquisition of these components. Consider innovative strategies including counseling, accompaniment, critical consciousness raising, and relationship building (network oriented practice).

Consider role of trauma in clients’ experience accessing these resources.

Consider the role of biased or ineffective social systems as obstacles to accessing these resources.

Collaborate with other community agencies to develop resources when relevant supports don’t exist

To what extent do programs facilitate attainment of resources in each of these areas?

To what extent do specific strategies work to enhance these components?

What is the relationship between changes in one component and changes in another?

How does trauma history influence the process of change in each of these areas? What obstacles do survivors commonly face in growing or accessing resources in each of these areas?

How does culture and other contextual factors influence change in these areas?

Impact Assess where the survivor is on his/her path to goals, including what obstacles have prevented success in the past, and whether success in one domain has interfered with success in another.

Beyond system-defined outcomes, how do various services affect outcomes most important to survivors?

What kinds of outcome measures are most relevant to survivors’ goals, account for unintended negative consequences, and incorporate elements of the entire empowerment process, including both psychological and social components?

Allow for the possibility that impact assessment may trigger a re-assessment of other components such as goals or resources.

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

90 CATTANEO AND GOODMAN

reports the abuse to an authority, she risks outing herself at a time that is not right for her.

Further, for many survivors, because of the devastating effects of trauma on sense of self and agency, identifying goals might be a significant piece of work in and of itself. In fact, in their article on best practices in trauma-informed services, Elliott and col- leagues (2005) identify the prioritizing of women’s choice and control over their recovery as a key principle. Applying the Em- powerment Process Model to practice in IPV locates this important piece of work with survivors within their process of empowerment.

Applying the knowledge and skill components to practice. Some survivors, when they seek services, already possess a wealth of knowledge born of experience in similar systems, and only need practical information about which office to go to when. These survivors may also possess the skills they need to navigate the system. In these cases, organizations do not need to facilitate these components of the process to facilitate the survivors’ empowerment—they can focus their resources else- where. Other survivors may be utterly overwhelmed by the complexities of systems, and need a great deal of support over time. For example, the court system is enormously confusing, and for a novice, receiving information only on the day of entry is not particularly helpful as the case unfolds (Bennett et al., 1999). In addition to information, such survivors may need help building skills, for example, role-playing how to speak to a judge. Both skill building and providing knowledge are com- mon foci of IPV programs (Sullivan, 2011). For example, most programs are well-equipped to educate survivors about IPV, to explain the court system to survivors who wish to use it, or to make referrals to agencies that might provide job training. What the model brings to these efforts is a framework linking them to the rest of the empowerment process, such as the survivor’s personally meaningful goals, her evolving sense of self- efficacy, and the community support she has or needs to take follow-up steps.

Applying the self-efficacy component to practice. Building self-efficacy, like clarifying goals, may range from a relatively straightforward task to one requiring longer-term support; it may mean building up a survivor’s personal sense of confidence, or cre- ating a sense of community such that survivors feel they can accom- plish goals together. In their study of empowering practices in shel- ters, Sullivan and colleagues (2013) found that building concrete skills was the strongest predictor of self-efficacy. For many survivors, then, what is needed to build self-efficacy is the development of skills relevant to their goals. For other survivors, however, self-efficacy across many areas of their life has been a casualty of their experience with trauma, and re- building a sense of self-efficacy may require more than skill- building. Survivors who struggle with self-efficacy may require more accompaniment or emotional support as they move toward their goals. For example, many survivors’ fragile sense of self-efficacy may gain in strength when they are accompanied by advocates as they seek services from a court or a government agency; some may simply need to be actively reminded of their successes by an advocate who has built a relationship with them; some may need help building critical consciousness to understand past failures as the result of biased or ineffective systems as opposed to their own incompetence; still others may feel little ability to make any kind of change in their lives and

need the support of an ongoing group or a therapist to begin to rebuild a shattered sense of self-efficacy (Goodman, Glenn, Bohlig, Banyard, & Borges, 2009). The limited resources an agency has to provide such intensive support might be allocated based in part on this understanding, in addition to more typical considerations related to risk.

Applying the community resources component to practice. The support provided by community agencies as well as informal networks of friends, neighbors, and family is critical to empower- ment as a process and an outcome. Assessing and facilitating the accrual of such resources may require considerable creativity from service providers. When there are obvious community resources that facilitate goal achievement, the process is straightforward (though not necessarily easy). But where no such resources exist, advocates may need to come together to advocate for their creation or find alternatives. Advocates can also play a critical role in helping isolated survivors reengage with informal networks (Goodman & Smyth, 2011). Such networks often play a key role in supporting survivors’ goals. Indeed, extensive research demon- strates the critical contribution of informal networks to improving survivors’ mental health, safety, and ability to access formal ser- vices (Adkins & Kamp Dush, 2010; Bybee & Sullivan, 2005; Goodman, Dutton, Vankos, & Weinfurt, 2005). For some survi- vors, there are clear informal resources to draw from—a support- ive friend or family, a church community, or a workplace. In other cases, advocates may need to turn to what the second author has termed network-oriented practices; that is, practices that help isolated survivors reengage and get support from people in their community (Goodman, Banyard, Woulfe, Ash, & Mattern, in press; Goodman & Smyth, 2011). This too may require creativity and innovation. Across these possibilities, advocates are facilitat- ing the survivor’s empowerment by helping her to assess and then develop the community resources needed to reach her goals.

Applying the impact component to practice. Attending to the impact component of the empowerment process encourages service providers to learn from the survivor as she reflects on her internal and external progress or lack thereof. If a particular step, such as a safety plan, is not increasing this survivor’s safety at this time, there are likely obstacles to progress that need to be under- stood and addressed. These obstacles might be in the domain of community resources, self-efficacy, or the response (or lack thereof) of others in the survivor’s life. Research has been clear that there are no one-size-fits-all solutions for all survivors or even for one survivor over time (Cattaneo, Cho, & Botuck, 2011; Davies et al., 1998; Goodman & Epstein, 2008). Thus the assess- ment of impact must be ongoing, with the expectation that the effectiveness of actions will shift as other parts of the process and the context of the survivor’s life evolves. Relatedly, as already noted, it is often the case that success in one domain might interfere with success in another domain; the assessment of impact must be attuned to this possibility and facilitate a weighing of costs and benefits.

Applications to Research/Evaluation

The model is useful for understanding the experience of survi- vors over time as well as evaluating the work of IPV programs. Rather than taking a comprehensive approach, here we present

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

91WHAT IS EMPOWERMENT

examples of ways in which we believe the model is particularly useful in these contexts.

Applying the goals component to research/evaluation. If the identification of goals is the cornerstone of the empowerment process, it must also be a focus of research and evaluation. For an organization struggling with the question of what matters most to its clients in an era of decreasing resources, evaluation might explore what goals or definitions of success their clientele tend to have, and to what extent their services match those goals and definitions. For example, the first author recently completed a project that focused on goals within the civil protection order process (Cattaneo & Dunn, 2013). Absent the empowerment framework, one might evaluate the effectiveness of protection orders by evaluating their impact on safety or arrest rates. The Empowerment Process Model broadens this perspective by orient- ing the evaluator toward petitioners’ personal goals, which include other priorities in addition to safety. In an urban court system, we explored this question by first conducting qualitative interviews with survivors seeking protection orders to deepen our understand- ing of the kinds of goals survivors had in pursuing a protection order and how these goals matched up with the system’s goals for them. Based on these, we generated a checklist of 32 goals, which we used as the basis of a survey of survivors at the end of the protection order process; here, we were interested participants’ goal prioritization and their sense of their ability to reach each goal. In addition to identifying the match between survivor and system-defined goals, evaluation might also focus on the extent to which service provid- ers facilitate the identification of goals with clients, or might explore which services facilitate progress toward which goals.

Applying the knowledge/skill/self-efficacy/community resources components to research/evaluation. There is a wide array of po- tential research and evaluation questions related to knowledge, skill, self-efficacy, and community resources. Perhaps the richest set of questions for researchers to explore relate to how these components of the model interact with each other and other com- ponents of the process, both in the short- and long-term. In other words, program activities aimed at increasing knowledge or skills should be evaluated not only in and of themselves— do clients actually have more skill in relevant areas, and have they absorbed the psychoeducation or information about systems that has been taught— but do these increases relate to other aspects of the process, particularly the bookends of the empowerment process: goals and impact? Does the knowledge an organization facilitates or provides connect to the priorities of the survivors seeking services? Do the skills an organization provides lead to meaningful impact in survivors’ lives? Such questions could also be framed to explore empowerment outside of the context of formal helpseeking as well. For example, does support from informal networks lead to greater self-efficacy and, ultimately, progress toward one’s goals? Finally, the connection between these aspects of the empowerment process and longer-term outcomes of interest, such as safety and mental health, might be explored longitudinally. This last set of questions would test the assumption that empowerment is a mech- anism for longer-term positive change.

Applying the impact component to research/evaluation. Research on the effectiveness of services tends to focus nar- rowly on the aim of the service being provided (e.g., housing, safety, conviction). The model calls on researchers to illuminate the broader set of impacts that any action might bring, and how

they relate to what is important to the survivor. For example, the first author and colleagues (Cattaneo, Dunn, & Chapman, 2013) developed a measure to evaluate the experience IPV victims have in court during the process of petitioning for a protection order. The measure goes beyond the traditional focus on case disposition to incorporate experiences such as valida- tion, fear, and influence on work and family. Including a broad measure of impact allows researchers and evaluators to develop a holistic picture of the effect of engaging with a system, beyond system-defined outcomes such as obtaining a protection order or not.

Creating an evaluation tool. If empowerment is a core goal of DV programs, it must be measurable as an outcome. The model enables the measurement of empowerment as a theoreti- cally derived and clinically consistent construct. Indeed along with several colleagues, we have just completed a study validating a measure of safety-related empowerment (MOVERS: Measure of Vic- tim Empowerment Related to Safety; Goodman, Cattaneo, Thomas, Wolfe & Chong, 2013), a tool that we developed in collaboration with 17 DV programs across the northeast, that can be used to assess the extent to which participants experience a sense of empowerment in the domain of safety at any given point in time. The measure includes items reflecting each component of the model: goal setting, or seeing a path to keeping safe (i.e., “I know what my next steps are on the path to keeping safe.”); self efficacy, or the belief in one’s own capacity to keep safe (i.e., “I can cope with whatever challenges come at me as I work to keep safe”); knowledge, or access to information about keeping safe (i.e., “I have a good idea about what kinds of support for safety I can get from community programs and services”.); context, or community factors that facilitate safety (i.e., “Community programs and services are able to provide the support and resources I need to keep safe”); and finally impact (i.e., “I have to give up too much to keep safe”). The structure of the instrument allows for an overall score on safety-related empowerment, as well as subscale scores that cor- respond with factors that emerged from our study: internal resources, external support, and tradeoffs (an assessment of the cost of pursuing safety). This measure is standardized, in that it can be used across settings and individuals, but also survivor-centered, in that it allows for survivors to respond to questions in the context of their own specific safety-related goals.

Conclusion

Empowerment has deep roots in the movement to address IPV, and continues to be an orienting concept in the field. The general agreement about its importance creates potential for research and practice to coalesce around this theme. To actualize this potential, we have suggested the Empowerment Process Model as a guiding framework. It is our hope that the model might pave the way for accumulation of knowledge and refinement of our efforts toward providing meaningful and lasting help to survivors.

References

Adkins, K. S., & Kamp Dush, C. M. (2010). The mental health of mothers in and after violent and controlling unions. Social Science Research, 39, 925–937. Elsevier Inc. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.06.013

Allstate Foundation. (2011). Click to Empower-Home. Retrieved August 29, 2012, from http://www.clicktoempower.org/home.aspx

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

92 CATTANEO AND GOODMAN

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.06.013

http://www.clicktoempower.org/home.aspx

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. Retrieved from http:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/847061. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2 .191

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.

Bell, M. E. (2007). Empowerment and disempowerment for victims of intimate partner violence: An overview of the effects of criminal justice system practices. In Kathleen A. Kendall-Tackett & Sarah M. Gia- comoni (Eds.), Intimate partner violence (pp. 2101–2115). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.

Bennett, L., Goodman, L. A., & Dutton, M. A. (1999). Systemic obstacles to the criminal prosecution of a battering partner: A victim perspective. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 761–772. Retrieved from http:// jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/088626099014007006. doi:10.1177/ 088626099014007006

Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment evidence on labor market discrimination. The American Economic Review, 94, 991– 1013. doi:10.1257/0002828042002561

Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against our will: Men, women and rape. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Bybee, D., & Sullivan, C. M. (2005). Predicting re-victimization of bat- tered women 3 years after exiting a shelter program. American Journal of Community Psychology, 36, 85–96. doi:10.1007/s10464-005-6234-5

Cattaneo, L. B. (2010). The role of socioeconomic status in interactions with police among a national sample of women experiencing intimate partner violence. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45, 247– 258. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20232246. doi: 10.1007/s10464-010-9297-x

Cattaneo, L. B., Calton, J., & Brodsky, A. E. (in press). Status quo versus status quake: Putting the power back in empowerment. Journal of Community Psychology.

Cattaneo, L. B., & Chapman, A. R. (2010). The process of empowerment: A model for use in research and practice. American Psychologist, 65, 646 – 659. doi:10.1037/a0018854

Cattaneo, L. B., Cho, S., & Botuck, S. (2011). Describing intimate partner stalking over time: An effort to inform victim-centered ser- vice provision. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 3428 –3454. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21810796. doi: 10.1177/0886260511403745

Cattaneo, L. B., & Dunn, J. L. (2013). The experience of IPV victims seeking orders of protection: An application of the Empowerment Process Model. Manuscript in preparation.

Cattaneo, L. B., Dunn, J. L., & Chapman, A. R. (2013). The court impact scale: A tool for evaluating IPV victims’ experience in court. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 1088 –1108. doi:10.1177/ 0886260512459383

Cattaneo, L. B., & Goodman, L. A. (2010). Through the lens of therapeutic jurisprudence: The relationship between empowerment in the court system and well-being for intimate partner violence victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 481–502. doi:10.1177/0886260509334282

Christens, B. D. (2012). Toward relational empowerment. American Jour- nal of Community Psychology, 50(1–2):114 –28. doi:10.1007/s10464- 011-9483-5

Davies, J., Lyon, E., & Monti-Catania, D. (1998). Safety planning with battered women: Complex lives/difficult choices (p. 202). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Domestic Violence Resource Center. (2012). Domestic Violence Resource Center|Survivor Empowerment Fund. Retrieved August 29, 2012, from http://www.dvrc-or.org/domestic/violence/resources/C133/

Elliott, D. E., Bjelajac, P., Fallot, R. D., Markoff, L. S., & Reed, B. G. (2005). Trauma-informed or trauma-denied: Principles and implemen-

tation of trauma-informed services for women. Journal of Community Psychology, 33, 461– 477. doi:10.1002/jcop.20063

Erez, E., & Belknap, J. (1998). In their own Words: Battered women’s assessment of the criminal processing system’s responses. Violence and Victims, 13, 251–268.

Fitzsimons, S., & Fuller, R. (2002). Empowerment and its implications for clinical practice in mental health: A review. Journal of Mental Health, 11, 481– 499. doi:10.1080/09638230020023

Ford, D. A., & Regoli, M. (1992). The preventive impacts of policies for prosecuting wife batterers. In E. S. Buzawa & C. G. Buzawa (Ed.), Domestic violence: The changing criminal justice response (pp. 181– 207). Westport, CT: Auburn House.

Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. Goodman, L. A., Banyard, V. L., Woulfe, J., Ash, S., & Mattern, G. (in

press). Bringing a network-oriented approach to domestic violence ser- vices: A focus group exploration of promising practices. Violence Against Women.

Goodman, L. A., Cattaneo, L. B., Thomas, K., Wolfe, J., & Chong, S. K. (2013). Advancing domestic violence program evaluation with MOV- ERS: Measure of Victim Empowerment Related to Safety. Manuscript in Preparation.

Goodman, L. A., Dutton, M. A., Vankos, N., & Weinfurt, K. (2005). Women’s resources and use of strategies as risk and protective factors for reabuse over time. Violence Against Women, 11, 311–336. doi: 10.1177/1077801204273297

Goodman, L. A., & Epstein, D. (2008). Listening to battered women: A survivor-centered approach to advocacy, mental health, and justice. (1st ed., p. 184). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/11651-000

Goodman, L. A., Glenn, C., Bohlig, A., Banyard, V. L., & Borges, A. (2009). Feminist relational advocacy: Processes and outcomes from the perspective of low-income women with depression. The Counseling Psychologist, 37, 848 – 876. doi:10.1177/0011000008326325

Goodman, L. A., & Smyth, K. F. (2011). A call for a social network- oriented approach to services for survivors of intimate partner violence. Psychology of Violence, 1, 79 –92. doi:10.1037/a0022977

Goodman, L. A., Smyth, K. F., Borges, A. M., & Singer, R. (2009). When crises collide: How intimate partner violence and poverty intersect to shape women’s mental health and coping. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 10, 306 –329. doi:10.1177/1524838009339754

Gutiérrez, L. M. (1990). Working with women of color: An empowerment perspective. Social Work, 35, 149 –153.

Healing Club Inc. (2010). Healing Club - Domestic Violence Empower- ment Resource|Facebook. Retrieved August 29, 2012, from https:// www.facebook.com/healingclub

Hotaling, G. T., & Buzawa, E. S. (2003). Forgoing criminal justice assistance: The non-reporting of new incidents of abuse in a court sample of domestic violence victims. Lowell, MA: Department of Crim- inal Justice, University of Massachusetts.

Johnson, D. M., Worell, J., & Chandler, R. K. (2005). Assessing psycho- logical health and empowerment in women: The personal progress scale revised. Women & Health, 41, 109 –129. doi:10.1300/J013v41n01_07

Johnson, D. M., Zlotnick, C., & Perez, S. (2011). Cognitive behavioral treatment of PTSD in residents of battered women’s shelters: Results of a randomized clinical trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol- ogy, 79, 542–551. doi:10.1037/a0023822

Kasturirangan, A. (2008). Empowerment and programs designed to address domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 14, 1465–1475. doi: 10.1177/1077801208325188

Kulkarni, S. J., Bell, H., & Rhodes, D. M. (2012). Back to basics: Essential qualities of services for survivors of intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 18, 85–101. doi:10.1177/1077801212437137

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

93WHAT IS EMPOWERMENT

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/847061

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

http://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/088626099014007006

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/088626099014007006

http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/0002828042002561

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-005-6234-5

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20232246

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9297-x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018854

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21810796

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260511403745

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260512459383

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260509334282

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-011-9483-5

http://www.dvrc-or.org/domestic/violence/resources/C133/

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20063

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09638230020023

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077801204273297

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11651-000

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011000008326325

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022977

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1524838009339754

https://www.facebook.com/healingclub

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J013v41n01_07

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023822

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077801208325188

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077801212437137

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705–717. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705

Macy, R. J., Giattina, M., Sangster, T. H., Crosby, C., & Montijo, N. J. (2009). Domestic violence and sexual assault services: Inside the black box. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14, 359 –373. doi:10.1016/j.avb .2009.06.002

Martin, D. (1976). Battered wives. San Francisco, CA: Glide. Masterson, S., & Owen, S. (2006). Mental health service user’s social and

individual empowerment: Using theories of power to elucidate far- reaching strategies. Journal of Mental Health, 15, 19 –34. doi:10.1080/ 09638230500512714

McDermott, M. J., & Garofalo, J. (2004). When advocacy for domestic violence victims backfires: Types and sources of victim disempower- ment. Violence Against Women, 10, 1245–1266. doi:10.1177/ 1077801204268999

McWhirter, E. H. (1991). Empowerment in counseling. Journal of Coun- seling & Development, 69, 222–227. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1991 .tb01491.x

National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. (2011). National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Retrieved September 4, 2012, from http:// www.ncadv.org/aboutus.php

Neal, J. W., & Neal, Z. P. (2011). Power as a structural phenomenon. American Journal of Community Psychology, 48(3– 4):157– 67. doi: 10.1007/s10464-010-9356-3

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, 102–117. doi:10.1177/1077801212437348

Rappaport, J. (1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory for community psychology. American Journal of Com- munity Psychology, 15, 121–148. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm .nih.gov/pubmed/3604997. doi:10.1007/BF00919275

Riger, S. (1993). What’s wrong with empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 279 –292. doi:10.1007/BF00941504

Rodriguez, N. M. (1988). A successful feminist shelter: A case study of the Family Crisis Shelter in Hawaii. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 24, 235–250. doi:10.1177/0021886388243002

Schechter, S. (1982). Women and male violence: The visions and struggles of the battered women’s movement. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

Smith, L. (2010). Psychology, poverty and the end of social exclusion. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.

Song, L.-Y. (2006). The development and validation of an empowerment scale. Social Policy & Social Work, 10, 49 – 86.

Song, L.-Y. (2012). Service utilization, perceived changes of self, and life satisfaction among women who experienced intimate partner abuse: The mediation effect of empowerment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 1112–1136. doi:10.1177/0886260511424495

Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Sullivan, C. M. (2011). Evaluating domestic violence support service programs: Waste of time, necessary evil, or opportunity for growth? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 354 –360. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2011 .04.008

Sullivan, C. M., Adams, A., Bybee, D. I., Nnawulezi, N. A., McPeek, D., & Coats, S. (2013). Domestic violence shelters’ empowering practices: Do they lead to empowered survivors? Technical Report.

Survivor’s Empowerment Zone. (2001). Survivor’s Empowerment Zone. Retrieved August 29, 2012, from http://www.angelfire.com/in4/sez/ hotline.html

Tew, J. (2006). Understanding power and powerlessness: Towards a frame- work for emancipatory practice in social work. Journal of Social Work, 6, 33–51. doi:10.1177/1468017306062222

Wright, C. V., Perez, S., & Johnson, D. M. (2010). The mediating role of empowerment for African American women experiencing intimate part- ner violence. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice and Policy, 2, 266 –272. doi:10.1037/a0017470

Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Psychological empowerment: Issues and illus- trations. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 581–599. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8851341. doi: 10.1007/BF02506983

Zimmerman, M. A., Israel, B. A., Schulz, A., & Checkoway, B. (1992). Further explorations in empowerment theory: An empirical analysis of psychological empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychol- ogy, 20, 707–727.

Zimmerman, M. A., & Warschausky, S. (1998). Empowerment theory for rehabilitation research: Conceptual and methodological issues. Rehabil- itation Psychology, 43, 3–16. doi:10.1037/0090-5550.43.1.3

Zweig, J. M., & Burt, M. R. (2007). Predicting women’s perceptions of domestic violence and sexual assault agency helpfulness: What matters to program clients? Violence Against Women, 13, 1149 –1178. doi: 10.1177/1077801207307799

Received February 4, 2013 Revision received September 24, 2013

Accepted October 10, 2013 �

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an P

sy ch

ol og

ic al

A ss

oc ia

ti on

or on

e of

it s

al li

ed pu

bl is

he rs

. T

hi s

ar ti

cl e

is in

te nd

ed so

le ly

fo r

th e

pe rs

on al

us e

of th

e in

di vi

du al

us er

an d

is no

t to

be di

ss em

in at

ed br

oa dl

94 CATTANEO AND GOODMAN

View publication statsView publication stats

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2009.06.002

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09638230500512714

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077801204268999

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1991.tb01491.x

http://www.ncadv.org/aboutus.php

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9356-3

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077801212437348

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3604997

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00919275

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00941504

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021886388243002

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260511424495

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2011.04.008

http://www.angelfire.com/in4/sez/hotline.html

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1468017306062222

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017470

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8851341

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02506983

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0090-5550.43.1.3

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077801207307799

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274867069

What Is Empowerment Anyway? A Model for Domestic Violence Practice, Research, and Evaluation

Empowerment as a Key Construct in IPV
Problems in the Conceptualization of Empowerment

Empowerment Has Become a Buzzword
Empowerment Is Both Process and Outcome
Empowerment Is Domain Specific
Empowerment Is Both Psychological and Contextual

The Empowerment Process Model

Conceptualizing Power
Model Overview

Goals in the context of IPV
Self-efficacy, skills, knowledge, and community resources in the context of IPV
Impact in the context of IPV

How the Model Responds to Critiques of Empowerment

Empowerment is both process and outcome
Empowerment is domain specific
Empowerment is both psychological and contextual

Applications of the Empowerment Process Model

Applications to Practice

Applying the goals component to practice
Applying the knowledge and skill components to practice
Applying the self-efficacy component to practice
Applying the community resources component to practice
Applying the impact component to practice

Applications to Research/Evaluation

Applying the goals component to research/evaluation
Applying the knowledge/skill/self-efficacy/community resources components to research/evaluation
Applying the impact component to research/evaluation
Creating an evaluation tool

Conclusion
References